powerpoint 2007 needs hardware graphic acceleration like 2002

In article , Austin Myers wrote:
"Steve Rindsberg" wrote in message
...
And as I understand it, for some corporate users there's no choice.
They're
required to accept all upgrades in order to maintain their support
contracts.
Really? I thought the way those subscriptions work is that you always
get the newest license with them, but that you can use any older version
as well. I thought most corporations were on the "every other version"
implementation cycle, so basically a new Office every 4 years instead of
2.

I don't really know how they work; maybe someone who knows the details can
fill
us in. That'd be interesting.

From what I can see, all the old shourt cut keystrokes work as they always
have.

Er. What? Right reply to the wrong message? ;-)





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

"Austin Myers" wrote:

On the other hand, I also observed that these applications retain the
"Vista" look and do not adapt to the XP Pro environment in terms of their
window specifics. So, they seem to be geared for a different graphics
environment than the one in XP. I hope that this changes in the final
release because not everybody will be buying Vista.


MS has the Windows Presentation Foundation upgrade (as a service pack) in
the works for older versions of Windows. In fact it's available as a beta
for XP now. I think once the rough spots are worked out you and other XP
users will really like the results.


Dear Austin,

Would you know where this beta is located?

Thanks

"Patrick Schmid" wrote:

On the other hand, I also observed that these applications retain the
"Vista" look and do not adapt to the XP Pro environment in terms of their
window specifics. So, they seem to be geared for a different graphics
environment than the one in XP. I hope that this changes in the final
release because not everybody will be buying Vista.
If you mean the general look of the window not adapting to the WinXP
system look, then no, this won't change. That's the final look.
I don't think it is geared towards a different graphics environment. I
downloaded Vista B2, but haven't installed it yet. Once I have it
installed and running, I'll see how PPT does there, but I doubt it'll be
much of a difference.

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

Dear Patrick,

Thanks for the information. I do not want to double guess the marketing
mavericks of Microsoft but I think that lots of people will stick with XP
instead of going to Vista but they would like to use Office 2007. They
should not be forced to upgrade to Vista because of Office.

If MS has decided to do this, it would be unfortunate

Thanks for the information. I do not want to double guess the marketing
mavericks of Microsoft but I think that lots of people will stick with XP
instead of going to Vista but they would like to use Office 2007. They
should not be forced to upgrade to Vista because of Office.

As has already been said, Office 2007 will run under XP (SP2). Nobody's going
to be forced to Vista.

You can even choose, under XP, to use Office 2007 with either the XP or Vista
"look".

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

Why would they be forced to? I have been using Office 2007 since
November on Windows XP and I don't see a single reason why I would need
Vista. That the Office windows don't look like standard Windows XP
windows is a whole different story and quite frankly, they don't look
like Vista either. They look like Office 2007 and in my opinion there is
nothing wrong about that. Skinning a programming to make it look
different from the standard OS look is a new trend that other programs
started (think FireFox, Windows Media Player, WinAMP, Trillian...just to
name a few). Why should Office not have the right to do the same? Just
because it's from Microsoft doesn't mean that Office has to follow the
Windows lead. In fact, Office often takes the lead over Windows and
Windows then later picks up a feature. For example, Office introduced
speech recognition and it was then later transferred over to Windows and
now with 2007 completely removed from Office.
If you are the MS Office division, then you happen to be the better
child in town. Office has for the past few versions always been on time.
If you have been following the news, then you know that the track record
of the Windows division is pretty bad (the plan what their next OS would
look like that they announced somewhere in the late 1990s is still not
fully implemented in Vista, which will ship in 2007). If you are the
better child in town and make a lot of profit, then you are quite free
whatever you want to do and don't need to feel strangled by what another
division with much worse behavior thinks you should do. In my opinion,
the Office UI team had any right to change the UI look and ignore
Windows on this.
I know that probably half the people here will disagree with me, and I
have heard all the arguments of why Office should look like all other
Windows programs (at least for the window itself). It's not going to
happen and everyone will have to get used to Office looking different
than other Windows programs.

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

"ADR" wrote in message
:

"Patrick Schmid" wrote:

On the other hand, I also observed that these applications retain the
"Vista" look and do not adapt to the XP Pro environment in terms of their
window specifics. So, they seem to be geared for a different graphics
environment than the one in XP. I hope that this changes in the final
release because not everybody will be buying Vista.
If you mean the general look of the window not adapting to the WinXP
system look, then no, this won't change. That's the final look.
I don't think it is geared towards a different graphics environment. I
downloaded Vista B2, but haven't installed it yet. Once I have it
installed and running, I'll see how PPT does there, but I doubt it'll be
much of a difference.

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

Dear Patrick,

Thanks for the information. I do not want to double guess the marketing
mavericks of Microsoft but I think that lots of people will stick with XP
instead of going to Vista but they would like to use Office 2007. They
should not be forced to upgrade to Vista because of Office.

If MS has decided to do this, it would be unfortunate

Why would they be forced to? I have been using Office 2007 since
November on Windows XP and I don't see a single reason why I would need
Vista. That the Office windows don't look like standard Windows XP
windows is a whole different story and quite frankly, they don't look
like Vista either. They look like Office 2007 and in my opinion there is
nothing wrong about that. Skinning a programming to make it look
different from the standard OS look is a new trend that other programs
started (think FireFox, Windows Media Player, WinAMP, Trillian...just to
name a few). Why should Office not have the right to do the same? Just
because it's from Microsoft doesn't mean that Office has to follow the
Windows lead.

I am sure that this has been discussed ad nauseum, but I do think that the
OS should impose some limits on "creativity" for consistency. To be honest,
I am not thrilled about any of the color schemes in the current beta (I am
sure that the final product would have additional choices).

In fact, Office often takes the lead over Windows and
Windows then later picks up a feature. For example, Office introduced
speech recognition and it was then later transferred over to Windows and
now with 2007 completely removed from Office.

I would have much preferred if MS spent time and effort to make the
applications smarter than they currently are and should steer clear of voice
recognition. My reaction to the current beta is that (a) Word seems to have
been marginally improved (b) Excel is not that much changed and (c)
Powerpoint is unusable because it is exceedingly slow (with hardware
acceleration on or off). The new interface has been a disappointment for me.
I was quite comfortable with the previous one and I just do no see any
benefits from this one at all. If I needed to do something that took too
many keystrokes, I built a macro. I just do not need the huge screen waste
for the current "ribbon". Especially, on widescreen laptops most of what the
users would see on the screen would be the interface!!!

If you are the MS Office division, then you happen to be the better
child in town. Office has for the past few versions always been on time.
If you have been following the news, then you know that the track record
of the Windows division is pretty bad (the plan what their next OS would
look like that they announced somewhere in the late 1990s is still not
fully implemented in Vista, which will ship in 2007). If you are the
better child in town and make a lot of profit, then you are quite free
whatever you want to do and don't need to feel strangled by what another
division with much worse behavior thinks you should do. In my opinion,
the Office UI team had any right to change the UI look and ignore
Windows on this.

OK...but they should consider the users and not just the beginners or the
computerphobes. Computers are productivity machines and we do not need
anything that will slow us down. Take Word for instance. It still does not
do outline documents in a clever way...it is just too stupid for them. Even
the current version fails at this. And there is no way of "teaching" the
software. I would throw all the "ribbons" in the waste basket and work on
having software that learns and adopts and fits you like a glove. And give
this message from me to the developers in MS. Very few people have massive
21 inch screens and most people would like to see their document (or as much
of it) and not have the program take over most of the screen real-estate.


I know that probably half the people here will disagree with me, and I
have heard all the arguments of why Office should look like all other
Windows programs (at least for the window itself). It's not going to
happen and everyone will have to get used to Office looking different
than other Windows programs.

Possibly..or it would be a commercial flop and then MS would have to make
changes. And I simply do not like that mentality. The customer should be
the target here of any improvements not the pride of any development division.

I am sure that this has been discussed ad nauseum, but I do think
that the
OS should impose some limits on "creativity" for consistency. To be honest,
I am not thrilled about any of the color schemes in the current beta (I am
sure that the final product would have additional choices).
One additional one actually. MS announced recently that the final
product will ship with three choices. No one knows though at this point
what the third color scheme looks like.

I would have much preferred if MS spent time and effort to make the
applications smarter than they currently are and should steer clear of voice
recognition. My reaction to the current beta is that (a) Word seems to have
been marginally improved (b) Excel is not that much changed and (c)
Powerpoint is unusable because it is exceedingly slow (with hardware
acceleration on or off). The new interface has been a disappointment for me.
I was quite comfortable with the previous one and I just do no see any
benefits from this one at all. If I needed to do something that took too
many keystrokes, I built a macro. I just do not need the huge screen waste
for the current "ribbon". Especially, on widescreen laptops most of what the
users would see on the screen would be the interface!!!
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 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.

OK...but they should consider the users and not just the beginners or the
computerphobes. Computers are productivity machines and we do not need
anything that will slow us down. Take Word for instance. It still does not
do outline documents in a clever way...it is just too stupid for them. Even
the current version fails at this. And there is no way of "teaching" the
software. I would throw all the "ribbons" in the waste basket and work on
having software that learns and adopts and fits you like a glove. And give
this message from me to the developers in MS. Very few people have massive
21 inch screens and most people would like to see their document (or as much
of it) and not have the program take over most of the screen real-estate.
See my above comment.
Adaptive software is actually very difficult to develop and often times
end up annoying users a lot because the program thinks it knows what you
want to do/are doing, but then it happens to be that one time when you
want to do something different. Take the personalized menus in 2003
e.g.. They were an attempt in making Office adaptive, but from a
usability point of view managed to only hide features to users. Most
power users turned them off right away anyhow (and in 2007, they are
turned off by default).

Possibly..or it would be a commercial flop and then MS would have to make
changes. And I simply do not like that mentality. The customer should be
the target here of any improvements not the pride of any development division.
Even the people who complain about this right now a lot will eventually
get used to it. Change is always difficult for human beings to handle
and this is just one of those cases. Office 2007 won't be a commercial
flop, just because it is Office. All the OEMs, retailers, etc will
switch to it and so will quite a few big corporations. It will sell
quite a lot and MS really doesn't need to worry that it will be a flop.
If something isn't well received by customers, MS might change it with
Office 14 (#13 is being skipped). Many companies (the biggest Office
customers) usually skip one Office version anyhow, so they might skip
2007 if they don't like it. It won't be because of the way the windows
don't look like Windows XP. It will be for other issues such as lack of
user customization, charting issues, etc.

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

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
================================================

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/

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:

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.


Patrick,

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,
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
================================================