The Future is Here: Times Computers Upgraded to MS Office 2003!
One year after the New York Times moved into its shimmering new tower, the paper is ready for a dramatic software upgrade. Welcome to Microsoft Office 2003! The brand newish software was installed in the third-floor newsroom last night, and the culture department on the fourth floor is on-deck for tonight. The Times is also finally abandoning the old Eudora e-mail system for the mysterious but apparently very reliable "Outlook" e-mail. Memo, sent last night, follows:
Newsroom PC’s
After the final edition close each night this week, newsroom PCs will be upgraded from Office 2000 to Office 2003. This does not affect the Washington Bureau or anyone using a Macintosh.
In general, desks on the third floor will receive the upgrade tonight, the fourth floor Wednesday night and others Thursday night. On the night you are scheduled, please leave your workstation on at the Novell log-on prompt.
The new version of Office – including Word, Excel, PowerPoint and Outlook – is more stable, which should mean fewer Word crashes, and it prepares us for a move this summer to Microsoft Exchange and Outlook for e-mail.
The main difference you are likely to notice at the outset is cosmetic; the toolbars in Microsoft Word, including CCI, look a bit different. The functionality does not change significantly.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Not a surprise, the newsroom has been using Eudora and unix backend for well over 13 years. THis is so they never have to 'discover' email for the courts. Funny how the newsroom is moving to outlook and exchange but the rest of the business still uses LOTUS NOTES, the fattest email client in history.
From the tone of this post, you seem to think the NYTimes is way behind the times, and that they should have adopted the newer versions much sooner. You are completely wrong. There are so many costs associated with adopting newer software versions (I refuse to say "upgrade") in IT and training and just overall headaches, I would say the NYTimes is doing this exactly right. Except the move to Outlook is a horrible idea. And, whatever they do, they should avoid Word 2007 at all costs. It's not an upgrade at all, it's a new program with the same name as the older one, and doesn't offer any advantages, except maybe to the Microsoft executive whose staff came up with it.
Cutting edge, baby!
Oh no--an IT friend of mine calls Outlook "LOOKOUT"--If Microsoft products actually worked, worker productivity wouldn't be dropping in the U.S. (hope this link works--if not you can google U.S. worker productivity)
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:8Fk0jnmse9wJ:www.processor.com/arti...
My apologies. If posters read the instructions, they'd cut and paste the proper links. Google says to link or bookmark this page use this URL.
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:8Fk0jnmse9wJ:www.processor.com/arti...
I'm doubting Koblin is in IT. Stability and reliability is superior to the edition with the biggest number on the end. Word processing does not make significant advances from year to year, anyway.
I have tried Office 2000, 2003 and 2007 but I still use Office 97 as it is the most reliable. And Office 2007 jumped the shark, especially with switching Word to XML. Who's bright idea was that?