Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Businesses The Internet IT

Microsoft Renovates Office Suite as a Web Service 391

foobsr writes "According to an article in EcommerceTimes, Microsoft is trying to migrate Office from a product to an online service with a focus on automating collaborative work. Quote: 'Making collaboration faster, easier and more efficient will be the next revolution in worker productivity, and we want to be in the forefront,' said Peter Rinearson, vice president for new business development in Microsoft's information worker group"."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Renovates Office Suite as a Web Service

Comments Filter:
  • Much needed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Breakfast Pants ( 323698 ) on Saturday August 21, 2004 @09:34PM (#10035520) Journal
    Many programs need to work on operating in a collaborative environment. If you've ever coded in such a setup you can really understand how this will be a good thing for office software.
    • Re:Much needed (Score:5, Insightful)

      by commodoresloat ( 172735 ) on Saturday August 21, 2004 @10:24PM (#10035710)
      How will this be a good thing for people who don't need the collaborative tools? It seems this is not just about collaboration; it is also about taking Office off of the desktop and putting it on the web where user registration can be more tightly controlled, upgrade paths more easily enforced, etc. And while I'm sure there will be encryption, do you really want all the data you input to office programs flying across the web? Perhaps I am misunderstanding what they mean by "web service" here -- but it sounds like they want the application on their server and the user is always a client. I don't know if I trust the MS server with that much access to my data.
      • Re:Much needed (Score:4, Interesting)

        by nacturation ( 646836 ) <nacturation@gmai l . c om> on Saturday August 21, 2004 @10:41PM (#10035761) Journal
        Perhaps I am misunderstanding what they mean by "web service" here -- but it sounds like they want the application on their server and the user is always a client. I don't know if I trust the MS server with that much access to my data.

        Even if it's a pure web service, why do you assume that you are required to use Microsoft's server? Ever hear of an intranet where you run your own web apps?
        • Re:Much needed (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Cromac ( 610264 ) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @12:02AM (#10036026)
          Even if it's a pure web service, why do you assume that you are required to use Microsoft's server? Ever hear of an intranet where you run your own web apps?

          Because this is Microsoft we're talking about and they're not likely to write a web service that runs on something other than IIS.

          • Re:Much needed (Score:4, Insightful)

            by nacturation ( 646836 ) <nacturation@gmai l . c om> on Sunday August 22, 2004 @12:53AM (#10036222) Journal
            Yes, it probably will run only on IIS or similar Microsoft server software, but it appeared that you thought it was going to Microsoft Corporation when you wrote: "And while I'm sure there will be encryption, do you really want all the data you input to office programs flying across the web?"
          • by msobkow ( 48369 ) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @06:09AM (#10036974) Homepage Journal

            Microsoft has nasty habit they have of creating so-called "websites" that don't follow standards and won't run on anything but Windows, where they use the same entry points and callbacks that cause security problems for the native code. If I still have to use a Microsoft "browser", it does nothing for collaboration. In fact it makes the situations worse as you won't be able to use anything like Crossover anymore.

            If I want a collaborative online environment, I use a webserver and CSS. Why would I want to go anywhere near a proprietary lock-in format just to share content? Why not WebDAV? ssh-ftp with a file manager hook ala Gnome? CVS?

            My third concern is standalone operation. Just how in the world am I to do editing at a cabin, while travelling, or otherwise unable to connect at any kind of useful speed?

            Not that it really matters, I guess, as I use Open Office for pretty much everything except Excel. They did do a nice job on the spreadsheet, and too many sheets have to use non-portable macros.

            Eventually maybe Microsoft will clue in that "service model" does not mean the same thing as the old mainframe style "software rental." It's not a cash cow to keep sucking people's wallets, it's a way of providing flexible updates and maintenance as ongoing services instead of oft-delayed "service packs" or patches.

            Besides, what makes Microsoft think I'd even think about letting their servers manage my document data? That stays right here in my managed environment where I know it's backed up and safe, thank-you-very-much!

        • Business Customers (Score:3, Insightful)

          by nurb432 ( 527695 )
          That's fine for the enterprise license holders which ( might ) be allowed to run the services on their network.

          Problem is home users wont get that luxury, and will have to start renting their office suite, if they are going to stick with a Microsoft based suite.

          But we all knew this day was coming so its no surprise. They will also move their OS to that same model, if they can find a way.
      • Re:Much needed (Score:5, Insightful)

        by anagama ( 611277 ) <obamaisaneocon@nothingchanged.org> on Saturday August 21, 2004 @10:44PM (#10035769) Homepage
        This will be an awesome product for the kinds of people who love staff meetings (time wasters like this become "boss"). For people who actually like to finish things ("workers"), these will be death. Now, instead of accomplishing things, workers can have interminable interactive discussions over the most incredible minutia with their bosses.

        Some things don't matter, and this type of office software system will just magnify the productivity sucking power of "too many cooks in the kitchen" - or however it goes. You know what I mean and for this purpose, that's good enough.
        • Re:Much needed (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Nogami_Saeko ( 466595 ) on Saturday August 21, 2004 @10:57PM (#10035813)
          Thank you for a very clear and concise description of the problem.

          The old saying "many hands make short work" (at least I think that's how it goes), doesn't apply at any sort of "office" level.

          I'm one of those people who HATES staff meetings with a passion. They're nothing but soapboxes for the type of people who like to hear themselves talk while everyone else yawns for hours. The best indication of a hard worker is those who keep their mouths SHUT at a staff meeting.

          Give me a clear email outlining the tasks I need to accomplish and soliciting my opinions on areas that require them.

          Then leave me alone to do my work. Thankyouverymuch.
          • Re:Much needed (Score:5, Interesting)

            by hazem ( 472289 ) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @01:55AM (#10036401) Journal
            Sometimes meetings are needed. But there are a few good ways to keep them good and short.

            1) remove all chairs from the room
            2) no snacks, water, coffee or anything else (and forbid people from bringing them in)
            3) schedule all meetings at 4:30pm. Anyone who talks after 5:00pm has to pay overtime to everyone out of their own salary
            4) each person can have 2 minutes to talk. Any time over that costs them $5/minute/person in attendance
            5) each person can have 3 slides. Any slides over that costs $5/slide/person in attendance
            • Re:Much needed (Score:4, Insightful)

              by godIsaDJ ( 644331 ) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @04:54AM (#10036820)
              I think you'll have *serious* internal communication problems...

              Ever thought that people that dislike meetings might not be entirely right after all...

              Best way to kill a project is not loosing few hours in a metting but not knowing what other people are up to and loosing a global view of the goals.

              In layman terms:
              "Why did you modify that interface? Why didn't you tell me?" etc etc

        • by Anonymous Writer ( 746272 ) on Saturday August 21, 2004 @11:31PM (#10035920)

          Now, instead of accomplishing things, workers can have interminable interactive discussions over the most incredible minutia with their bosses.

          If you thought clippy was annoying, just wait until MS Office allows your boss to pop up in a little window on the screen and interrupt whenever you're in the middle of something.

          • ...writing a resume. Would you like to: (a) be sacked for feeling up the secretary, disgraced, blackballed, and probably refused dole, or (b) erase the document, grovel to my office, and accept a pay cut?
        • Offering Office as web services is a means to an end, and that end is collaboration. Deploying it as a web service on the Internet or on an intranet server will be a challenge, and we'll see how it works for Microsoft.

          Collaboration is sorely needed even on the most basic things. It's not just for "time wasters" or beaurocrats. Even if I just want to document an important process or how some critical service was installed, it's seems like it's a herculean effort to publish and maintain such documents, a

      • Re:Much needed (Score:2, Informative)

        by slash-tard ( 689130 )
        Corporations wont go for that.

        I see this as them selling you your own server. The advantages are the server holds the applications, kind of like webmail. It also centralizes and tracks the documents and changes.

        The advantage to MS is that you have to run these hefty servers and buy CALs from them. They are already trying to move that way with the sharepoint services.

        I still think they will have a full featured version that is just like todays version of Office. I dont think they will be able to do ev
      • Re:Much needed (Score:5, Insightful)

        by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Saturday August 21, 2004 @11:05PM (#10035846) Homepage Journal
        "How will this be a good thing for people who don't need the collaborative tools?"

        Maybe they're not the target audience. I mean, be serious, every single company who sells an upgrade to software has to face this question. Nothing new here. Current customers may not upgrade. Eventually they'll do something their customers will want and will make the leap. Yay. New customers are exposed to the new features, may find value in them. Double yay.

        " it is also about taking Office off of the desktop and putting it on the web where user registration can be more tightly controlled, upgrade paths more easily enforced, etc."

        Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anything in the article that suggested that. (I have heard rumors to that effect, tho..) Sounded more like Office talks to other computers running Office and the documents can go back and forth more easily. Frankly, people who are collaborating today are doing what you describe anyway. Emailing .doc files, copying over network, etc. Might as well streamline the process.

        "I don't know if I trust the MS server with that much access to my data."

        I doubt MS would store the data. It's probably more like ICQ where MS's server helps you find the client (or maybe it's a server the company sets up...) and the actual transfer is direct. I'm not sure mistrust of MS is any more beneficial to you in that case.

        About the web based service you described, personally in some cases I'd prefer that. Office is not my main app anymore as I've recently changed careers. I use Photoshop and Lightwave daily now. Frankly, I'd rather pay n-hundred dollars a year as a web-based subscription service for these two apps. Even if they had to call home once in a while to make sure I'm legit, that's fine by me. The potential advantages here are a.) Always up to date, b.) If they did it right, I could go from machine to machine and still be able to use the software. Eh maybe I'm just daydreaming. I'm so sick of dongles and having to keep install CDs around. I'm sick of version incompabilities. I'm sick of lots of stuff when it comes to software my living is based on.

        Consider this, if people subscribed to Office instead of the way it's done now, there'd be no more backward/forward compatibility problems. If MS updates the software, everybody's quickly up to date. Boy that'd be nice.

        • Recipe for lock-in (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          "Consider this, if people subscribed to Office instead of the way it's done now, there'd be no more backward/forward compatibility problems. If MS updates the software, everybody's quickly up to date."

          Also, if MS updates the software, everyone could be instantaneously file-incompatible with OpenOffice or whatever other competitor MS is worried about. If this beast really gets under way, MS could make it impossible for companies to *ever* get their data back and shift to other software.
    • by mosel-saar-ruwer ( 732341 ) on Saturday August 21, 2004 @10:49PM (#10035785)

      Many programs need to work on operating in a collaborative environment.

      Do you have any idea how very nearly impossibly difficult this sort of thing is? It makes The Theory of Relativity look like a stroll on the beach.

      Indeed, the sorts of problems encountered [when concepts like "TRUE" and "FALSE" cease to have meanings independent of their times and places] bear more than a passing resemblance to The Theory of Relativity.

      Think I'm kidding? Try reading the RFC for the Network Time Protocol:

      All that NTP seeks to do is get two computers to engage in the most fundamental task of computing: Come to some reasonable agreement as to the time. And yet, the RFC requires just about a PhD in mathematics and about 1000 pages of background reading from old AT&T switching standards just to begin to get an idea of what the heck is going on.
  • Hello, vaporware! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by revscat ( 35618 ) * on Saturday August 21, 2004 @09:34PM (#10035521) Journal

    But for Microsoft, which is starting to see its growth slow, reinventing that suite of old reliables including Word, Excel and PowerPoint has become nothing less than a key to its future.

    Umm.... Yeah. I remember when MS finally decided to get on the Internet bandwagon, and started putting "Internet functionality" in every single one of their applications. Remember how poorly that was implemented, and how little of value they were actually able to add to the various Office apps?

    I don't see this as being much different. Buzzwords, ooh-ahh's from the PHBs, but little increased value for the end user. Collaborative PowerPoints? Um... Ok. Isn't that what source code control systems are for, even for binaries? Pure vaporware, baby. I mean look at this:

    The new design makes programs like Word, Excel and Outlook e-mail part of collaborative work spaces. In theory, an employee working in Word could tap into all the corporate information on a customer or project.

    What? What the heck does that even mean? Sounds like they're dreaming about some sort of uberlayer on top of all Office apps that will let you somehow get information no matter where it's stored. AND do it collaboratively.

    *cough*

    Righty-o. Believe it when I see it, chappies.

    • It seems more like an extension to SharePoint. Of course I may be completely wrong, I've only ever seen SharePoint demo's. On the other hand, it also seems that they are going to be moving Office to a Web Service instead of a product and you'll pay a monthly fee to use it.
    • Re:Hello, vaporware! (Score:5, Informative)

      by targo ( 409974 ) <[moc.liamtoh] [ta] [t_ograt]> on Saturday August 21, 2004 @09:45PM (#10035577) Homepage
      Collaborative PowerPoints? Um... Ok. Isn't that what source code control systems are for, even for binaries? Pure vaporware, baby.

      It is significantly easier and more efficient (no need to learn other programs and switch context) for the average office worker if the "source control system" is integrated into the application itself, for example, if you get actions like check-out/check-in/view history right in your File menu.
      On the vaporware comment: Office has supported version control features natively since Office XP but has so far always relied on another product (like SharePoint) to implement actual versioning logic, so it is definitely for real. You have also been able to do really useful collaborative things like view other people's changes to the same document etc for a while now.
      So this is just another step on the already established path.
    • It was much more specific than that. Quite a few years back, MS actually had what was originally dubbed the "Office .NET" group working on a web-based version of Office that would run entirely off of a workgroup level server. This group was doing their thing while the traditional Office group was working on the next rev of old school office - my friend who was fresh out of school ended up in this group. Anyway, politics did its thing and I guess somebody realized it was a dumb idea and people didn't want
      • by ecalkin ( 468811 ) on Saturday August 21, 2004 @10:03PM (#10035643)
        Besides not liking to pay for software as a service, there was another huge problem that still is a problem. WAN reliability. I have been amazed at all the people that don't really understand how *unreliable* the wide area connection is.

        I had a case where a business was going to ditch their business management system (for an insurance sales co) for a 'web based' system. this was just *after* his dsl had been down for a week. I tried to explain that if he was using the web based system and his dsl went down he would not have *any* information available. And he didn't understand/believe me.

        And then their are DOS attacks and other problems on the internet that may prevent you from getting to the MS Office web server.... sheesh.

        I expect this to crash and burn again.

        eric
        • Hmm, that's funny. Large insurance companies have decided the exact opposite, making one large central server farm redundant and available is MUCH easier than making tons of remote sites hardware redundant and available with data backed up. In the case of one large customer I used to support they had a pretty good fallback plan, they sent out a dual line modem router and a technician if the broadband line went down with an extended ETA, this happened much less frequently then a hardware repair call for serv
      • by gcaseye6677 ( 694805 ) on Saturday August 21, 2004 @11:22PM (#10035886)
        That must have been around 2000-2001, when Microsoft was calling the new version of every product .NET. That was annoying as hell, as most people couldn't even figure out exactly what .net was supposed to be. That's what happens when you let the marketing department get out of control.
    • MS has for a long time been trying for a while to switch to a subscription-based service instead of a licensed-based one. This move would allow that.

      Also, Bill G. recognizes [microsoft.com] that the medium itself is but the vessel. What goes in the vessel is the future. MS wants to sell you the server OS that gives MS content (Office and other apps) to a MS desktop, all bundled nicely together with Longhorn and the ability to ship sandboxed code over the 'net.

      Let's not forget the reason we all moved to webapps in th

    • Collaborative PowerPoints? Um... Ok. Isn't that what source code control systems are for, even for binaries? Pure vaporware, baby.

      ...But it's already a reality. For example, I have been working on a project for BMW [stamen.com] that is just that: a freak hybrid between Powerpoint and CVS. It's implemented in Flash on the client side, and backed up with a Linux machine running Apache, PHP and PostgreSQL.

      Images and documents are stored on a central webserver. All administrative interaction is mediated through the flas

    • Re:Hello, vaporware! (Score:5, Informative)

      by aardwolf204 ( 630780 ) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @01:36AM (#10036359)
      I dont think your really understanding what they're saying here. I know this is slashdot and its suicide to stick up for "M$" but I'll pitch in my 2 cents.

      The Internet integration that the latest versions of Office and SharePoint [microsoft.com] have are truly wonderful. You have no idea until you try it. SharePoint is an awesome tool, not just for its version control, but its integration with both the office suite and the windows operating system. Yes, this is a good and bad thing.

      Good that you can now just open explorer and expand "My Network Places" and a few other trees and find yourself in your team's document workspace, ready to work with files just like you do on your local disk.

      Its good that you can recieve alerts via email whenever documents, tasks, announcements, etc, are added to your team's sharepoint workspace.

      Good that you can check out a document, see in a pane in word what other files are relevent to the document, see what tasks have been assigned, see a list of other users in the workspace and have the ability to interact with these users simply by clicking their name and selecting "send email", or "instand message", or "call".

      Its good that you can be working on a document in word, ppt, etc, and within seconds publish it to a sharepoint site by selecting shared workspace from the tools menu, from where you can selecting which users should have access to the document worksite and at what privledge levels, assign tasks to users, attach relevent documents and in a few clicks have the document workspace created on your intranet and emails alerting team members that they have been invited without ever touching your browser.

      I could go on, but I think your getting the idea...

      Its BAD* because its something else MS can integrate into the operating system.

      Its BAD* because its another lock in, and their sharepoint site bearly works in mozilla, or any other non-ie browser for that matter.

      Its BAD* because its easier to use to your Standard Office Drone (TM) than CVS.

      Its BAD* because its going to be so shiney that PHBs are going to want it and only windows server are going to support the server app.

      Dont knock it until you try it. What MS has done with Office 2003 is truly a step in the right direction from Office 2000. Office 2002 (Office XP) on the other hand was a stupid speed bump which never should have happened).

      BTW: * = "for linux on the desktop, solutions like open office, and the foss community in general", but then again thats nothing new coming from MS.

      PS: Competition is a good thing. Feel otherwise, respond.
  • by JoeShmoe950 ( 605274 ) <CrazyNorman@gmail.com> on Saturday August 21, 2004 @09:35PM (#10035527) Homepage
    I hope they don't mean a web service as in a C#/ASP.NET web service. I played around with those some. They are very fast and easy to work with, but not half as responsive as a native application. I've always liked plain old simple programs, and hope MS changes there mind if it is anything like what I've used (I'm probably wrong and it isn't, didn't RTFA).
  • heh (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 21, 2004 @09:36PM (#10035529)
    Pretty soon, Office will look like Lotus Notes.
  • by sandbagger ( 654585 ) on Saturday August 21, 2004 @09:36PM (#10035530)
    Oh joy.
  • by matz62 ( 74523 ) on Saturday August 21, 2004 @09:36PM (#10035531)
    I'm sure they will Call this INOVATION when we all know its just the same old stuff with a web brower on it.

    How lame of Microsoft.

    • by cbrocious ( 764766 ) on Saturday August 21, 2004 @09:42PM (#10035560) Homepage
      No, you'll call it inovating, they'll call it innovating :)
    • But if microsoft does pull this off and it's sucessful, the OSS community will copy it. I like linux and all, but few of the programs I use have any innovation and are clones of commercial software. And innovation doesn't mean better icon and menu placement so don't even bother with that argument. They do seem less bloated though and usually are more responsive. An example is how nero is hundreds of mb and k3b isn't. JuK is smaller than windows media player, but it only plays music files. Konqueror ha
  • Oh good! (Score:5, Funny)

    by WhatAmIDoingHere ( 742870 ) <sexwithanimals@gmail.com> on Saturday August 21, 2004 @09:37PM (#10035536) Homepage
    So now you don't have to worry about skript kiddies making your computer go "beep beep" and deleting like HALF of your report.

    Now it will be deleted every 5 minutes and the save-as function won't work. But that's a feature.

    Inovation!
  • by frovingslosh ( 582462 ) on Saturday August 21, 2004 @09:38PM (#10035538)
    we want to be in the forefront

    And we want you to give Microsoft a copy of all of your important business documents. Who could think that was not a good idea?

    • by targo ( 409974 ) <[moc.liamtoh] [ta] [t_ograt]> on Saturday August 21, 2004 @09:49PM (#10035591) Homepage
      we want to be in the forefront

      And we want you to give Microsoft a copy of all of your important business documents. Who could think that was not a good idea?


      "Being an online service" doesn't necessarily mean that Microsoft is hosting it. This is actually geared more towards individual companies setting up internal document management and collaboration servers (like SharePoint), Slashdot summary is simply misleading in that regard.
      • Be fair. Many Slashbots are too young to have corporate experience with intranets and what-not. And some of the 'moderators' of the site, while older, have always only faced out to the Internet, never to an internal intranet.

        This confusion is a regular, recurring cause of confusion. Historically, it lends a different light on the whole I.E vs. Netscape battle, one that Internet-centric folks often don't see. Netscape was talking about capturing the corporate Intranet market. Their free browsers, plugg
    • And we want you to give Microsoft a copy of all of your important business documents. Who could think that was not a good idea?

      Quit trolling. If you bothered to read about it, you would discover that being web-based doesn't mean that it's run only on Microsoft's web server. Ever hear of an intranet?
  • by Brackney ( 257949 ) on Saturday August 21, 2004 @09:38PM (#10035541)
    I seem to recall there are already web-based office suites available - Hyperoffice comes to mind as one...
    • by Anonymous Writer ( 746272 ) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @12:37AM (#10036169)

      I seem to recall there are already web-based office suites available - Hyperoffice comes to mind as one...

      Microsoft announced they were going to provide Office through the Internet [com.com] back in 1999 . I think it was called "Microsoft Office Online", but MS seems to have decided to use that name for a simple homepage [microsoft.com] about Office. I actually recall inadvertently running into a web page that was a web-based version of Outlook that ran through Internet Explorer years ago. It was sluggish, using DHTML for the GUI, although it looked identical to the desktop version.

      I think Microsoft was doing this as a response to websites like HyperOffice [hyperoffice.com] that were cropping up at the time. I remember these sites were referred to as "Application Service Providers", although the definition of that term seems to have changed. I recall several but the sites don't seem to be up anymore. They were websites that provided a window manager within a browser. One was Desktop.com and another was Blox.com. Yahoo has a list [yahoo.com] of web-based desktop sites. There are some like GraphOn.com [graphon.com] and WorkSpot.com [workspot.com] that allow you to run remote desktops of actual operating systems through the web. WorkSpot seems sluggish, but Linux users might find it interesting to be able to access a Linux desktop through a Java Applet. There is a demo [workspot.net] page that lets you try it out for 10 minutes.

  • Hybrid (Score:5, Funny)

    by Zorilla ( 791636 ) on Saturday August 21, 2004 @09:39PM (#10035547)
    Oh great, the two biggest nightmares that exist in the Slashdot crowd are about to combine: Clippy and ActiveX.

    AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
    • Re:Hybrid (Score:5, Funny)

      by AndroidCat ( 229562 ) on Saturday August 21, 2004 @10:39PM (#10035755) Homepage
      Umm, Clippy is ActiveX. Do a search on Microsoft Agent. You're EULA'ed against using Clippy outside of Office, but it's easy to use him in programs, web pages, HTML email .. I haven't tested to see if Clippy can be launched on a remote machine via the DCOM hole.

      Oh. Sorry. Breath into this paper-bag for a while.

  • by datastalker ( 775227 ) on Saturday August 21, 2004 @09:40PM (#10035551) Homepage
    ...since according to the article:

    "Because the next version of Windows, called Longhorn, may not ship until 2007, analysts say, the Office overhaul is needed in the meantime to deliver more Web services technology to the desktop. The new capabilities in the Office system are also needed to lure software developers to create more applications that run on Microsoft products."

    If they can't reinvent Office, and their next version of Windows won't be out until 2007, their income streams will dry up and they'll need to tap into their cash reserves, which I'm sure is the last thing they want to do.
  • I think this is a reasonable goal, but like mankind Microsoft shouldn't evolve too quickly. Office still has its share of problems and I would really dread the day when my boss says lets put all of our work and research online. The net and any online collaboration programs are way too risky for my taste.
  • by User 956 ( 568564 ) on Saturday August 21, 2004 @09:42PM (#10035559) Homepage
    Making collaboration faster, easier and more efficient will be the next revolution in worker productivity

    Aren't they kind of putting the wagon before the horse? Shouldn't they work on making the product just work correctly when you're by yourself?

    Trying to work in Microsoft Word is like trying to build a house of cards during a fucking earthquake.

    ...And they should get rid of that fucking talking paperclip while they're at it.
    • stop complaining about the fucking paperclip. it literally takes 10 seconds to turn the thing off and you never have to worry about it again.

      i don't mind clippy jokes, but it's annoying when people continuosly complain about it.
  • Internet Explorer (Score:4, Interesting)

    by POWRSURG ( 755318 ) on Saturday August 21, 2004 @09:42PM (#10035563) Homepage

    What are the odds that these applications will run on something besides IE? Is this the real reason Microsoft was talking about making a new version of Internet Explorer?

    Or am I completely misinterpreting what they mean by Web services?

    • Re:Internet Explorer (Score:3, Informative)

      by mjrpes ( 784851 )
      I just loaded up a sharepoint site with Mozilla Firebird. It's pretty usable, barring a few CSS anomalies.

      There are a few things that won't work in Firebird.

      One feature that doesn't work with Firebird is the DHTML-like drop down menu that accompanies the list of messages/calendar/tasks you create in sharepoint; these allow you to edit/delete an item without having to load a separate page to do so. It's a nice feature that sharepoint has included.

      Also, there are modules that you can add to sharepoint wh
  • Microsoft will either perpetuate their poor programming practices to a platform that will allow viruses to become even more virulent and worms to spread even faster. Wonderful. Or they'll take this opportunity to build apps that will run cross platform. Alot of potential good here. Mixed with alot of potential bad. Increasing the need for the Windows Server platform if they don't create Office as a cross-platform collaborative environment. Will be interesting to see how this one plays out.
  • Subscription based (Score:5, Insightful)

    by st3v ( 805783 ) on Saturday August 21, 2004 @09:43PM (#10035570)
    Since people would probably stop buying newer versions of Office because they won't offer much productivity increase, I think this is a way to force people to keep paying money for Office.
    • Yeah, that is one of the reasons I have moved to Linux. It really pissed me off when the antivirus software all went to subscription. Why should I have to constantly pay for a program that is almost required? That should just come with the system...

      Oh well let them charge via subscriptions, thats the best way for them to dig their own graves.

  • by mewphobia ( 630153 ) on Saturday August 21, 2004 @09:47PM (#10035587) Homepage

    As quite a few people have started realising, the web is the platform of the future. There will always be room for locally run 3d graphics apps/games, but the web just makes sense for business apps.

    Joel on Software has a good article here [joelonsoftware.com].

    Since the win32 API is meaning less and less, now is open sources chance to win the API wars :) I'd love to see a mozilla based explorer.exe replacement. Easily customised, easy to lock down for sysadmins, open source, cross platform. It would make migrating from windows to linux be painless, as the interface would be the same. You could transition incrementally. If you still need office, run windows for a while with the replacement shell. Then, as people get comfortable with the new environment, move them to wine or open office.

    I can think of heaps of reasons to switch to a shell i've got full control of. Security being a major one. XUL apps too; you could quickly whip up an app in XUL + javascript which would do all your database transactions. What companies don't have a database of some sort?

  • by stox ( 131684 ) on Saturday August 21, 2004 @09:48PM (#10035588) Homepage
    How many times have Microsoft internet based services been down for extended periods? How many billions would such an outage cost, in worker productivity, if office was provided a a web service? The implications are downright scary.
  • by platypussrex ( 594064 ) on Saturday August 21, 2004 @09:51PM (#10035601)
    This is not new. I was at a conference over two years ago and heard a talk about .net from some MS developer. Every other word out of his mouth was "software as a service".

    What I took home from this was the notion that MS wanted to migrate everything they do to web services... why?

    They claim it's because all updates will happen automatically and be transparant to the user.

    My theory is that it's really because it gives them total control over what you can do. You will never own anything. Just rent the service. You will always be trapped in the "pay your MS tax or you can't even open your own documents" nightmare. What a terrible plan for the users.
  • This won't work... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by WIAKywbfatw ( 307557 ) on Saturday August 21, 2004 @09:54PM (#10035610) Journal
    Microsoft needs to realise that Office is firmly fixed in the minds of 99 percent of its user base as an word processor/spreadsheet/presentation graphics/database/email client suite. It wouldn't matter if they bolted a space shuttle onto it, as far as the overwhelming majority of people would be concerned, it would still be all about Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Access and Outlook.

    Trying to leverage Office into other roles is not going to work. Yes, some people will make use of a web service feature but it will go virtually ignored by all but that tiny fraction that tries out everything new Office paradigm because Microsoft tells them that it's the best thing since sliced bread.

    Office users get what they want out of Office right now. They're happy sharing documents by email and other means. So why would they and their organisations throw all that away and take the time, effort and money to implement a web services-orientated approach? Who wants to explain to the CEO that he's got to stop asking people to email him documents and start asking them to publish them, and that he's got to do the same with his own output too? Who wants to retrain all their end-users to this new way of thinking?

    Microsoft has a real problem right now with its Office suite and it knows it. It's not that Office doesn't work, it's that it works too damn well: what virtually every Office user wants to do document-wise has been possible for quite some time now.

    There's very little that Microsoft can do to the individual applications to improve them by delivering new features with tangible benefits, and certainly the applications in Office XP weren't significantly better than those in Office 2000, so it's obsessed with "improving" Office by trying to manage how people work. This kind of improvement might deliver results in Microsoft's labs but in the real world, where people are resistant to change and have a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" attitude, it's doomed to failure.
    • I tend to agree with you. I'm not really a HEAVY office user, but i use outlook and excel quite a bit. Anyway, at my new job I got Office 2003. Before I was using 2000. That means I completely skipped Office XP. I've seen nothing so far other than the outlook interface is a little nicer.
  • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Saturday August 21, 2004 @09:55PM (#10035614)
    subscription based services. This is a step in that direction. Microsoft is scrambling for a way to get people to 'subscribe' to office because they ran out of features worth upgrading for with office 97 (well, for probably 80% of thier users anyway, and that 20% isn't gonna sustain the growth shareholders have come to expect).

    I don't see the benefit to this for anyone but Microsoft. I don't think the Internet could handle 250 million people 'streaming' office. Which means something's gonna get installed, and it's gonna be just as much a pain to fix when it breaks as the current office. Oh well, maybe crap like this will encourage openoffice.

    Off topic, but I've notice a funny trend in office suites. I'm seeing more and more people running openoffice because their computer got laid waste by a virus, and they didn't get any CDs from thier OEM (or lost em). Buying office without buying a computer isn't an option for most people, so they're driven to oo.org :).
  • by Lxy ( 80823 ) on Saturday August 21, 2004 @09:58PM (#10035626) Journal
    I remember working on a web version of Wordperfect 10. It was using a tool like Citrix or Webex to deliver the applicaion over the internet from Corel to your desktop. Pretty neat way to try out software IMHO.

    I see now that they've dropped in in favor of a stripped down demo download. I'm curious to know why they took it down, as it might be a good reason for Microsoft NOT to run Office as a web service.

    Anyone remember this? Anyone know why it went away?
  • by rfunches ( 800928 ) on Saturday August 21, 2004 @09:58PM (#10035628) Homepage
    Kinda makes you wonder what reverse engineers, keygen programmers, and software crackers are going to do when they have to pirate a web service instead of a normal app.
    • Pirate protection. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You may not realize this? But you hit on another benefit of a web based app. Controlling piracy.

      Add in guarenteed revenue stream. Also if MS does this and it succeeds (bad idea or not), then you'll see a rush of other web-based apps.

      Throw in the DRM MS has ben working on, and...

      Are pirate's days numbered?
  • more power to Word (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wotevah ( 620758 ) on Saturday August 21, 2004 @09:59PM (#10035630) Journal
    The new design makes programs like Word, Excel and Outlook e-mail part of collaborative work spaces. In theory, an employee working in Word could tap into all the corporate information on a customer or project.

    Adding a full-blown language with OS hooks into Word, responsible for an entire generation of viruses, wasn't enough, let's make Word even more "powerful".

    They seem to keep ignoring that these programs (and whatever they may spawn) have the same privileges as the employee, so if the employee "could tap into all the corporate information" then so can Word and Excel and so will the next macro virus using the new "technology".

  • This seems like just more feature creep in the MS Office product line. Yet another thing to add to Office to justify another version that they can name after the current year which people will feel obligated to buy because "Oh my God! It's almost 2006! Why am I still using Office 2000!?! I should be using Office 2005!!". MS Office is one of the most disgusting examples of feature creep. The number of truly useful features added to office has been decreasing with every new version, and in my opinion, there h
  • I read the article, and there was nothing in it that made any sense. It was double-talk about proposed new features in Office that will most likely never see the light of day. What wasn't such bull was merely MS doubletalk. They're banking on PHBs getting confused in this smokescreen and thinking, "Oh, we'd better stick to Windows and change our servers over immediately!"

    Is this something reasonable? Not really. Doable, yes, but I seriously don't think it'd be something that the average user would ev
  • While I can see a future for this with thin clients and server based apps, I cannot see something like this run over the internet by MS.

    If they put put server and client version of their apps for companies to run, that would make sense, but that leaves the home user out of it, so I suppose they'd be stuck with the internet version. How krappy would that be?

    DBC$$B
  • MS has always done a better job of locking up fileformats then protocols. Samba is a better set of smb utiltiles then most windows platforms. So we can expect other FOSS to take hold as the server first, then a shortly after things like Koffice and OpenOffice will be able be ported to the new servers, and finally we can break the MS lockin!
  • by erroneus ( 253617 ) on Saturday August 21, 2004 @10:15PM (#10035683) Homepage
    I think that's a wonderful move for them really. That's exactly what people have been begging for. It's important that business increases its dependance on the internet as a means of doing business. I think the idea is very sound. By the way, did they ever fix that problem with ActiveX being a huge security risk?
  • This is excelent because it will become far too complex bloated insecure expensive and all that to be good and OOo will get bigger as a result.

    So are we going to have to install a 2GB ActiveX component to make this work?

    I'd also like to note that, that would be in breach of their settlment with the DoJ and illigal as it would forcing the use of one monopoly product for the use of another. In this case IE for Office.

    I've found most of my clients feel office is WAY too complicated and slow as is. So anythi
  • by 3seas ( 184403 ) on Saturday August 21, 2004 @10:21PM (#10035699) Homepage Journal
    ... the idea of combining poor security with placing reliance of your business operations on the net in such manner....

    Yeah its a real good Idea you have there MS..... keep up the good work...

    -----
    Help promote Linux, support MS insanity.
  • by SnprBoB86 ( 576143 ) on Saturday August 21, 2004 @10:26PM (#10035717) Homepage
    Office and SharePoint 2003 have begun this move. It is not turning into a web service as the summary suggests, but instead utilizing web services for collaboration.

    The company I work for has been using SharePoint for Issue tracking in our software applications for nearly a year. It was way easier to setup and use than bugzilla and several other free alternatives. And the issue tracker is a very secondary feature of SharePoint!

    It allows the creation of document libraries that can associate arbitrary metadata with documents. When you save a document from an Office application is can actually be saved directly to the SharePoint document library (you can browse to the web page in the save as dialog and it shows a little html based page right in the mini-explorer and you can save there like a normal file). After clicking save, if the document library has been extended with metadata (by any non-tech-savvy user) you are prompted to enter that data.

    You can also create document workspaces which are document libraries that have an associated message board, contacts list, task list and other odds and ends. All of that information appears in a sidebar in any office application which lets you instant message, email, or assign a task to a contact related to the document you are working on. Documents in any type of document library allow for versioning and check-in/out functionality.

    InfoPath is probably the coolest Office application when it comes to collaboration. If you fill out an InfoPath form, the xml output can be funneled into a SharePoint document library which can calculate statistics from the documents and sort/organize them for you.

    Its only the first version of the Office System that uses this functionality, and we all know it takes Microsoft 3 tries to get anything just right. Luckily, the system works well on the first try, I can't wait for the third attempt!
  • by Ctrl-Z ( 28806 ) <(tim) (at) (timcoleman.com)> on Saturday August 21, 2004 @10:31PM (#10035736) Homepage Journal
    This link [slashdot.org] gets rid of the awful colour.
  • This is the real motivation behind .NET and XAML. What technologies has Microsoft been rolling out / pushing in the past couple years?

    1. .NET -- machine-portable pseudocode compiled to native on the fly; "everything Java should have been"
    2. XAML -- vector graphics and advanced UI features in a markup language; "everything HTML / DHTML / XHTML should have been"
    3. No-touch installs and least privilege environment [microsoft.com]

    All of this is infrastructure which Microsoft needs to move to a server-hosted application

  • by flsquirrel ( 115463 ) on Saturday August 21, 2004 @10:52PM (#10035792)
    The first thing to realize is that a web service no longer indicates internet anymore. It's a shift in paradigm. It's time for a lot of you guys to throw out your blue polyester shirts and suspenders. Web simply means it's delivered from a central location and typically works through a browser or derivative of a browser. This doesn't mean 2 billion users will be streaming office from microsoft.com. It doesn't mean that when MS's servers go down that the entire world will be without Office.

    This is simply the realization of the thin client paradigm. As corporate environments go, it's about time.

    And before anyone panics about all those stand alone machines out there (like us developers are all so fond of), there are a bunch of appies out there that are essentially written this way already. VS.NET is web driven. That front end is all xml/html driven. We see it with the MS management console and MSC snappins for it too. This is the sort of thing we're looking at with the future of office.

    The front end will be web based. The back end will likely have a few different options and standalone on the local machine I would wager will still be one of them. But at the same time, the back end could be centralized greatly simplifying mangement. I wouldn't be suprised if the next incarnation of Visual Studio can be set up to compile on a central server.

    This should in theory simplify development of the Office software and reduce all versions of Office to a single codebase once .NET reaches full maturity and is available for other platforms. Realistically, Linux might be running MS office in the near future.
  • by st0rmshad0w ( 412661 ) on Saturday August 21, 2004 @11:17PM (#10035873)
    Please let a router outage determine whether or not I get any memos written!
  • Licensing? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pjdepasq ( 214609 ) on Saturday August 21, 2004 @11:24PM (#10035894)

    I'll be really curious to see how the licensing will be handled. While this model of "services" may be OK for corporate and home use, I wonder how it will go for educational settings.

    Currently many of my students have Office [microsoft.com] on their "home" PCs. They can also use it in the labs, since we have a campus site license.

    However, if the software moves to the web and is licensed by campus, will the software's access be limited by (campus) IP address? What happens to the kid that goes home for break and needs to use Word or Excel?

    Sure, the campus can add some kind of password system to let the kid access the software via the campus license from home, but now you are adding work to overworked (and underfunded) IT departments.

    Yeah, this is going to be interesting to watch.

    OK, I'd love to see OpenOffice [openoffice.org] or some other option take off, but our campus is so bound to Word (hell, I get three line memos in a Word doc attached to an email), I can't see the secretarial force even open to considering a platform change to other software.

  • by still cynical ( 17020 ) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @12:12AM (#10036061) Homepage
    Sounds like this combines the productivity of meetings with the reliability and security of Microsoft applications. What's not to love?
  • by gsfprez ( 27403 ) * on Sunday August 22, 2004 @12:16AM (#10036077)
    Because of security reasons, there are plently of us that will NEVER be on the internet - ever.

    There are plenty of us out here that must work in a realm where anonymity and the ability to purchase items with 100% zero strings attached is a first order requirement.

    We pay for cash for all hardware and software, and we CAN NOT EVER "register" software because if we did, we'd go to jail. We can get updates from the internet, but its a 1-way street via sneakernet and a lot of shredded CD-Rs.

    If/when Microsoft requires access and knowledge and subscriptions to software is the day we'll all switch to Linux and OpenOffice.

    What kills me is, like always, instead of looking ahead proactively and seeing the path ahead, they will probably be forced to make a radical change at the end, and we'll be running on Windows 2000 until 2010. (NSA has NOT approved XP for desktop use, even though its being installed all over the place).
  • by Max Threshold ( 540114 ) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @12:17AM (#10036084)
    When Microsoft is forced to come out with MS Linux or die, they're going to be looking for ways around the GPL. I've always wondered about the GPL's definition of what it means to have binaries distributed to you. For example, when the issue of battlefield laptops running Linux came up, the question was asked, are individial soldiers (as end-users) entitled to view and modify the (possibly classified) source code of their apps? Or does that right belong to the military as an abstract legal entity, or perhaps to the contractors who built the hardware?

    So what if MS comes up with a way to turn GPL software into Web-distributed applications which, in some twisted legal sense, they are installing on their computer which you just happen to be using...

  • by theshowmecanuck ( 703852 ) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @12:45AM (#10036195) Journal
    So Microsoft wants to find a way to completely lock people into subscription type licensing. Big deal. Sounds like a good oportunity for Open Office to step in.

    When people don't want to worry about the security of their data moving across the 'net (I don't know why, seeing as how Microsoft products are so... ahem... secure... NOT!), or not being able to work when the network is congested or down, they will use something else. Open Office is one alternative (with the added benefit of being free, as in beer)... and for those who want to pay, Word Perfect is still out there...

    So Microsoft, knock yourself out. There are other choices. Who knows, maybe after a taste of open source software, people will start using Linux more? ;-)

  • by ediron2 ( 246908 ) * on Sunday August 22, 2004 @08:59AM (#10037410) Journal
    Making collaboration faster, easier and more efficient
    Yeah, because those are the very words I always think of to describe web services. I use webmail for convenience. I use web-based tools other times in emergencies. There's even one or two tools (remote nslookups and security scans) I'll use in a moment of desperation. Never for speed and efficiency...

You can be replaced by this computer.

Working...