powerpoint 2007 needs hardware graphic acceleration like 2002

I did a direct test running both Word 2007 and Word 2003 with rulers
enabled
in both versions. There is definitely less document space in the 2007
version; not much less, but definitely less. My resolution was 1600 x 1200,
Read Jensen's post carefully. He did the comparison with the
out-of-the-box configuration. In that configuration, Word 2007 does not
have the ruler always shown, but Word 97 does. From the MS point of
view, a pretty fair comparison.
The truth is that Office 2007 is just not designed for power users, but
rather for the beginner to average user. Power users get screwed all the
way in 2007 and the window visuals are a minor issue compared to the
rest...
Actually, Office's UI did need a huge overhaul. I recommend reading
Jensen's why the UI series:
http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archiv...ory/11720.aspx

Patrick Schmid
--------------
http://pschmid.net

so I guess at lower resolutions one would have even less space. In addition,
if you running this application in the new fangled widescreen laptops (the
worse invention ever?), you will hardly get any writing space. In addition,
in big screens the "ribbon" gets better use but in limited real estate, that
ribbon with its huge icons is simply counterproductive and a lousy use of
expensive and limited screen real estate.

What is happening with Word 2007 is not unique. Many design teams, once
they get an idea, they pursue it with zeal even if it is really a retreat
from a successful design. Office's interface did not need any substantive
makeover but I guess MS thought that the visual aspect will get the
application sold. Big mistake. When one gets over the visual aspect of the
interface, he/she will start finding the faults and this may quickly mushroom
to a user "rebellion". Yes, MS can depend on HP and Dell and other
manufacturers to bundle Office with their PCs, but a serious flaw may lead
the door open to other competitors.

It's one of the most interesting posts he ever did. I, as probably most
users, could have sworn before reading it that there is less space for a
document in 2007/

Patrick Schmid
--------------
http://pschmid.net

" wrote in message
:

Actually, you have (about) as much space for your document as you did
with 2003. You get a different impression though, because the top part
of the window (with the ribbon) is larger than the top part in 2003
(menu bar plus two toolbars) used to be. However, the bottom part of the
window (status bar stuff) is smaller in 2007 than in 2003.

What I'm seeing here with rulers on in both versions is that with 3 rows of
toolbars in 2003, my slide is a bit bigger than it is in 2007. With the QAT below
the ribbon, there's even less space available for me in 2007. Since I paid for
the pixels, I consider that a bit presumptuous. ;-)

What they
added in space on the top, they saved on the bottom. The effective space
available to your document is nearly identical, but shifted down
compared to 2003.

Odd. I only see a few pixel difference in the area at the bottom in PPT. A
difference between your settings and mine, perhaps?

-----------------------------------------
Steve Rindsberg, PPT MVP
PPT FAQ: www.pptfaq.com
PPTools: www.pptools.com
================================================

"Patrick Schmid" wrote:

I did a direct test running both Word 2007 and Word 2003 with rulers
enabled
in both versions. There is definitely less document space in the 2007
version; not much less, but definitely less. My resolution was 1600 x 1200,
Read Jensen's post carefully. He did the comparison with the
out-of-the-box configuration. In that configuration, Word 2007 does not
have the ruler always shown, but Word 97 does. From the MS point of
view, a pretty fair comparison.
The truth is that Office 2007 is just not designed for power users, but
rather for the beginner to average user. Power users get screwed all the
way in 2007 and the window visuals are a minor issue compared to the
rest...
Actually, Office's UI did need a huge overhaul. I recommend reading
Jensen's why the UI series:
http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archiv...ory/11720.aspx

I did Jensen's blog and the flaw in his thinking is terribly obvious.
Apparently, in designing the interface, the team got statistics on which
commands are used most and prioritized them. This is really bad thinking.
One designing the UI should not worry which commands are used most but what
the users are doing mostly. And although "bold" is number 5 in terms of
frequency of use, this hardly means that this is essential and where we
spend, as users, most of our time. When designing an experiment, it is
important to define carefully what data you need to collect. In this case,
some screwey programmer decided that it would be useful for MS to collect
data on the frequency of commands used. Although I use the "bold" command
numerically more often than the "outline" command, getting the latter right
is much more important to me than streamlining the "bold" command for which I
can write an easy macro. I am stunned by the fact that nobody in MS thought
of prioritizing commands on the basis of their importance than in their
frequency of usage. This is again a typical approach by design teams, they
make assumptions that may or may not be shared by users and we end up with
flawed products (and most are flawed).

In article , Patrick Schmid wrote:
Jensen did a comparison based upon 1024x768 and with the out of the box
configuration:
http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archiv...17/577485.aspx

For PPT, that was 2 toolbars, menu bar and the drawing toolbar.

It's one of the most interesting posts he ever did. I, as probably most
users, could have sworn before reading it that there is less space for a
document in 2007/

Same here but I know better than to trust me.

I was able to size the windows to match (2003 in the host pc, 2007 in a VM) and
overlap them. Here I still see a slight difference.

But then it's all sort of an air-controversy in any case. The interface is
what it is. Either we like it (and it won't change) or we don't (and it won't
change).

Arguing about it is about as useful as arguing about who won yesterday's soccer
match.


Patrick Schmid
--------------
http://pschmid.net

" wrote in message
:

Actually, you have (about) as much space for your document as you did
with 2003. You get a different impression though, because the top part
of the window (with the ribbon) is larger than the top part in 2003
(menu bar plus two toolbars) used to be. However, the bottom part of the
window (status bar stuff) is smaller in 2007 than in 2003.

What I'm seeing here with rulers on in both versions is that with 3 rows of
toolbars in 2003, my slide is a bit bigger than it is in 2007. With the
QAT below
the ribbon, there's even less space available for me in 2007. Since I paid
for
the pixels, I consider that a bit presumptuous. ;-)

What they
added in space on the top, they saved on the bottom. The effective space
available to your document is nearly identical, but shifted down
compared to 2003.

Odd. I only see a few pixel difference in the area at the bottom in PPT.
A
difference between your settings and mine, perhaps?

-----------------------------------------
Steve Rindsberg, PPT MVP
PPT FAQ: www.pptfaq.com
PPTools: www.pptools.com
================================================


-----------------------------------------
Steve Rindsberg, PPT MVP
PPT FAQ: www.pptfaq.com
PPTools: www.pptools.com
================================================

Arguing about it is about as useful as arguing about who won
yesterday's soccer
match.
As long as Germany wins the World Cup, you are right


Patrick Schmid
--------------
http://pschmid.net

" wrote in message
:

Actually, you have (about) as much space for your document as you did
with 2003. You get a different impression though, because the top part
of the window (with the ribbon) is larger than the top part in 2003
(menu bar plus two toolbars) used to be. However, the bottom part of the
window (status bar stuff) is smaller in 2007 than in 2003.

What I'm seeing here with rulers on in both versions is that with 3 rows of
toolbars in 2003, my slide is a bit bigger than it is in 2007. With the
QAT below
the ribbon, there's even less space available for me in 2007. Since I paid
for
the pixels, I consider that a bit presumptuous. ;-)

What they
added in space on the top, they saved on the bottom. The effective space
available to your document is nearly identical, but shifted down
compared to 2003.

Odd. I only see a few pixel difference in the area at the bottom in PPT.
A
difference between your settings and mine, perhaps?

-----------------------------------------
Steve Rindsberg, PPT MVP
PPT FAQ: www.pptfaq.com
PPTools: www.pptools.com
================================================


-----------------------------------------
Steve Rindsberg, PPT MVP
PPT FAQ: www.pptfaq.com
PPTools: www.pptools.com
================================================

In article , Patrick Schmid wrote:
Arguing about it is about as useful as arguing about who won
yesterday's soccer
match.
As long as Germany wins the World Cup, you are right

Hah, I KNEW that'd get your attention. g

LOL

" wrote in message
:

In article , Patrick Schmid wrote:
Arguing about it is about as useful as arguing about who won
yesterday's soccer
match.
As long as Germany wins the World Cup, you are right

Hah, I KNEW that'd get your attention. g

Thank you! It's still slow (compared to PP'03) but decreasing hardware
acceleration definetly speeded it up.

"Patrick Schmid" wrote:

Hi ADR,

It could be worse. Beta 2 is rather fast compared to the earlier
(non-public) beta versions. You might want to try to decrease your
hardware acceleration. As weird as this sounds, this might actually give
you better performance in PowerPoint. To do this, go into Control Panel,
Display, Settings, Advanced, Troubleshoot and reduce the setting of the
slider there.
This has been a proven measure to deal with performance problems in
PowerPoint, and not just 2007. I have myself a top-of-the-line graphics
card, but PPT 2007 is faster for me if I reduce hardware acceleration by
one or two notches.

Patrick Schmid
--------------
http://pschmid.net

"ADR" wrote in message
:

I do not know if it needs graphics acceleration, but the present version is
undeniably very slow and difficult to work with. I think that "live preview"
certainly affects performance.

"Matt" wrote:

2007 graphics is slow unlike 2002

----------------
This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this
link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
click "I Agree" in the message pane.

http://www.microsoft.com/office/comm...lic.powerpoint