Microsoft's Decline Continues

On Oct 31, 12:20*pm, "impossible" <impossi...@nospam.net> wrote:
> > While you can understand that process for enterprise stuff like ERP or
> > specific strategic business apps, it does seem a little out of place
> > for stuff as mundane as desktop office suites.
>
> When you refer to desktop office suites as being "mundane", it's a dead
> giveaway that you're a blinkered techie with no understanding whatsoever of
> how real work gets done in most of the business world. *Little wonder that
> IT departments are so often relegated to implementing strategic business
> decisons made by others.

Yawn.

What is the board level strategic business advantage in dictating a
Office 2003 to 2007 upgrade? Should the board also dictate when to
upgrade the cellphones too? A board getting involved in low level
details like that isn't a sign of a well run organisation - it is
micromanagment at the wrong level.

Based on the observation that the few technical replies to anything
you offer here seem to involve VBA or desktop stuff, I can see how a
mundane Office upgrade probably would count as a strategic issue for
someone with your limited view.

And no I don't work in a IT dept (thankfully). But I do work with
people selling strategic enterprise solutions to executives that have
to bypass their shortsighted IT depts. And don't get me wrong, there
are also insightful IT depts out there too that do understand the
strategic issues too.

--
Cheers
Anton

AD.

On Oct 30, 9:13*pm, Nicolaas Hawkins <grumpy.m...@t.large> wrote:

> Welcome to my Nightmare!
>
> --
> - Nicolaas

Mine also. One of the companies I deal with have a third party vendor
app that absolutely must upgraded due to central Government reporting
requirements. They have absolutely no reason to upgrade to the latest
version of Office.

Simon

On Oct 31, 11:14*am, "AD." <anton.l...@gmail.com> wrote:

> While you can understand that process for enterprise stuff like ERP or
> specific strategic business apps, it does seem a little out of place
> for stuff as mundane as desktop office suites.


I disagree; there are many other third party apps that integrate with
only a specific version MS Office. We have recently had to upgrade the
back-end of a document archival product, so that the new front-end can
be installed that is compatible with the latest edition of MS Office.
What might seem as a relatively mundane Office suit upgrade, can spawn
a number of large server-side upgrades.

Simon

"AD." <> wrote in message
news:9f444d41-24fd-4d14-a3cd-...
On Oct 31, 12:20 pm, "impossible" <impossi...@nospam.net> wrote:
> > While you can understand that process for enterprise stuff like ERP or
>> > specific strategic business apps, it does seem a little out of place
>> > for stuff as mundane as desktop office suites.
>>
>> When you refer to desktop office suites as being "mundane", it's a dead
>> giveaway that you're a blinkered techie with no understanding whatsoever
>> of
>> how real work gets done in most of the business world. Little wonder
>> that
>> IT departments are so often relegated to implementing strategic business
>> decisons made by others.

> Yawn.
>

Yawn.

> What is the board level strategic business advantage in dictating a
> Office 2003 to 2007 upgrade?

The board will delegate these decisions to people who share the board's
strategic ambitions. I can assure you that anyone who considers office
productivity a "mundane" matter will have no role in the decision-making
process -- if they have a job at all.

> Should the board also dictate when to
> upgrade the cellphones too?

Sure, why not? Again, they would delegate this matter to people who share
the board's strategic ambitions. The selection of tools, no less than
employees, is a vital part of achieving success.

> A board getting involved in low level
> details like that isn't a sign of a well run organisation - it is
> micromanagment at the wrong level.
>

Only if you think office productivity is a "mundane" matter. How silly is
that?!

> Based on the observation that the few technical replies to anything
> you offer here seem to involve VBA or desktop stuff, I can see how a
> mundane Office upgrade probably would count as a strategic issue for
> someone with your limited view.
>

Your contempt for desktop tools is duly noted.

> And no I don't work in a IT dept (thankfully). But I do work with
> people selling strategic enterprise solutions to executives that have
> to bypass their shortsighted IT depts. And don't get me wrong, there
> are also insightful IT depts out there too that do understand the
> strategic issues too.

Youre a salesman, for heaven's sake. Don't pretend you have anyone's
stratgeic ambitons in mind but your own. So you'd prefer to peddle to techs
instead of business managers -- What a surprise!

impossible

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 04:01:33 +0000, impossible wrote:

>> What is the board level strategic business advantage in dictating a
>> Office 2003 to 2007 upgrade?
>
> The board will delegate these decisions to people who share the board's
> strategic ambitions.

That is his way of saying that he knows of no strategic business advantage to be gained by an average
business in (re)purchasing yet another newer version of MS Office "Pro" and installing that in place of
MS Office 2003 Pro on all its desktops.


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"

Carnations

On Oct 31, 5:01*pm, "impossible" <impossi...@nospam.net> wrote:
> "AD." <anton.l...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9f444d41-24fd-4d14-a3cd-...
> On Oct 31, 12:20 pm, "impossible" <impossi...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> > > While you can understand that process for enterprise stuff like ERP or
> >> *> specific strategic business apps, it does seem a little out of place
> >> *> for stuff as mundane as desktop office suites.
>
> >> *When you refer to desktop office suites as being "mundane", it's a dead
> >> *giveaway that you're a blinkered techie with no understanding whatsoever
> >> of
> >> *how real work gets done in most of the business world. Little wonder
> >> that
> >> *IT departments are so often relegated to implementing strategic business
> >> *decisons made by others.
> > Yawn.
>
> Yawn.
>
> > What is the board level strategic business advantage in dictating a
> > Office 2003 to 2007 upgrade?
>
> The board will delegate these decisions to people who share the board's
> strategic ambitions. I can assure you that anyone who considers office
> productivity a "mundane" matter will have no role in the decision-making
> process -- if they have a job at all.

You didn't answer the question (again). We weren't talking about upper
management approving a proposal or delegating a decision - it was
about dictating an upgrade.

What strategic advantage does upgrading from Office 2003 to 2007 give
a company? Can they enter new markets? Will it allow them to survive
the economic downturn? Does it give them new capabilities to outdo
their competitors? What does it allow the company to do that it
couldn't before?

Any incremental improvements an office suite upgrade gives are
operational, not strategic.

> > Should the board also dictate when to
> > upgrade the cellphones too?
>
> Sure, why not? Again, they would delegate this matter to people who share
> the board's strategic ambitions. The selection of tools, no less than
> employees, is a vital part of achieving success.

Again: Do you know the difference between delegating and dictating?

>
> > A board getting involved in low level
> > details like that isn't a sign of a well run organisation - it is
> > micromanagment at the wrong level.
>
> Only if you think office productivity is a "mundane" matter. How silly is
> that?!

Once you actually have office productivity, updating the tools to give
you a small incremental improvement is a mundane operational issue.
There is no strategic advantage in the upgrade.

Unless of course, as part of the upgrade the product vendor is
entering into a strategic partnership with you are you are getting
something else out of it. But those kind of things are usually only
done with early adopters, and Office 2007 is well outside that window
now.

> > Based on the observation that the few technical replies to anything
> > you offer here seem to involve VBA or desktop stuff, I can see how a
> > mundane Office upgrade probably would count as a strategic issue for
> > someone with your limited view.
>
> Your contempt for desktop tools is duly noted.

Uh oh, I've hit a nerve there.

>
> > And no I don't work in a IT dept (thankfully). But I do work with
> > people selling strategic enterprise solutions to executives that have
> > to bypass their shortsighted IT depts. And don't get me wrong, there
> > are also insightful IT depts out there too that do understand the
> > strategic issues too.
>
> Youre a salesman, for heaven's sake. Don't pretend you have anyone's
> stratgeic ambitons in mind but your own. So you'd prefer to peddle to techs
> instead of business managers -- What a surprise!

Huh? You not read so good. I'm not in sales, my point was who you
should sell to depends on what you are selling. Go to upper management
for strategic tools, and the operational people for operational tools.
No matter how much you squint an incremental office suite upgrade
isn't a strategic imperative.

--
Cheers
Anton

AD.

"AD." <> wrote in message
news:3f0d86d3-9062-4938-851d-...
On Oct 31, 5:01 pm, "impossible" <impossi...@nospam.net> wrote:
>"AD." <> wrote in message
> > > While you can understand that process for enterprise stuff like ERP or
> > >> > specific strategic business apps, it does seem a little out of
> > >> > place
> > >> > for stuff as mundane as desktop office suites.
> >
> > >> When you refer to desktop office suites as being "mundane", it's a
> > >> dead
> > >> giveaway that you're a blinkered techie with no understanding
> > >> whatsoever
> > >> of
> > >> how real work gets done in most of the business world. Little wonder
> > >> that
> > >> IT departments are so often relegated to implementing strategic
> > >> business
> > >> decisons made by others.
> > > Yawn.
> >
> > Yawn.
> >
> > > What is the board level strategic business advantage in dictating a
> > > Office 2003 to 2007 upgrade?
> >
> > The board will delegate these decisions to people who share the board's
> > strategic ambitions. I can assure you that anyone who considers office
> > productivity a "mundane" matter will have no role in the decision-making
> > process -- if they have a job at all.
>
>
> You didn't answer the question (again). We weren't talking about upper
> management approving a proposal or delegating a decision - it was
> about dictating an upgrade.
>

That's **your** take -- from a salesman's perspective. What can I say?

> What strategic advantage does upgrading from Office 2003 to 2007 give
> a company? Can they enter new markets? Will it allow them to survive
> the economic downturn? Does it give them new capabilities to outdo
> their competitors? What does it allow the company to do that it
> couldn't before?
>

All good questions. Which explains why the choice of desktop tools is far
from a mundane issue that can be left to techs.

> Any incremental improvements an office suite upgrade gives are
> operational, not strategic.
>

Is that your sales pitch?

> > > Should the board also dictate when to
> > > upgrade the cellphones too?
> >
> > Sure, why not? Again, they would delegate this matter to people who
> > share
> > the board's strategic ambitions. The selection of tools, no less than
> > employees, is a vital part of achieving success.
>
> Again: Do you know the difference between delegating and dictating?
>

I know that from the perspective of a salesman like you, anyone who says no
to whatever it is you're peddling ios a "dictator".

> >
> > > A board getting involved in low level
> > > details like that isn't a sign of a well run organisation - it is
> > > micromanagment at the wrong level.
> >
> > Only if you think office productivity is a "mundane" matter. How silly
> > is
> > that?!
>
> Once you actually have office productivity, updating the tools to give
> you a small incremental improvement is a mundane operational issue.
> There is no strategic advantage in the upgrade.
>
> Unless of course, as part of the upgrade the product vendor is
> entering into a strategic partnership with you are you are getting
> something else out of it. But those kind of things are usually only
> done with early adopters, and Office 2007 is well outside that window
> now.
>

You haven't got a clue what you're talking about. In my company, you
wouldn't even get to talk a tech.

> > > Based on the observation that the few technical replies to anything
> > > you offer here seem to involve VBA or desktop stuff, I can see how a
> > > mundane Office upgrade probably would count as a strategic issue for
> > > someone with your limited view.
> >
> > Your contempt for desktop tools is duly noted.
>
> Uh oh, I've hit a nerve there.
>

Yeah, right, salesman.

> >
> > > And no I don't work in a IT dept (thankfully). But I do work with
> > > people selling strategic enterprise solutions to executives that have
> > > to bypass their shortsighted IT depts. And don't get me wrong, there
> > > are also insightful IT depts out there too that do understand the
> > > strategic issues too.
> >
> > Youre a salesman, for heaven's sake. Don't pretend you have anyone's
> > stratgeic ambitons in mind but your own. So you'd prefer to peddle to
> > techs
> > instead of business managers -- What a surprise!
>
> Huh? You not read so good. I'm not in sales,my point was who you
> should sell to depends on what you are selling. Go to upper management
> for strategic tools, and the operational people for operational tools.
> No matter how much you squint an incremental office suite upgrade
> isn't a strategic imperative.
>

impossible

On Nov 1, 1:00*am, "impossible" <impossi...@nospam.net> wrote:
> "AD." <anton.l...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > You didn't answer the question (again). We weren't talking about upper
> > management approving a proposal or delegating a decision - it was
> > about dictating an upgrade.
>
> That's **your** take -- from a salesman's perspective. What can I say?

Nothing. Obviously.

> > What strategic advantage does upgrading from Office 2003 to 2007 give
> > a company? Can they enter new markets? Will it allow them to survive
> > the economic downturn? Does it give them new capabilities to outdo
> > their competitors? What does it allow the company to do that it
> > couldn't before?
>
> All good questions. Which explains why the choice of desktop tools is far
> from a mundane issue that can be left to techs.

So no actual answers there either eh?

> > Any incremental improvements an office suite upgrade gives are
> > operational, not strategic.
>
> Is that your sales pitch?

Still waiting....

> > Again: Do you know the difference between delegating and dictating?
>
> I know that from the perspective of a salesman like you, anyone who says no
> to whatever it is you're peddling ios a "dictator".

That's a pretty clumsy sidestep.

> > Once you actually have office productivity, updating the tools to give
> > you a small incremental improvement is a mundane operational issue.
> > There is no strategic advantage in the upgrade.
>
> > Unless of course, as part of the upgrade the product vendor is
> > entering into a strategic partnership with you are you are getting
> > something else out of it. But those kind of things are usually only
> > done with early adopters, and Office 2007 is well outside that window
> > now.
>
> You haven't got a clue what you're talking about. In my company, you
> wouldn't even get to talk a tech.

That's a relief. They probably wouldn't have any answers either.

> > Uh oh, I've hit a nerve there.
>
> Yeah, right, salesman.

heh

It seems your only area of expertise or self worth was threatened, and
you were so upset you couldn't actually form any coherent arguments
and had to resort to exceptionally weak abuse based on wildly
innaccurate assumptions.

Don't worry, I won't hurt your precious any more.

--
Cheers
Anton

AD.

"AD." <> wrote in message
news:6c030005-3af0-4bfb-9358-...
On Nov 1, 1:00 am, "impossible" <impossi...@nospam.net> wrote:
>"AD." <> wrote in message
> > > > While you can understand that process for enterprise stuff like ERP
> > > > or
> > > >> > specific strategic business apps, it does seem a little out of
> > > >> > place
> > > >> > for stuff as mundane as desktop office suites.
> > >
> > > >> When you refer to desktop office suites as being "mundane", it's a
> > > >> dead
> > > >> giveaway that you're a blinkered techie with no understanding
> > > >> whatsoever
> > > >> of
> > > >> how real work gets done in most of the business world. Little
> > > >> wonder
> > > >> that
> > > >> IT departments are so often relegated to implementing strategic
> > > >> business
> > > >> decisons made by others.
> > > > Yawn.
> > >
> > > Yawn.
> > >
> > > > What is the board level strategic business advantage in dictating a
> > > > Office 2003 to 2007 upgrade?
> > >
> > > The board will delegate these decisions to people who share the
> > > board's
> > > strategic ambitions. I can assure you that anyone who considers office
> > > productivity a "mundane" matter will have no role in the
> > > decision-making
> > > process -- if they have a job at all.
>
> > > You didn't answer the question (again). We weren't talking about upper
> > > management approving a proposal or delegating a decision - it was
> > > about dictating an upgrade.
> >
> > That's **your** take -- from a salesman's perspective. What can I say?
>
> Nothing. Obviously.
>

Ohhhhh...poor salesman. Another door slamnmed in your face? Hard to take ,
eh?


> > > What strategic advantage does upgrading from Office 2003 to 2007 give
> > > a company? Can they enter new markets? Will it allow them to survive
> > > the economic downturn? Does it give them new capabilities to outdo
> > > their competitors? What does it allow the company to do that it
> > > couldn't before?
> >
> > All good questions. Which explains why the choice of desktop tools is
> > far
> > from a mundane issue that can be left to techs.
>
> So no actual answers there either eh?
>

Can you not read, salesman?

> > > Any incremental improvements an office suite upgrade gives are
> > > operational, not strategic.
> >
> > Is that your sales pitch?
>
> Still waiting....
>

Well, is it?

> > > Again: Do you know the difference between delegating and dictating?
> >
> > I know that from the perspective of a salesman like you, anyone who says
> > no
> > to whatever it is you're peddling ios a "dictator".
>
> That's a pretty clumsy sidestep.
>

Actually, that was pretty much dead on. Not getting in the door to see the
decision-makers is the ultimate saleman's lament. You're angry that your
product doesn't amkle the cut -- I get that. But instead of taking at a
criticvall look at what you peddle, you instead blame the decison-making
process and the "dictatorial" deciders.

> > > Once you actually have office productivity, updating the tools to give
> > > you a small incremental improvement is a mundane operational issue.
> > > There is no strategic advantage in the upgrade.
> >
> > > Unless of course, as part of the upgrade the product vendor is
> > > entering into a strategic partnership with you are you are getting
> > > something else out of it. But those kind of things are usually only
> > > done with early adopters, and Office 2007 is well outside that window
> > > now.
> >
> > You haven't got a clue what you're talking about. In my company, you
> > wouldn't even get to talk a tech.
>
> That's a relief. They probably wouldn't have any answers either.
>

Yes, you're undoubtedly at your best when talking to yourself.

> > > Uh oh, I've hit a nerve there.
> >
> > Yeah, right, salesman.
>
> heh
>

Peddling products that no one wants -- How's that working for you?

> It seems your only area of expertise or self worth was threatened, and
> you were so upset you couldn't actually form any coherent arguments
> and had to resort to exceptionally weak abuse based on wildly
> innaccurate assumptions.
>
> Don't worry, I won't hurt your precious any more.
>

Don't leave on my account -- I'm enjoying this little exchange, salesman.

impossible

On Nov 1, 10:51*am, "impossible" <impossi...@nospam.net> wrote:
> Don't leave on my account -- I'm enjoying this little exchange, salesman.

Of course you would, endless twisting contradictions and silly name
calling without any real argument seems to be right up your alley. And
you've amply established that you don't have anything beyond that.

But unfortunately for your hobby, everyone else just gets too bored
with that. You'll have to go pick another one of your pointless
playground fights in another thread.

--
Cheers
Anton

AD.