Microsoft Launches Office 365 Cloud Suite 200
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft took its cloud suite Office 365 out of beta today and the opinion mongers are in overdrive. Is Office 365 missing features, is it too complex, or should it be taken seriously? And how does it stack up against Google Apps?"
Dealbreaker (Score:5, Funny)
It can't open my old Final Cut Pro projects.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It also, cannot grill burgers while ensuring food stays moist, with up to 43% less fat.
Re: (Score:2)
But then how are we supposed to edit files?
M-x vim-mode
That's right, emacs even has an EDITOR inside of it.
Re: (Score:2)
But then how are we supposed to edit files?
M-x vim-mode
That's right, emacs even has an EDITOR inside of it.
C-x M-c M-butterfly
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This solves the "taking seriously" part. We obviously don't do that.
Clippy (Score:2)
I see you're trying to make a blockbuster movie. Would you like help?
We use it here (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What is it adding over Google apps in your case? It seems to me that if you want to reliably migrate away from MS infrastructure that would be more of a step in the right direction, wouldn't it? Won't your marketing people miss man of the top end features of powerpoint in any case?
Well, we did try out google apps. I like it, but I got overruled :)
The main complaints with google apps -
No Lync
No web app versions of Word, Excel, etc ( I'll admit, I like having this option, since I cannot install them and sometimes OO/LO doesn't cut it)
My main complaints against 365 -
Google apps is cheaper, and accomplishes most everything we did before with a local Exchange deployment
It's Microsoft
People might start putting data into the lockbox that is Sharepoint. It's a nightmare migrating dat
Re: (Score:2)
No web app versions of Word, Excel, etc ( I'll admit, I like having this option, since I cannot install them and sometimes OO/LO doesn't cut it)
By this I guess you mean that the web versions of Excel have much better conversion accuracy from standard office versions than the Google Docs applications?
Re: (Score:2)
Cool... <center>I'll be <blink>sure</blink> to do that </center><font ARIAL></font><p><br>
Damn it was fun back in those days. :D
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Schrödinger's cat is <blink>not<blink> dead.
Re: (Score:2)
slightly better than vi
So you're saying Google Apps has Vim? Or did you mean Emacs?
Re:We use it here (Score:4, Informative)
Not the original poster, but one advantage of Office365 is that you can tie it in with the Cloud AD. The MS infrastructure hardware is run somewhere else to manage your systems, and you use the same authentication for Office 365 access. And as the user mentioned there's Lync which is chat/video like Google, but also allows VOIP, voicemail transcription, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
still waiting for something to be mentioned that office365 can do over google, not hearing anything so far.
google voice + google apps = voip, transcription, and phonelines that work over POTS in addition to VOIP.
AD = http://code.google.com/p/google-apps-for-your-domain-ldap-sync/ [google.com]
Yee-Haw (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
File serving and AV isn't really MS infrastructure. The MS stuff are the domain controllers, system center manager, DHCP server. Those can be cloud-based. File serving can be a Linux box running SMB to tie into your AD authentication.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are other, more reliable ways to push software out to windows workstations...
AD is also horrendously insecure, not due to unpatched boxes but due to design flaws in the protocols and authentication methods it uses.
Of course, if you're moving to cloud based apps, you should gradually be able to migrate away from the windows workstations entirely.
Re: (Score:2)
In is easy. Out is hard. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Really? PSTs? The ginormous outlook files?
What would you use to export your user data from Exchange Server? PSTs will contain all your messages, calendar entries, tasks and notes in one single file, which can then be easily imported into Microsoft's cloud servers. I can't see what is the downside to this file format for this purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about calendar entries, etc. but to move from Exchange/Outlook to Google Apps you add Google as an IMAP account, and simply copy email between accounts.
There's also an tool in the paid GApps, but it doesn't always (as of 2 years ago) work right. And I don't remember exactly, but once you manually create a top-level folder, sub-folders get copied OK (as labels in GApps, of course).
This is for GApps of course, not MS 365, but the question was how to get data out of Exchange.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Abreu doesn't have the slightest idea... his exposure to Exchange and Outlook in a corporate environment is basically nill, and so the best he can come up with is a one-liner slam of all things "M$".
I took a brief trip through his posting history, and the bulk of it is non-technical, and overall mostly one or two line comments responding to non-technical articles.
He doesn't have the slightest idea how to help you: His post is a knee-jerk reactio
Re:We use it here (Score:4, Informative)
We already have the needed hardware/infrastructure, personnel, recovery in place to ensure 24/7 operations, and we cannot risk losing control of that, as millions of dollars in service contracts with SLAs, etc., would be at stake if we did so.
For us, "the cloud" means in current parlance: "Store all your mission critical data on third-party storage, and then have to rely upon them for availability that we've not only already created, but cannot ultimately ensure nor control, regardless of contracts with them".
And that's just the operational/production side of the equation. Then there's security issues, privacy issues, etc.
Sorry, ain't gonna happen, not any time soon.
Call me old-fashioned, but all things considered, a "mass migration" to the cloud, company-wide would be a very bad thing for us at this point, despite internal pressure: I've had sales people in our company ask "So, when are we moving everything to the cloud?"... as though that was a magical solution to our problems: We're growing, rapidly, you see, and they see it as a "magic bullet" to address file server storage constraints, mailbox size limitations (one of our sales person's Exchange mailbox is 4GB... and he refuses to archive it, despite his own admission that he's not needed the email dating back nearly 8 years, ever).
Attempts to explain that doing so would involve the need for enormous increases in external bandwidth at all of our offices, with commensurate cost to ensure availability fall on deaf ears: For them, bandwidth is "magic" - they get faster Internet access at home, you see, and repeatedly tell us that, and they simply cannot understand why we don't switch to "local consumer broadband provider" for all of our needs, based upon their experience at home.
Anyway: Moving to the cloud might be viable for some companies, but it's not for us.
Regards,
dj
Who do you want reading your docs? (Score:3, Insightful)
Who do you want reading your docs? Google or Microsoft?
Neither, thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Who do you want reading your docs? Google or Microsoft?
Neither, thanks.
Can I interest you in this high-quality, ultra-protective tin-foil hat? Only $199.99.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't really paranoia, it's common sense! Putting your mission critical apps on someone else's servers is just silly. What happens when your net is down (and it will be)? What if their servers go down and you have to go tell your shareholders why everyone is idle?
Cloud is just another word for damp vapor.
Re: (Score:2)
Companies already rely on third parties, and have done for a long time....
Who provides your Internet?
Who provides your power?
Who provides your telephone lines?
Many companies already outsource all or some of their IT.
Most companies run single-source software.
Cloud is just a buzzword, the idea of having parts of your infrastructure hosted by a third party is nothing new whatsoever, and thousands of companies already do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Bad analogy. Your existing local installation can perform many useful tasks with local speed, and easier security/privacy. A power line is useful, but relying on it when you have reasonably easy to operate solar panels already on your roof is a bit silly.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if I can pay with cash.
Re: (Score:2)
What self-respecting conspiracy theorist buys a foil hat?
How would you know it isn't defective or hasn't been tampered with?
No, the truly paranoid must make their own hats.
Is it bugged? I'm asking you: IS IT BUGGED?! Why won't you answer me? OMG, maybe the CIA got to you. Shit, I've gotta hide somewhere. But there's nowhere to hide! NOWHERE TO HIDE!
Re: (Score:2)
When you go to Google Apps (paid), there's a contract, and it covers your data. Just like the contract with your ISP assures the privacy of your traffic (short of the feds wanting it, of course).
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot FBI.
Sharepoint 2010 - Core of the Business Web Apps (Score:5, Interesting)
We adopted MSFT's big-brand business suite, SharePoint 2010, several months before it launched last May. It took a full 6 months to set up the environment, plus additional time to make it even remotely useful for the enterprise. The level of in-house expertise and infrastructure needed to make a business run on MSFT products (Outlook, SharePoint, etc) is obscene.
And it's quickly becoming outdated, sorry MSFT.
At another business (I switched, thankfully!), we use Google Enterprise. The level of support we need to provide for e-mail and document collaboration is radically lower and feels fundamentally different. Instead of FIGHTING with our systems to keep them online, we can innovate and develop new and cool things because our time doesn't disappear into the black hole of "Correlation ID errors" and arcane Outlook glitches.
MSFT, I hope you learn what it means to provide cloud services, and do provide a worthy competitor to Google and other providers! Then, we'd have some exciting innovation! In the meantime, pah... sorry guys. I know you work VERY hard. But PLEASE tell Ballmer to step aside so you can do something that isn't designed by the Corporate Committee!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
We adopted MSFT's big-brand business suite, SharePoint 2010, several months before it launched last May. It took a full 6 months to set up the environment, plus additional time to make it even remotely useful for the enterprise. The level of in-house expertise and infrastructure needed to make a business run on MSFT products (Outlook, SharePoint, etc) is obscene.
And it's quickly becoming outdated, sorry MSFT.
At another business (I switched, thankfully!), we use Google Enterprise. The level of support we need to provide for e-mail and document collaboration is radically lower and feels fundamentally different. Instead of FIGHTING with our systems to keep them online, we can innovate and develop new and cool things because our time doesn't disappear into the black hole of "Correlation ID errors" and arcane Outlook glitches.
MSFT, I hope you learn what it means to provide cloud services, and do provide a worthy competitor to Google and other providers! Then, we'd have some exciting innovation! In the meantime, pah... sorry guys. I know you work VERY hard. But PLEASE tell Ballmer to step aside so you can do something that isn't designed by the Corporate Committee!
We had the same experience with Sharepoint. We embraced it wholly, too, amidst the shitstorm of try to get to work right. When we finally got fed up with weekly expensive calls back to Redmond, we got sucker punched when we discovered the back end database structure is an opaque nightmare and Sharepoint was essentially holding our data hostage. We won't touch sharepoint again, and I have heard similar experiences from other companies in my area.
Sharepoint is a EDM and Workflow Engine (Score:5, Interesting)
If you're comparing Sharepoint with Google Docs, I'm not sure you fully understand what Sharepoint brings to the table.
I'm actually wrapping up a Sharepoint 2010 installation this month. It's on time and budget. The company now has their entire Workflow process, including custom C# workflow/document rules that were developed specifically for their needs.
Google Docs and Sharepoints are not even similar products. If you can go with either for your needs, then by all means go with Google Docs. Because that means you're really not using Sharepoint properly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
SharePoint is a decent platform for several tasks the problem I've seen is that overzealous sales consultants come in and tell management all applications should be hosted in SharePoint and that usually doesn't workout very well.
Re: (Score:2)
It's my understanding - correct me if I'm wrong - that out of the box, Sharepoint brings very little to the table. Well, very little that you wouldn't already get with, say, Google Apps for Business.
What it does give you is an extremely capable platform on which you can develop your own business systems relatively easily.
(If I'm right, this would explain virtually every failed Sharepoint installation in history - it was put in by someone who thought they were buying a house when in actual fact they were buy
Re: (Score:2)
SharePoint is the problem. Outlook and Exchange are actually pretty easy to get up and running, assuming you don't do something stupid like get Small Business Server.
Where I work, we're very Microsoft, but for our collaboration needs, we use a combination of e-mail, Lync, and MediaWiki. SharePoint is rightly avoided like the plague it is.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Outlook and Exchange are actually pretty easy to get up and running...
I'm going to grab some milk and re-read this so I can can shoot it out my nose laughing.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you played with SharePoint 2010? 2007 was a nightmare, but I'm curious if they've fixed any of the management issues from it.
Re: (Score:2)
SharePoint 2010 is easier to manage they have simplified several features and PowerShell is supported for scripting. However Some parts of the product such as the BCS service are very time consuming to configure and use even for simple tasks.
Re: (Score:2)
We adopted MSFT's big-brand business suite, SharePoint 2010, several months before it launched last May. It took a full 6 months to set up the environment, plus additional time to make it even remotely useful for the enterprise. The level of in-house expertise and infrastructure needed to make a business run on MSFT products (Outlook, SharePoint, etc) is obscene.
I'm not surprised to hear this, or the other comments agreeing with you. I looked at Office 365 when it launched in beta, and my impression was that it had some things to offer businesses, particularly smaller business who don't want the hassles of managing their own Exchange Servers. But when it came to SharePoint, I was kind of taken aback that Microsoft had just ... given you a SharePoint Server. "Here ya go!" Not only did the SharePoint UI not resemble the UI of the rest of the Office 365 suite at all -
Re: (Score:2)
Not wasting my time again (Score:3, Insightful)
After suffering through the hell that is the web interface to Outlook, why would I waste my time with another steaming pile of Microsoft web UI? Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
Re:Not wasting my time again (Score:5, Funny)
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
I think you meant: fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." -- george bush
Re: (Score:2)
Because a Microsoft sales drone took your CIO out golfing, then to a ritzy strip club? Or was that a trick question?
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft strip club? I'll never get that image out of my mind...
Re: (Score:2)
Because a Microsoft sales drone took your CIO out golfing, then to a ritzy strip club? Or was that a trick question?
I would dearly love to know the origin of this idea that Microsoft have a battalion of salesmen who take CIOs out to strip clubs. As far as I can tell, they're total fiction.
They may have been true twenty years ago, but today Microsoft don't really need to. Quite enough CIOs take the "nobody got fired for buying Microsoft" approach that it'd be a pointless extravagance.
Myself, I lump the "Salesman with an expense account at Spearmint Rhino" in the same file as the "CEO whose kneejerk reaction whenever anyth
Re: (Score:2)
I know, I know. I was just using a little satire to point out how the decision to waste a lifetime working with some chunk of Microsoft technology is rarely going to be made by anyone who actually does hands on work with said technology, and the things considered in the decision will likely have nothing to do with the technology or the people who'll use and/or maintain it.
Re: (Score:2)
Exchange2010's web UI is actually quite good-- regardless of what browser you use (it is finally uniform).
Ribbon? (Score:4, Interesting)
Does it have the horrible ribbon thing that the newer versions of Office have? If so, I think it will have a hard time catching on (I tried that "See How it Works" link on their site but they wanted me to install Silverlight). No one I know took OOo or Symphony seriously until MS came out with the ribbon interface. It was at that point they felt the need to see what type of competition was out there.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Does it have the horrible ribbon thing that the newer versions of Office have? If so, I think it will have a hard time catching on (I tried that "See How it Works" link on their site but they wanted me to install Silverlight). No one I know took OOo or Symphony seriously until MS came out with the ribbon interface. It was at that point they felt the need to see what type of competition was out there.
The web app versions of Word and Excel look very similar to their desktop counterparts, including the damn ribbon. The rich version of Outlook does not for whatever reason.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't understand why they don't just make the ribbon an option. I can never find anything on it. Fortunately, I rarely have to. I just use Excel when I need to view a spreadsheet that won't play nice with Symphony. I feel sorry for the guy who has to author them.
Re:Ribbon? (Score:5, Insightful)
What, exactly, is so annoying about it? Barry
Re: (Score:2)
I've been "forced" to use it for literally years on one of my main machines now, and I can't even being to remotely get used to the damn thing.
Re: (Score:2)
So you've been using a major UI for years and can't "remotely get used to the damn thing"? Does this speak more about the ribbon or you?
Seriously, it's not that bad. It even pretty much makes sense when you try to get used to it.
As with the differences between a GUI and Command line, it's probably not the best way for performing repeated, complex tasks, but for the majority of users it is user-friendly and intuitive.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm baffled by the intense dislike of the Ribbon. I expected to hate it, but very quickly found it a great thing - probably one of the nicer changes that Office has seen in a long time.
Agreed. It was a little annoying in Office 2007 because some applications used it, and other didn't. Outlook 2007 didn't use it, but it was used when creating messages, which was just ridiculously inconsistent. Now that Office 2010 uses it consistently across the board, I find it better in many ways (although worse in a few). For most simple tasks, it exposes the available options better.
In my experience, most people that use it for a month or so have no complaints.
I hate the Ribbon! (Score:2)
Here are some of my top grips with the Ribbon:
1. They could have grouped things more logically without disregarding 30 years of UI conventions (pull-down menus). Talk about throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
2. A great many of the things they've done in the ribbon that make sense I've actually had in my Word 97/2000/XP/2003 toolbar for something like a decade now. Yes, the stock Office toolbar had a crap layout. The solution was to fix that, not introduce a whole new everything. See #1.
3. I actual
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Let me explain.
The "drop down menu" system was a result of many years of academic research by places like Xerox Palo Alto center (where they also came up with ideas such as GUI, mouse, object-oriented programming etc) and places like IBM research labs. The end result was a compromise that catered equally to people who are capable of remembering complex, multi-level structures and those who were impaired in this capacity but instead could remember things by
Re: (Score:2)
There are two enormous problems with the ribbon - especially in Excel.
For starters, dingbats whose memory is positional/visual (in other words, folks who have no idea what the word logic means and just wander around till they see a picture they vaguely remember) generally aren't going to be heavy users of programs like Excel, because they're too loopy to be building many spreadsheets. So you've just optimized your menu structure for people who can't use your tool effectively anyhow, because they're incoher
Re:Ribbon? (Score:4)
Do you always whimper like a fag when things change?
Do you always post AC when using homophobic pejoratives?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Or I could just avoid Office like the plague whenever possible, as I've always done. Unfortunately, my boss doesn't let me get away with avoiding it completely, but he doesn't realize I use Symphony 90% of the time (damn you Excel spreadsheets!).
The last thing I want to do is spend my time learning where the icons are on a MS interface. I could be doing important things, like trolling Slashdot.
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously dude, just get used to it. The ribbon has been out for 4 years now, for crying out loud. It is actually quite convenient if you take the time to familiarize yourself with it. Or you could just whine and never learn anything, I guess.
Yeah dammit! If I like the ribbon and find it easy to use, then you must too! Even if you don't like it, get used to it! There's no way that the previous UI was better! One size fits all and if you can't handle the ribbon, you're stupid.
(in reality, I don't like the ribbon and find it to be harder to use than the previous menus, I can never remember where things are - my artistically inclined wife, however, loves it - I guess she's more spatially/icon oriented and I'm more textually oriented. Fortunately, I
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously dude, AIDS has been around for 30 years now. Just get familiar with it.
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing that still bugs me about it (and i use office 2007/2010 semi-regularly) is that icons change when i downsize the window. It kicks the familiarity i have with the interface in the balls almost every time, but Ive gotten used to it.
Sometimes I like the changes they have made, sometimes I still hate some of it. Ive used it so long, however, that looking for something in OOo or older versions of office is a waste of time. Ill never find what I want in those anymore. *snaps fingers* oh well.
Competing with Google? More like with native apps. (Score:2)
Really, it's not just competing with Google's offering. It's competing with Apple and anyone in the future that follows Apple's iCloud for Documents lead by using native apps as a front end for seamless cloud syncing behind the scenes. People have dinged Google Apps over the years because they're allegedly not as good as native apps (I'm not taking a stance on that either way in this comment), but there's a middle ground between an app that's either only on your machine or only on the web, and it looks like
What's the point? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
A file server isn't complicated or expensive - IF you happen to have someone with half a clue in your organization. Believe me, not everyone has that luxury - the world is pretty "stupid" out there. I think a lot of small (non-tech, e.g. a small florist or whatever) businesses would find this simplifies things for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Collaboration: You can have multiple people easily editing the same document
Portability: Your documents are both at the office and on your sales person's laptop in China.
Ease of Setup: You just start spending the monthly fee and everything is setup and running. You don't have to shop for a server, configure your sharepoint server, setup a VPN etc.
?Security?: In the case of our business we have no good way to remotely access data. That's because we don't want to risk our network being compromised. So we
High-performance video editing (Score:3, Funny)
Great price for Hosted Exchange (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with all the Sharepoint stuff. And cloud hosted documents is not a one-size-fits-all ... although I can see the benifit.
But ignore all that. Just look at Exchange Hosting. A company I'm with is paying about $14/month per user for Exchange hosting with ActiveSync (for iphone syncing) and a "vast" limit of 150MB/user mailbox.
IIRC the licensing for companies wanting to run hosted exchange is quite dear - you got a bargain at $14/month, my guess is that the reason you had such a tight quota is because the only way the hosting company could make it work is by offering a cheap headline price then charging through the nose for an increased quota.
What this means, of course, is that anyone who went out and bought the necessary software licenses to offer hosted Exchange to their customers has been screwed because all of a sudden the pr
I was about to make a version number joke (Score:2)
365 sees you’re trying to write a letter (Score:2)
Office 365 [newstechnica.com], Microsoft’s pay-as-you-go answer to Google Docs, delivers the same delight you’re used to from Office on your PC, only slower and clunkier and only working on Internet Explorer. Remember Internet Explorer? Of course you do!
Microsoft Online Services have marketed Office 365 directly to your bosses, who have little people like you to do all the bits that involve actually touching a computer. It promises a fully integrated solution to your daily working needs, with the reliability of Ho
Why this will take off regardless of quality (Score:2)
Fact of the matter is that VERY few people are fired for choosing a Microsoft product that does not live up to the sales pitch. Many contractors or government bureaucrats will choose and sell to their superiors Office 365 as a "cloud" offering even though really isn't (Of course try to pin down what "cloud" means....that is a problem unto itself).
On the other hand if said contractor chose Google Apps and the user base revolts or it fails they could very well get canned.
Bottom line, for most professionals wh
Re: (Score:2)
Gives new meaning to "cloud kicker".
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that there should be a free version for peronal use
There is one here [openoffice.org].
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that there should be a free version for peronal use, but this is still a great tool.
You're probably just a troll, but why should there be a free version for personal use when there isn't any "personal use" for the product? Pretty much everything you get from Office 365 is for collaborating and communicating with other people (SharePoint Server, Exchange Server, Lync, etc.). If all you want is the Office Web Apps, cloud storage from Microsoft, Webmail, and stuff like that, then there are other ways to get that from Microsoft free for personal use.
Re: (Score:2)
this does not take it to the next level... I'm not sure I could use excel without VBA or some scripting language. *shrug* ohh well, the cloud is dumb anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
What do we do on day 366? And is that February 29? Or December 31? Or January 1? Help me, Microsoft!
It's okay: we won't have another leap day until 2016, so Microsoft didn't need to code that logic into their software. 365 days is enough for anyone.
Don't worry: in 2015, Microsoft will release a new version, Office 366, which will offer you the full yearly experience for only one of the cheap monthly prices listed below (assuming you pick the right plan)!
. /- $2/mo for Plan E
/ $4/mo for Plan K1
\ $6/mo for Plan P
< $10/mo for Plan E1 or K2
/ $16/mo for Plan E2
\ $24/m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are some fundamental problems with this - the biggest of which is you can't use it unless you already have Office on your desktop. How did they not learn from this mistake the first time around?
Just FYI, you don't need any local software installed, in fact you don't even need windows. I have it open in a browser on my Debian laptop right now, Slashdot in another tab.
Re: (Score:3)
Just FYI, you don't need any local software installed, in fact you don't even need windows. I have it open in a browser on my Debian laptop right now, Slashdot in another tab.
Do you have access to all functionality? If you go to Microsoft Office 365's system requirements page [microsoft.com], it specifically lists certain versions of MS Office (and the Windows OS) as being requirements for this. At the very top of that page it states:
"To get the full Office 365 experience, we recommend that customers meet our system prerequisites. Minimum requirements for Office 365 include Office 2007+, IE 7+, Windows XP SP3+ (see full requirement list below)."
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have access to all functionality?
Yes, you have access to it -- but "having the full Office 365 experience" means you're not limited to editing documents in Web-based apps, you can use the desktop Office suite. There are components that integrate the desktop Office apps with the Office 365 services (albeit not very well, in my experience). The catch is that you need Office 2007 or later. So what it's saying is, if you want the full experience, including the ability to use a real word processor, spreadsheet, etc., with Office 365's hosted se
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I seriously doubt it. ANd if it does, my bet is that it will fail within 2 years.
I work in an organization where my department is all Linux, and the rest of the company is Windows XP or 7. Moving to Office 365 for me has been a benefit, actually, because with the exception of Lync I can access all the web versions of the apps using Iceweasel/Firefox in my linux machine. As far as Apple goes, I hear there is a web version of Lync you can use because Apple can run Silverlight. So, if like me you are all FOSS, the only thing you are missing out on is Lync.
Re:Will it work with none MS or Apple systems? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
"Minimum requirements for Office 365 include Office 2007+, IE 7+, Windows XP SP3+ (see full requirement list below)."
What's the point of a SAS product that requires you to install the desktop version first...
Paying for it twice. What's wrong with you?
Re: (Score:2)
(no vba && no addins) == "No use in engineering" which in my case, means no use at all. I guess I could ummm... figure out which car is cheaper over 10 years based on a difference in MPG, but other than that nope, no use.
Re: (Score:2)
That's typical software consulting in the Micorsoft ecosystem for you, just like that expensive unsupervised MS Exchange consultant that managed to set the mail servers at the company I was doing work for as an open fucking relay.