GD 2W10 Posted July 28, Posted July 28, Will we able to do it now since Win32 is making the extended kernel for Vista? Posted July 29, The installers are 32bit, even if they install the x64 version. WinFX Posted July 29, Posted July 29, edited. There are only some dependencies that I will watch later on setup. Posted August 13, Did anyone manage to install Microsoft Office in Windows Vista? How to do it? Create an account or sign in to comment You need to be a member in order to leave a comment Create an account Sign up for a new account in our community.
Register a new account. Sign in Already have an account? Sign In Now. Go to topic listing. Recently Browsing 0 members No registered users viewing this page. Archived Forums. Outlook IT Pro Discussions. This forum is for general questions and feedback related to Outlook all versions as they pertain to the IT Pro community. Sign in to vote. Hi recently,we have purchased ms-office but we are not able to install the ms-office and it is showing not compatible.
It is an bit operating system. Regards Pradeep. Monday, August 11, PM. System Requiremets for Office While the above link is for Office as well as Office , it shows the requirements. Okay there MS, you guys are insane. Yeah, my wife has been using OpenOffice every day, now, for about six years, and she's convinced anyone who pays money for office software is crazy. She's a grant writer for non-profit organizations, so she has to exchange documents with people all the time, and she has no issues at all.
OpenOffice does everything she needs. The thing that really amazes her is that OpenOffice is actually better at reading old Microsoft Office formats than more recent versions of Microsoft Office. LaTex or something that allows you to separate the content from the presentation. It's something that tends to make things a lot easier if you decide later that you want different formatting or if you need a copy for two different audiences, but where the audiences can't for one reason or another use the same formatting.
Like say if you're sending one copy to somebody that always uses a mobile phone. So, to recap the thread: 1 openoffice i'd say libreoffice does office work well 2 but not for complex documents 3 but for complex document office is not good either, you would be better off with latex 4 latex? Use Lyx. I did for my thesis in an area of theoretical physics and never once needed to type arcane commands in.
Other people even remarked on how my equations looked 10 times better than for anyone else. Actually, LaTeX has one enormous advantage for collaborative work - you can put the document under source control and have multiple people editing it. LaTeX has a a horrible learning curve, but I now wouldn't use anything else for anything serious - particularly if there is math included.
Two of my friends just submitted their thesis as well, written in MS Word. They probably spent half their time fixing incorrect figure numbers, footnotes and problems in the table of contents. And forget about adding an MS Word file to a versioning system in any meaningful way, or easily breaking up the document into smaller files.
What is more, I submitted my examination copy of the thesis in single-spaced format to save paper. For the final copy one-half or double-spaced is required. In LaTeX this is as difficult as changing one line in the pre-amble of the document. In MS Word this is likely going to be a week of getting all the figures positioned "just right" again.
I can understand that people outside of comp sci aren't particularly taken to LaTeX, but I'd rather shoot myself than having to write my thesis in MS Word.
LaTeX is anything but past its expiry date, especially in academia. Properly used LaTeX will always produce superior typesetting than any office suite. Almost everyone in academia has a mcahine capable or running Office. The rest have machines capable of running openoffice. Many universities are site-licensed with Office. Yet LaTeX persists because people in academia find that it fits their needs better. The office suites are poor editors, and they don't support version control in any meaningful manner.
Yes, I have struggled through change tracking and document merging. Compared to writing a document with several co-authors at different locations and using something sane, like git, the tools you advocate are essentially non-functional. Now I know you're making shit up. Even vim has spell checking built in these days. And I've never met a grammar checker which didn't suck.
LaTeX doesn't do revisions. Those are much better served by a revision control system. I've also worked with the versioning features of a word processor. The half-asses word processor ones suck. They've all agreed, after the fact, that it wasn't a good plan. Ohh, dear people please listen to this man! Please listen and give an end to the madness of the 2GB. We convert everything to Adobe PDF, and the documents are guaranteed to look exactly the same on all systems, unlike MS docs, which are always a line or two off when opened on another computer.
That's not a feature. Try doing business with people who use metric paper sizes when you work in US sizes or the reverse. You can work around it, but all of a sudden your document isn't the same both places. Acrobat has had an option "fit to page" in its printing dialogue for at least 10 years. It'll scale the page by a few percent.
Exactly the same pagination. No problem unless you have some critically sized diagrams. I'm in country that almost universally uses A4 paper. Yet most of the digital documents I get are sized "Letter" because that's the fucking default in Microsoft software and most people just accept that when installing.
The question though in this case isn't "what does it take to run office" so much as "what does it take to run any application in Windows 7 or Windows 8? Essentially all the recommended system specs are saying is.
It is stupid to relate just what the program needs. That doesn't tell an average user anything. It should spec in terms of what the whole system, with OS and all, should have to run well. Now they are all bit apps and anyone who knows about the Windows memory model knows this means they won't be designed to use more than 2GB of RAM themselves under normal circumstances. So why the recommendation then?
Well they are counting on using most of that 2GB, so they want to make sure there's plenty left over for the OS, virus scanner, IM, Steam, and other things people might have running. The program itself may only need 2GB allocated to it to run ideally, but it won't get 2GB of memory unless the system has a good bit more. So makes sense to me you do things like Office in the same way. Also it makes sense to not be stingy on recommendations.
Something I always hated back in the day was games that were under on their recommendations. Said game would need like a 50MHz and 4MB to really run properly. Well we shouldn't do that. It should be spec'd in terms of a reasonable usable minimum, and a recommended that is actually good performance. Well, for bit 7 I'd say 2GB is a realistic minimum.
With that, you can run the OS and an app or two reasonably well. It's also not very demanding. I have 16GB in my laptop just because why not? It bumped the cost hardly at all over 8GB. It's not that bad. I sincerely doubt Word is much worse.
MS Office is like the Madden games -- every couple years we fork over money for an updated version, but football itself didn't change in the interim. I saw a Windows tablet at Staples the other day when I was picking up my Nexus 7. It's about twice as thick as any other tablet on display.
I wonder why that is. My guess: thermal insulation Corporate IT will not have a problem skipping this upgrade cycle, and will be richer for it. No upgraded licenses to pay for to Microsoft, no new training required for users, and everybody is happier except for the Microsoft people, of course.
Precisely why would Microsoft Office need DirectX? Maybe a really awesome animated book report? A graphics processor helps increase the performance of certain features, such as drawing tables in Excel Preview or transitions, animations, and video integration in PowerPoint Preview.
Use of a graphics processor with Office Preview requires a Microsoft DirectX compliant graphics processor that has 64 MB of video memory. These processors were widely available in Most computers that are available today include a graphics processor that meets or exceeds this standard.
However, if you or your users do not have a graphics processor, you can still run Office Preview. Also it would seem the requirements are rounded to the nearest 0. It's because they had to rewrite the UI to deliver a high framerate with almost no latency. No seriously. And it actually is rational.
When you're scrolling in something for instance with a mouse wheel it just moves in increments and you don't detect any lag. If however you attempt to scroll through a list with your finger and it trails behind a half second it will feel sluggish and weird.
There are a number of phone and tablet apps I've used that have this lag and it's really annoying. If they wa. Ubuntu seems to be doing their best to take the worst "features" of windows, macOs and linux and combine them into something worse than any of them. If I look back from to now, I can only shake my head in disbelief.
Vista not being compatible is suprising to me, but XP support being dropped is acceptable. Who still running XP would actually be paying for Office ? Oh please. XP is going to turn 11 when that thing comes out. It is time to move on and it is rediculous to keep supporting it. It is not a simple matter of a recompile either.
Businesses will stop using it if no one writes software just like we still would be using IE 6 if Google didn't refuse to support it for docs and youtube. Then afterwards facebook and others chimed in and poof the users went away kicking and screaming but upgraded to Firefox or IE 7 or later.
On the one hand it does sound marketing based on account of the fact that 7 and Vista are similar so you are right, little technical difference. On the other hand it still requires support. If you officially support it you have to go and test everything on another two platforms bit and bit. This means regression testing on all the patches and all that jazz with it.
It adds a non-trivial cost. Given that Vista never achieved much market penetration and most Vista users went to 7 when it came out, I can see just thinking it isn't worth the money and hassle to support it. Remember that for MS support can't mean "Will probably run but might have problems or break shit we haven't tested it.
So I can't say what it was and it may have been purely marketing, but I can see a valid reason as well. I am a little bit surprised that Vista will not be supported. I expect Vista just never had the market penetration to be worth the aggravation. But really, who cares? Open Office actually I prefer Libre Office since 3.
The only reason for Microsoft Office is cross compatibility with other MS Office users but it has been a few years since Open Office failed me in that regard. And even then, the sender did not actually need anything that Open Office didn't do. They used MS Office "just because.
I'd suggest that people run a more modern operating system than Win XP, but LibreOffice will even run on Windows ! LibreOffice system requirements [libreoffice. Honestly, although I have access to newer versions of Office, I don't see the point. Not a single thing I want from a newer version of Office, and the bloating hardware requirements makes it that much easier to just say NO DOC files as well, only those with no clue are saving Word files as.
0コメント