Office 2004 questions for Microsoft

N

Nate Goldshlag

Does anybody from the Microsoft Mac Business Unit respond here? If so,
I have three questions for you that will determine whether or not I
upgrade from Office X to 2004.

1. Has Microsoft fixed their shoddy handling of graphics?
Specifically, you cannot drag a pdf with text into Word X and have it
print without horrible fuzzy printing. This has existed how long now -
2 years?

2. Has Microsoft fixed things so that Word does not take up 10% of my
CPU at times when it is just open, with no document open? I have a 1
GHz G4 Powerbook. This does not always occur, but does often.

3. Now that the OS can convert Encapsulated PostScript to pdf, can Word
2004 insert an EPS object without a preview and have it viewable on
screen?

If the answer all of these is yes I may consider upgrading.

Nate
 
R

Ron H

4. Does the new version of Word support Unicode in any/all of its
glory? I was already fooled once by the 'written for OS X' claim of
Office v.X ...
 
C

Corentin Cras-Méneur [MVP]

Ron H said:
4. Does the new version of Word support Unicode in any/all of its
glory? I was already fooled once by the 'written for OS X' claim of
Office v.X .


I've read that Office 2004 will support Unicode to its full extend, but
not right to left writing.

As fro the other questions, I haven't read anything about them
specifically.


Corentin
 
J

John McGhie [MVP Office Systems -- Word]

Hi Nate:
Does anybody from the Microsoft Mac Business Unit respond here?

Yes, but only if you treat them nicely.
1. Has Microsoft fixed their shoddy handling of graphics?
Specifically, you cannot drag a pdf with text into Word X and have it
print without horrible fuzzy printing. This has existed how long now -
2 years?

No. It was an Apple bug, and I believe Apple has fixed it.
2. Has Microsoft fixed things so that Word does not take up 10% of my
CPU at times when it is just open, with no document open? I have a 1
GHz G4 Powerbook. This does not always occur, but does often.

No. It was an Apple bug, and I believe Apple has fixed it. Word will
consume slightly more CPU in the next version because it does more. In Word
X, a lot of the smarts in the PC version code were disabled to gain more
speed. Some of them are being put back in.

Word never used 10 per cent of the CPU or anything like it, but a bug in the
OS X system tuning parameters meant that Word "appeared" to be consuming 10
per cent of the CPU. On older versions of the OS, Word 2004 now "appears"
to be using 12 to 15 per cent of the CPU. However, if you start another
application that really is using some CPU, the indication for Word drops
back to its realistic value, which is about 0.8 per cent.

Now you open a 5,500 page document, update all the fields, regenerate the
table of contents and index, then print it, and Word will flatline the CPU
(100 per cent) for several minutes. Word is a big, brawny application that
needs a feed when it is hungry.
3. Now that the OS can convert Encapsulated PostScript to pdf, can Word
2004 insert an EPS object without a preview and have it viewable on
screen?

That's the plan. I am not sure that it's working yet.
If the answer all of these is yes I may consider upgrading.

Nate, I don't want to burst any bubbles or confront any deeply-held
political views here, but you may wish to carefully consider whether anybody
here actually cares whether you upgrade or not. I think I know the answer.

I don't think Bill is having any trouble paying the electric bill right now
so he doesn't need your money that bad. And the rest of us don't have much
interest in the subject.

I can only speak for me: I have already upgraded. I am a beta tester for
Word 2004. The build I have is still full of bugs and crashes and slowdowns
and stuff that doesn't work at all, because it is in its testing phase. I
have moved it onto my official production partition and am using it now for
everything. I would far rather put up with the teething problems in Word
2004 beta than go back to Word X.

But that's just me.

--

Please respond only to the newsgroup to preserve the thread.

John McGhie, Consultant Technical Writer,
McGhie Information Engineering Pty Ltd
Sydney, Australia. GMT + 10 Hrs
+61 4 1209 1410, mailto:[email protected]
 
N

Nate Goldshlag

John McGhie [MVP Office said:
Hi Nate:
Does anybody from the Microsoft Mac Business Unit respond here?

Yes, but only if you treat them nicely.
1. Has Microsoft fixed their shoddy handling of graphics?
Specifically, you cannot drag a pdf with text into Word X and have it
print without horrible fuzzy printing. This has existed how long now -
2 years?

No. It was an Apple bug, and I believe Apple has fixed it.

Hello John,

Sorry but I just do not believe this. If I have a pdf I can print it
fine from Preview, Adobe Reader, and other applications. But insert it
into Word and it prints fuzzy. This is a longstanding and well known
bug. You can say it is Apple's bug all you want but I do not buy it.
No. It was an Apple bug, and I believe Apple has fixed it. Word will
consume slightly more CPU in the next version because it does more. In Word
X, a lot of the smarts in the PC version code were disabled to gain more
speed. Some of them are being put back in.

Word never used 10 per cent of the CPU or anything like it, but a bug in the
OS X system tuning parameters meant that Word "appeared" to be consuming 10
per cent of the CPU. On older versions of the OS, Word 2004 now "appears"
to be using 12 to 15 per cent of the CPU. However, if you start another
application that really is using some CPU, the indication for Word drops
back to its realistic value, which is about 0.8 per cent.

I never said it was all the time. But sometimes it is 10% with no
document open. And quite often it is way more than it should be under
other circumstances, compared to other applications. Again you are
telling me that the unix top command is lying. Maybe you think so but
I do not.
That's the plan. I am not sure that it's working yet.

I hope it does work.
Nate, I don't want to burst any bubbles or confront any deeply-held
political views here, but you may wish to carefully consider whether anybody
here actually cares whether you upgrade or not. I think I know the answer.

I don't think Bill is having any trouble paying the electric bill right now
so he doesn't need your money that bad. And the rest of us don't have much
interest in the subject.

I can only speak for me: I have already upgraded. I am a beta tester for
Word 2004. The build I have is still full of bugs and crashes and slowdowns
and stuff that doesn't work at all, because it is in its testing phase. I
have moved it onto my official production partition and am using it now for
everything. I would far rather put up with the teething problems in Word
2004 beta than go back to Word X.

But that's just me.

I never claimed anybody cares about whether or not I personally
upgrade. My point is that Word X has had some serious problems for
over 2 years that were never fixed. You can call whatever problems
there are with 2004 teething problems but you can be fairly sure that
once 2004 comes out Microsoft will not fix some real problems and users
will be stuck with what they've got. That is their history.

If Microsoft wants us to upgrade from X, and it may indeed be a
worthwhile upgrade as you say, they had better fix the problems that I
detailed and make the new features worth the hefty upgrade price.

And yes, I am someone who believes that Word 5.1 was the best Word that
Microsoft ever put out.

Nate
 
J

John McGhie [MVP Office Systems -- Word]

Hi Nate:

This responds to article
from "Nate Goldshlag" said:
Sorry but I just do not believe this. If I have a pdf I can print it
fine from Preview, Adobe Reader, and other applications. But insert it
into Word and it prints fuzzy. This is a longstanding and well known
bug. You can say it is Apple's bug all you want but I do not buy it.

So read apple's documentation for the CarbonLib calls involved, then get
into the document with a hex editor and look at the byte codes in there.
According to Apple's documentation, the TIFF is supposed to be on layer 0
and the EPS on layer 1. It is in Word. The other apps do not call that
particular function in CarbonLib.
I never said it was all the time. But sometimes it is 10% with no
document open. And quite often it is way more than it should be under
other circumstances, compared to other applications. Again you are
telling me that the unix top command is lying. Maybe you think so but
I do not.

No, I am telling you that you do not understand what Top is doing. Top is
telling you that Word is using ten per cent of the allocated time slices.
Not ten per cent of the CPU cycles. Word is handed a time slice containing
one million CPU cycles. It uses 300 of them and flags "Return control". OS
X does not return to service the interrupt for 930,000 clock cycles, which
go to waste. If another application is busy, OS X will scan the queue
looking for apps waiting to relinquish, return the interrupt and Word's
apparent CPU usage falls dramatically.

Just because OS X "sends" Word one million clock cycles each time it
requests CPU does NOT mean that Word wants them, or is using them, or even
can use them. But Top can only measure allocated time slices, not clock
cycles. So Top is only "accurate" when the system is busy.
I never claimed anybody cares about whether or not I personally
upgrade. My point is that Word X has had some serious problems for
over 2 years that were never fixed.

Yeah. I don't like it any more than you do, but that's the nature of
shrink-wrap software. Anything they "claimed" would work when they sold it
to you they will fix. Anything that did not get mentioned in the sales
brochure will not get fixed, no matter how bad it smells. That's the
shrink-wrap game.
You can call whatever problems
there are with 2004 teething problems but you can be fairly sure that
once 2004 comes out Microsoft will not fix some real problems and users
will be stuck with what they've got. That is their history.

Yes: That is the nature of the shrink-wrap software industry. No company
will ever fix anything they did not promise would work in a certain way
before they sold it to you. I hate it too, but that's how it is. IBM has
some tragic bugs in Lotus Notes that they won't fix. Some of the bugs in
WordPerfect have been with us for ten years, and they won't fix them.
Picking a "good" release of CorelDRAW is a black art requiring magic
incantations: the rule of thumb is that the odd-numbered releases are better
than the even numbered ones...
If Microsoft wants us to upgrade from X, and it may indeed be a
worthwhile upgrade as you say, they had better fix the problems that I
detailed and make the new features worth the hefty upgrade price.

It's a chicken-and-egg situation. If they sold a lot more copies, they
would have a lot more to spend and a lot more would get fixed. Currently we
just have to hope that the PC guys fiddle with the code that contains the
bugs we have. When the PC side makes a change in that code module, that
gives the Macintosh Business Unit a cost justification to open the source
code, and while they are in there they try to fix all the bugs that are
logged against that module. Word 2003 was a fairly major upgrade on the PC
side: it has hit almost everything, so Mac BU has a fairly extensive licence
for the next version.
And yes, I am someone who believes that Word 5.1 was the best Word that
Microsoft ever put out.

It took me a long time to find a better one. I am now a believer in Word
2003, and Word 2004 is going to be very good indeed.

Cheers
--

Please respond only to the newsgroup to preserve the thread.

John McGhie, Consultant Technical Writer,
McGhie Information Engineering Pty Ltd
Sydney, Australia. GMT + 10 Hrs
+61 4 1209 1410, mailto:[email protected]
 
N

Nate Goldshlag

John McGhie [MVP Office said:
2. Has Microsoft fixed things so that Word does not take up 10% of my
CPU at times when it is just open, with no document open? I have a 1
GHz G4 Powerbook. This does not always occur, but does often.

No. It was an Apple bug, and I believe Apple has fixed it. Word will
consume slightly more CPU in the next version because it does more. In Word
X, a lot of the smarts in the PC version code were disabled to gain more
speed. Some of them are being put back in.

Word never used 10 per cent of the CPU or anything like it, but a bug in the
OS X system tuning parameters meant that Word "appeared" to be consuming 10
per cent of the CPU. On older versions of the OS, Word 2004 now "appears"
to be using 12 to 15 per cent of the CPU. However, if you start another
application that really is using some CPU, the indication for Word drops
back to its realistic value, which is about 0.8 per cent.

Sorry, John, but you are wrong. Today Word was consuming around 25%
with a document open doing nothing. I launched a verilog compiler via
the terminal which usually takes about 95% of the CPU. Word stayed at
25% and verilog could only get about 70%. The 25% was real, and Word
should have been doing nothing.

Word, by the way, is the only application that I have seen that does
this.

Nate
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top