backtop


Print 107 comment(s) - last by Just Tom.. on Mar 31 at 8:20 PM

Support for Office 2003 ends April 8 along with Windows XP

Microsoft has stepped up its efforts in recent months to kill off Windows XP for good, and those efforts are now extending to Office 2003. Office 2003 has been around for over a decade and Microsoft wants users to switch to Office 365.
 
Microsoft wrote in a blog post, "Office 2003 no longer meets the needs of the way we work, play and live today. For this reason, it is time to say farewell to Office 2003 and embrace the productivity solution of today – Office 365."
 

Microsoft wants users to ditch Office 2003

Many people have been using Office 2003 for years simply because it does all they need and it's paid for. Office 365 requires a subscription and you will need to continue paying to keep it active.
 
Microsoft says that support for Office 2003 will end on April 8.
 
We already knew that support for Windows XP would also end on April 8, and Microsoft has resorted to pop ups to tell XP users the end is here. Microsoft also offers a $100 discount to get XP users to upgrade to Windows 8. 

Source: Office





Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By NellyFromMA on 3/25/2014 1:31:59 PM , Rating: 3
I can't help but look at it as a tale of theory vs implementation in a given moment (which so far is virtually all of tech history).

Open-source is great, in theory. You don't have to pay which is GREAT for consumers, don't get me wrong.

However, there is a whole tried-and-true-for-decades reality that people WILL PAY for QUALITY which open-source is nearly always inferior to a proper paid product.

This is especially true for businesses as we require reliability over cost-reduction... To an extent, of course. But that extent has more or less been figured out by Microsoft and other paid-product corps for quite some time hence their business financial health.

You could actually argue that BECAUSE of open-source initiatives making in-roads into MS coveted business-market that MS and many other corporations are trying to sweep us into service-based offerings as a result.

Open-source offerings simply need to meet the quality of paid products to replace them for business purposes. The only offset to this that comes to mind is hiring IT or other specialists to deal with the issues that inevitably arise from open-source implementations which easily can offset the licensing / subscription costs of a paid product.

Of course everyone awaits the day we can have paid-quality at no-cost. The likelihood, however... well, theory vs implementation it seems.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Solandri on 3/25/2014 2:32:21 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Open-source is great, in theory. You don't have to pay which is GREAT for consumers, don't get me wrong.

However, there is a whole tried-and-true-for-decades reality that people WILL PAY for QUALITY which open-source is nearly always inferior to a proper paid product.

Open source software is great. The problem is the developers.

In paid software, the customer is king. If a large number of the customers want a feature, it doesn't matter what the developer wants, the customer will eventually prevail. See Microsoft backtracking on Win 8 for a great example.

In open source software, the developer is king. The customers can all want a feature, but if the developer doesn't want to implement it (or for larger projects, the codebase maintainer doesn't want to include it in the main codebase), the customers are SOL. Sure they could fork it and start up their own version, but that still leaves the new developers in control. The only thing a pure-user customer can do is bow and lick the feet of the developers.

In theory, the open source developers are altruistic saints who listen to everyone's requests and fairly allocate development time to what's most needed.

In practice, the developers are like regular people - once they get a taste of the power that comes with controlling something, they frequently turn into selfish pricks who consider themselves to be a different and superior caste. They work on what they want, and not only ignore what those of the lower caste (users) need or request, they mock them for their inability to write code.

That's why so much open source software is difficult to use. Ease of use is considered a waste of time because it helps the incapable user, rather than empowering the programmer. For the same reason, the best open source software products are the ones the user never sees. Most routers run open source software. The router developers acts as the middleman. They present a competent face to the OSS developers so get the changes they want. They sell a product so they make the effort to do what the OSS developers consider to be beneath them - make the software easy to use.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By NellyFromMA on 3/25/2014 3:27:02 PM , Rating: 2
Excellent points all around. Well put.

Of course, in the end, open-source software is virtually always developed by volunteers, so I can't really dislike it for what it is.. but, you as the user have to really understand the nature of that choice in order to evaluate whether or not a paid product is worthwhile in the face of an open-source alternative.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By bsd228 on 3/25/2014 5:59:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
quote: Open-source is great, in theory. You don't have to pay which is GREAT for consumers, don't get me wrong. However, there is a whole tried-and-true-for-decades reality that people WILL PAY for QUALITY which open-source is nearly always inferior to a proper paid product.

Open source software is great. The problem is the developers. In paid software, the customer is king. If a large number of the customers want a feature, it doesn't matter what the developer wants, the customer will eventually prevail. See Microsoft backtracking on Win 8 for a great example. In open source software, the developer is king. The customers can all want a feature, but if the developer doesn't want to implement it (or for larger projects, the codebase maintainer doesn't want to include it in the main codebase), the customers are SOL. Sure they could fork it and start up their own version, but that still leaves the new developers in control. The only thing a pure-user customer can do is bow and lick the feet of the developers.


Is it really any different for Adobe users right now? Or Office 2003 users for that matter? In each case, the company is dictating to the users that if they want updates, it will be by subscription only. If you're committed to Photoshop, you don't really have a choice in the matter. Professionally speaking, the alternatives are weak. It still is a showdown in progress - Adobe keeps offering cheaper and cheaper subscription plans to those of us who bought CS6 and said "no mas." Eventually, I think they will have to offer a CC/CS7 license.

Unfortunately for MS, few people actually need the 5% premium offered by Office products. Most would do just fine with GoogleDocs or the various OpenOffice variants.

As for the easily mockable claim by the prior poster than open source is always inferior - just look at how much open source product MS has adopted as its own. Or compare the number of Exchange servers to sendmail/postfix ones out there (or the number of MSCEs it takes to keep that turkey running).

Open Source developers are trying to solve a problem. If it's their own problem, then yes, they're going to set the agenda. They're putting it out on SourceForge to let others benefit from it and yes, offer updates via pull requests. If they don't accept them, then you do have the option of forking it, or offering them money to meet your needs.

OTOH, when people put stuff out there to solve a broader problem, they are in fact interested in your needs, and are generally inclined to work thru them, based on resource and priority. Which is also exactly how commercial software is developed.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By bsd228 on 3/25/2014 5:59:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
quote: Open-source is great, in theory. You don't have to pay which is GREAT for consumers, don't get me wrong. However, there is a whole tried-and-true-for-decades reality that people WILL PAY for QUALITY which open-source is nearly always inferior to a proper paid product.

Open source software is great. The problem is the developers. In paid software, the customer is king. If a large number of the customers want a feature, it doesn't matter what the developer wants, the customer will eventually prevail. See Microsoft backtracking on Win 8 for a great example. In open source software, the developer is king. The customers can all want a feature, but if the developer doesn't want to implement it (or for larger projects, the codebase maintainer doesn't want to include it in the main codebase), the customers are SOL. Sure they could fork it and start up their own version, but that still leaves the new developers in control. The only thing a pure-user customer can do is bow and lick the feet of the developers.


Is it really any different for Adobe users right now? Or Office 2003 users for that matter? In each case, the company is dictating to the users that if they want updates, it will be by subscription only. If you're committed to Photoshop, you don't really have a choice in the matter. Professionally speaking, the alternatives are weak. It still is a showdown in progress - Adobe keeps offering cheaper and cheaper subscription plans to those of us who bought CS6 and said "no mas." Eventually, I think they will have to offer a CC/CS7 license.

Unfortunately for MS, few people actually need the 5% premium offered by Office products. Most would do just fine with GoogleDocs or the various OpenOffice variants.

As for the easily mockable claim by the prior poster than open source is always inferior - just look at how much open source product MS has adopted as its own. Or compare the number of Exchange servers to sendmail/postfix ones out there (or the number of MSCEs it takes to keep that turkey running).

Open Source developers are trying to solve a problem. If it's their own problem, then yes, they're going to set the agenda. They're putting it out on SourceForge to let others benefit from it and yes, offer updates via pull requests. If they don't accept them, then you do have the option of forking it, or offering them money to meet your needs.

OTOH, when people put stuff out there to solve a broader problem, they are in fact interested in your needs, and are generally inclined to work thru them, based on resource and priority. Which is also exactly how commercial software is developed.


"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA













botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki