Microsoft Office XP has been listed as one of the
Engineering and technology good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: March 11, 2018. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
re:"...successor to Office 2000 and the predecessor to Office 2003..." Microsoft 'Office XP' is version 10 and also called 'Office 2002'.
--
Boldklub-PJs (
talk) 18:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
It has not been determined or documented if Microsoft Office XP 2002 is supported by the Windows 7 operating system —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.212.41 ( talk) 13:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
is this compatible with windows 8? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.247.18.145 ( talk) 18:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
User:IanWilliam20, your massive removal of content in this diff was misguided. Every single point was cited, but in some cases as a combination of two references. This is not WP:SYNTH, because it is ironclad logic: if something is noted as being removed between Office 2000 and 2003, but not XP and 2003, the only remaining possibility is that it was removed between 2000 and XP as there were no other releases in that period.
I did like your expansion of the remaining points, though. If you could restore the missing ones in a similar way as soon as possible, it would be much appreciated. Modernponderer ( talk) 22:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Enterprisey ( talk · contribs) 04:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I'll review this. This will be my first GA review, so I will be asking for additional opinions on WT:GAN at various points. Enterprisey ( talk!) 04:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
From the first two read-throughs, this article reads well and looks like it covers the topic thoroughly. I've put comments on specific sections below.
I'll get to the rest of the article later. Enterprisey ( talk!) 05:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I am sorry if this is not how one should discuss such matters, but I wanted to address your comments before it became much later. I have edited portions of the article as per many of your comments. Unaddressed issues with the article that were reflected in your comments are discussed below. ( IanWilliam20 ( talk) 02:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC))
Thank you! ( IanWilliam20 ( talk) 02:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC))
Enterprisey has agreed for another reviewer to finish this review as it's been sitting for so long; I'll take it on. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 16:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I saw above that you weren't sure what the best way was to respond to the reviewer's points -- it's entirely up to you, but a common approach is to interleave your responses with the review bullet points. If you sign each comment then each point becomes its own thread and it's easy to see what's addressed and what is not.
During this period Office 10 was characterized as an interim release between its predecessor, Office 2000 and a future version, and would include new formatting options...: suggest "and was planned to include".
I went through the points Enterprisey raised above, and all of them seem to be fixed or adequately addressed in the replies. The article's prose isn't very fluid, but it's hard to write engaging prose about a technical topic like this. I think this meets the GA standards; once the minor points above are fixed I will promote it. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 19:46, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Codename Lisa, I hope that all is well for you. I just wanted to discuss the edit that was made to the Microsoft Office XP article. You stated that the ".NET strategy" is not to be confused with the .NET Framework, but the article I referenced specifically refers to this technology (e.g., "Next Generation Windows Services" was the codename for the .NET Framework). Additionally, several aspects of what is described (e.g., web services) were a major initiative with the technology at one point in time. As such, I also do not feel that it was misplaced to include a link to the framework in that section of the article. I hope to discuss this with you! ( IanWilliam20 ( talk) 17:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC))
It goes without saying that .NET Framework is none of these, especially, the cross-platform thing. ( .NET Core is cross-platform though.)[...] a layer of software that runs on both servers and client machines. It provides an environment for all kinds of client devices to access services that live on the Web or on enterprise servers, according to Microsoft. The company said .Net will work on Windows and other operating systems, although it didn't specify which ones or when they would be supported.
[...]
For end users, .Net provides a sparse, browser-like user interface without any menu bars. A key concept in the new user interface is the "universal canvas," which Microsoft said eliminates the borders between different applications. For example, spreadsheet and word processing features will be available inside e-mail documents. .Net also will support handwriting and speech recognition, the company said.
One of Microsoft's longstanding problems has been explaining exactly what .Net is. Early on, the software titan failed to clearly articulate its .Net strategy, leading to customer and partner confusion, analysts say.
[Gartner analyst David Smith] said Microsoft was making no technology change with the name change. "It's purely a branding issue," he said. "They've had a lot of problem explaining .Net. Putting .Net on products in a willy-nilly way only exacerbates the problem. They've certainly been guilty of that, and this is a way of policing that."
Can someone explain why we show older versions of office, like this one running on newer OSes rather than their respective era OSes? For example, the screenshot should show the main 4 office programs running on Windows XP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.138.48.74 ( talk) 11:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Microsoft Office XP has been listed as one of the
Engineering and technology good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: March 11, 2018. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
re:"...successor to Office 2000 and the predecessor to Office 2003..." Microsoft 'Office XP' is version 10 and also called 'Office 2002'.
--
Boldklub-PJs (
talk) 18:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
It has not been determined or documented if Microsoft Office XP 2002 is supported by the Windows 7 operating system —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.212.41 ( talk) 13:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
is this compatible with windows 8? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.247.18.145 ( talk) 18:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
User:IanWilliam20, your massive removal of content in this diff was misguided. Every single point was cited, but in some cases as a combination of two references. This is not WP:SYNTH, because it is ironclad logic: if something is noted as being removed between Office 2000 and 2003, but not XP and 2003, the only remaining possibility is that it was removed between 2000 and XP as there were no other releases in that period.
I did like your expansion of the remaining points, though. If you could restore the missing ones in a similar way as soon as possible, it would be much appreciated. Modernponderer ( talk) 22:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Enterprisey ( talk · contribs) 04:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I'll review this. This will be my first GA review, so I will be asking for additional opinions on WT:GAN at various points. Enterprisey ( talk!) 04:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
From the first two read-throughs, this article reads well and looks like it covers the topic thoroughly. I've put comments on specific sections below.
I'll get to the rest of the article later. Enterprisey ( talk!) 05:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I am sorry if this is not how one should discuss such matters, but I wanted to address your comments before it became much later. I have edited portions of the article as per many of your comments. Unaddressed issues with the article that were reflected in your comments are discussed below. ( IanWilliam20 ( talk) 02:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC))
Thank you! ( IanWilliam20 ( talk) 02:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC))
Enterprisey has agreed for another reviewer to finish this review as it's been sitting for so long; I'll take it on. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 16:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I saw above that you weren't sure what the best way was to respond to the reviewer's points -- it's entirely up to you, but a common approach is to interleave your responses with the review bullet points. If you sign each comment then each point becomes its own thread and it's easy to see what's addressed and what is not.
During this period Office 10 was characterized as an interim release between its predecessor, Office 2000 and a future version, and would include new formatting options...: suggest "and was planned to include".
I went through the points Enterprisey raised above, and all of them seem to be fixed or adequately addressed in the replies. The article's prose isn't very fluid, but it's hard to write engaging prose about a technical topic like this. I think this meets the GA standards; once the minor points above are fixed I will promote it. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 19:46, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Codename Lisa, I hope that all is well for you. I just wanted to discuss the edit that was made to the Microsoft Office XP article. You stated that the ".NET strategy" is not to be confused with the .NET Framework, but the article I referenced specifically refers to this technology (e.g., "Next Generation Windows Services" was the codename for the .NET Framework). Additionally, several aspects of what is described (e.g., web services) were a major initiative with the technology at one point in time. As such, I also do not feel that it was misplaced to include a link to the framework in that section of the article. I hope to discuss this with you! ( IanWilliam20 ( talk) 17:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC))
It goes without saying that .NET Framework is none of these, especially, the cross-platform thing. ( .NET Core is cross-platform though.)[...] a layer of software that runs on both servers and client machines. It provides an environment for all kinds of client devices to access services that live on the Web or on enterprise servers, according to Microsoft. The company said .Net will work on Windows and other operating systems, although it didn't specify which ones or when they would be supported.
[...]
For end users, .Net provides a sparse, browser-like user interface without any menu bars. A key concept in the new user interface is the "universal canvas," which Microsoft said eliminates the borders between different applications. For example, spreadsheet and word processing features will be available inside e-mail documents. .Net also will support handwriting and speech recognition, the company said.
One of Microsoft's longstanding problems has been explaining exactly what .Net is. Early on, the software titan failed to clearly articulate its .Net strategy, leading to customer and partner confusion, analysts say.
[Gartner analyst David Smith] said Microsoft was making no technology change with the name change. "It's purely a branding issue," he said. "They've had a lot of problem explaining .Net. Putting .Net on products in a willy-nilly way only exacerbates the problem. They've certainly been guilty of that, and this is a way of policing that."
Can someone explain why we show older versions of office, like this one running on newer OSes rather than their respective era OSes? For example, the screenshot should show the main 4 office programs running on Windows XP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.138.48.74 ( talk) 11:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)