I too have recommended open office to my private clients only due to costs more than function. To your point moving your clients to ms office 2000 put you outside of the support ring, so at a minimum office xp would be ideal for your needs, if not there is always office 2003.
Thank you for your insight to my quick and hard comment. I made it to point out that people don't plan in a production environment, people plan and test in a development environment. So if any of you did not let a client or customer test for you prior to rolling out the new office then you will get large scale rumbling.
Secondarily a test lab should always be used before making an O/S change or any upgrades / revisions, that is just best practice.
Anyone else want to give me their examples of failure without telling me that they FULLY tested before rolling out the solution?
If you test and it does meet your standards or minimum requirement then you don't roll out any product PERIOD. If you don't have conclusive testing to the effect you can share results with the university or your fellow technologists, then Please don't offer your testimony. Applied methods or scientific results, not whimsical installs or pressure requests.
Merry X-mas and happy holiday.
Timoteo "Timo" Vasquez - AIS
Departmental Systems and Services
[log in to unmask] - 353.4420 Ext.249
Michigan State University
2 Administration Building
East Lansing, MI 48824-1046
-----Original Message-----
From: MSU Network Administrators Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of STeve Andre'
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 9:43 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [MSUNAG] Vista and Office 2007
On Thursday 20 December 2007 18:39:56 Brian Beck wrote:
> Vasquez, Timo wrote:
> > Finally ending on my initial point, if you have older equipment 8 bit
> > software that is not supported anymore or provided by a company that
> > is long gone, it is time to consider modernizing your current
> > framework to a more robust and compatible base. It is that simple.
> >
> >
> >
> > Timo
>
> Timo:
>
> I disagree in full. Old does not mean obsolete. As the adage goes, 'if
> it ain't broke, don't fix it'. If current technologies and systems are
> sufficient then there is no reason to force upgrades to newer,
> incompatible technologies. The Space Shuttle survives on 386 machines;
> the NYSE ran its AIX mainframes for more than 20 years - all the way up
> to this year - and they took the load just fine.
>
> Training users to use a new system is prohibitive; and a thorough
> testing procedure guarantees that the technology won't be
> top-of-the-line by the time a properly-done system hits production
> anyway. Upgrading a core system to a new and radically different
> technology is not a simple walk in the park and is not necessary.
> Especially when any benefits of the move are negligible at best.
>
> -Brian Beck
In my case, the head administrative person wanted to upgrade from Office
2000. It was a disaster. Two machines worked flawlessly, and four had
verious problems ranging from simple to complete and constant crashes.
Most all went back to Office 2000. I now have a few people on 2007. It
does seem a lot more stable, but the learning curve shouldn't be ignored.
In the mean time, friends and folks whom I've consulted with outside of
MSU have discovered OpenOffice and many are using that instead of later
MS Office's.
Operationally, I have had the fewest problems with people using Office 2000.
I believe it to me the most stable of the bunch at the moment. 2007 might
be better, but I'll believe that when people I know have had it for a year and
generated no complaints. Office XP and 2003 generated a lot of that.
--STeve Andre'
