Posted on 06/20/2007 6:30:02 PM PDT by Salo
Microsoft is making Office 2007 its default productivity suite for system builders, less than five months after the suite's full-scale launch.
Say Goodbye to Office 2003
Microsoft will stop supplying (http://blogs.msdn.com/mssmallbiz/archive/2007/06/18/3384613.aspx) OEM Microsoft Office 2003 from June 30, Microsoft exec Eric Ligman wrote yesterday on the company's blog for small businesses.
The declaration means that Microsoft partners without inventory of Office 2003 must ship Office 2007 from July onwards.
Microsoft is making a heavy push for Office 2007 and seems to be now using OEM partners in the vanguard for driving sales.
Previous editions of Office have sold relatively slowly during the last 10 years, with a sizeable percentage of the customer base clinging to increasingly out-dated editions. That's a problem for Microsoft, as it means a key product in its core business isn't growing as it should.
Office 2007 is relatively early in the Microsoft lifecycle, having officially launched in January following limited availability in November, while Office 2003 was launched in October 2003. The older product still enjoys mainstream product support (http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/) from Microsoft and partners, while also being well within its extended lifecycle support.
Customers on volume licensing agreements can still run Office 2003 by activating the downgrade rights in their contracts from Office 2007. OEM Microsoft Office does not have downgrade rights.
Microsoft is running a webcast (http://blogs.msdn.com/mssmallbiz/archive/2007/06/15/3316782.aspx) on June 21 to explain licensing options to resellers for Windows, Office and Server products. ®
Please provide evidence that he has helped North Korea switch over to it.
Microsoft has competition from existing US companies who sell the original US product Linux clones - Unix. Those are the companies are who are being destroyed, not Microsoft. SCO Unix used to have the largest Unix share in the world, now their survival is probably dependent on how well their lawsuits against Linux end up going.
Microsoft didn’t “give” money to SCO, neither did Sun. They bought the rights to use their software, since they don’t believe in this “software world without borders” vision of the leftists like Stallman. So you prefer to see Red Flag Linux from China and other clones from communist countries spread across the world instead of the original Unix products from the US?
No evidence? Shall I add it to the lie/hypocrisy list in #213?
You’re racking up quite a score in lies and hypocrisy in just one thread. This must be a record for you.
And we're just getting into the lightning round, where the scores can really add up fast!
OpenOffice is the way to go - its word processor is much more stable than Word.
SCO Unix was always crap, but it sold because IT managers wanted a "commercial" UNIX on the PC.
Oh, and by the way, "SCO Unix" doesn't exist anymore. The company styling themselves the "SCO Group" has nothing to do with the original Santa Cruz Organization.
I agree with you.
Microsoft isn't dumb enough to directly give money like that. They make conveniently-timed licensing contracts.
Not to mention Microsoft enabling $50 million from the BayStar investment group to SCO when SCO needed more money to continue the IBM lawsuit. According to a BayStar partner in sworn statement, they weren't too hot on investing in SCO because of their high burn rate, but then:
Mr. Emerson [senior MS strategy VP] and I discussed a variety of investment structures wherein Microsoft would 'backstop,' or guarantee in some way, BayStar's investment.... Microsoft assured me that it would in some way guarantee BayStar's investment in SCO.Oops. BayStar went ahead with the deal, but Microsoft later stopped taking BayStar's calls, and BayStar got so fed up it pulled out of SCO after only six months, losing a ton of money. BayStar was naive to go ahead without having Microsoft's assurances in a binding contract. But it worked, SCO got paid.
North Korea is standardizing on Linux, just like all other communist countries, they get their software legally for free from Stallman and others who believe in the “free software for the world” vision. You’re his biggest supporter, too, I’ve never seen anyone so tortured over people finding out the truth.
I’d like to see competition in the OS market driving prices down and encouraging innovation.
Not the question. Your statement was:
Richard Stallman, a green party leftist that has helped switch every communist government over to it already.North Korea deciding to go to Linux has nothing to do with whether they received help from Stallman as you've complained about him running to other communist countries to hook them up. Since you've shown me his site, I've found it appears he doesn't like North Korea.
But I can see you might have some room to wiggle out of this lie on a technicality. But the others still stand, like the absolutely concrete lie that Apple doesn't provide technology to communists like Linux does. No wiggle room in that lie at all.
Even if that means foreign groups and governments take the place of US software companies in the global market we currently dominate? You’d really rather see Red Flag Linux, owned by the Chinese government, win business from the US Unix companies? Venezualan Linux over US Unix companies, really? You support Chavez over American CEO’s? And others like him?
Once again, obviously you’re the liar trying to claim Apple gives a complete operating system away to China such as Linux provides. Why you choose to make such laughably incorrect claims to lower the bar for Stallman is unclear, but it is hilariously funny.
I didn't claim that, and you didn't either. You claimed:
Linux privides free technology to communists not AppleAll that is required for you to have lied is that Apple provide free technology to communists per your statement, not necessarily entire operating systems, as that was not your claim. They have done so by their contributions to BSD (get Darwin here just like the Chinese can) and to the core of the Safari browser at least.
You can only weasel so far until your weasel gets stomped.
Now can we do this one?
"Microsoft is on record saying they will license any patents they infringe on"Remember this in light of all of the patent infringement suits that Microsoft has defended itself against because they decided not to license after being put on notice of patent infringement. Either you lied and Microsoft never made the statement, or Microsoft lied and you just pass on the statement to try to make Microsoft look good.
So where is your proof the Chicomms are being provided any free tech by Apple? We know they use the Linux that is given in whole to them, for free, but where is an example of China using free Apple technology in their government? I’ve never heard of any, they are standardizing on their free copy of Linux, which they renamed to “Red Flag”.
I gave you the link. They can download Darwin and other free technology just as they can download a copy of Linux.
but where is an example of China using free Apple technology in their government
Not required. Apple must make it available to them for free for your statement to be a lie, but they don't have to capitalize on it. But now that you go there, Red Hat Linux does use the Konqueror browser and the Apache http server, both of which include free technology given by Apple.
As expected, you’ve obviously again failed trying to equate the givaways from Apple coming anywhere close to the full copies of Linux that are downloaded, renamed, and then redistributed by communists under names such ad Red Flag. We know you support Russians who rip off illegal copies of Apple’s OSX operating system, as you have defended them endlessly, including lies you admit to making up out of the blue to defend them, but that is not the same as giving it way to them, for free, as Linux does. Obviously, of course, but it is funny watching you endlessly claim the impossible on behalf of all the communists you support.
As expected, you again evade. You claimed they didn't give technology (not just whole operating systems, technology) to China. I proved they did. You lied, and can't even admit it when faced with the truth.
We know you support Russians who rip off illegal copies of Apple’s OSX operating system
Legal copies used against the license conditions, as in installed on their non-Mac system. Of course, as opposed to illegally distributing millions of copies of a copyrighted work for profit, which you support.
I see you're not even going to touch the Microsoft/patent lie.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.