Talk:Microsoft Office XP

Release names
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)

Compatability with Windows 7
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)

Microsoft Office XP Professional
is this compatible with windows 8? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.247.18.145 (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed features
User:IanWilliam20, your massive removal of content in 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)


 * I will reinstate the missing points. I apologize for being misguided and for any inconvenience that this might have caused. (IanWilliam20 (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC))


 * User:IanWilliam20, as you haven't edited this article nor responded to my query on your talk page for some time, I plan to restore the missing entries myself soon. It would still be great if you could expand on them after that, of course. Modernponderer (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I am terribly sorry for being away for so long. I do have a question for you: When you write "expand on them after that" are you referring to the citation syntax? Additionally, I truly thank you for cleaning up after my errors in the article. I hope to, well, read from you soon. (IanWilliam20 (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC))


 * Not a problem. And I was originally referring to expanding the text, but please do feel free to make any other constructive changes you see fit. Modernponderer (talk) 12:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

.NET Strategy
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))
 * Hello,
 * "Next Generation Windows Services" was the codename for .NET Framework but it was dumped. That's because the nature of .NET Framework changed along the way. The source can give you an overview of what it was initially intended to be:"[...] 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." It goes without saying that .NET Framework is none of these, especially, the cross-platform thing. (.NET Core is cross-platform though.)
 * This whole story belongs to 18 years ago, when .NET Framework was supposed to be a framework for .NET. There was supposed to be a Windows .NET Server. There is a Visual Studio .NET too. And Microsoft Account was at the time called .NET Passport. Other server components like Exchange Server, SQL Server, Host Integration Server and ISA Server were supposed to be part of the .NET platform. Even there were reports of an MSN.NET being at work! (You have admit; that one is funny.) These sources tell you that Steve Ballmer explained the .NET strategy as one of Microsoft's most ambitious strategies, implying that Microsoft intended to connect all these in a very tangible way.
 * But Microsoft abandoned it all. By 2003, ".NET" had become a nonsensical branding instead of an ambitious strategy."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.'"
 * So, yeah, .Net strategy is far more extensive than .NET Framework.
 * Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding. I understand that the .NET Framework is (or was) not the strategy per se, that the strategy was more extensive than the framework (e.g., .NET My Services), and that the framework is not cross platform. I am also aware of the company's previous .NET branding incoherencies and tendencies (e.g., "Castle.NET" during development of Windows Vista), but the article itself states that the strategy pertained "Next Generation Windows Services" which, as discussed, was the codename for the .NET Framework. I would like to discuss this more with you, but I regrettably feel as though I am at an impasse. I do wish the Office XP article included a link to the framework and that it retains its "with what at the time was known as the ".Net strategy' [...]" wording but with capitalization (.Net -> .NET). The current wording is preferably very cautious so as not to imply that the framework was the strategy.(IanWilliam20 (talk) 02:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC))
 * Hello again,
 * It is actually far simpler than you imagine. The question that you must ask yourself is: Will linking to .NET Framework help people learn about .Net strategy? The answer is, unfortunately no. It doesn't matter how related they are; at the end of the day, the link would send people after a wild goose chase.
 * Of course, I am thinking maybe we can add a .Net strategy section to the .NET Framework article.
 * Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I see. I do like your idea about adding a strategy section to the .NET Framework article. If or when that happens, could the associated text in Office XP link to that section? Also, would you mind if I changed .Net to .NET in the current article? I know you said that permission is not necessary for edits, but you have been consistent in your use and I do not want to displease you. (IanWilliam20 (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC))
 * EDIT: I see that the strategy is a new article. Thank you! (IanWilliam20 (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC))

Weird Screenshots
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)
 * Hello
 * It was a dumb decision and I would have stopped it, had I noticed it in time.
 * I myself have neither Windows XP nor Office XP, so I can't replace the screenshot myself.
 * Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have a screenshot of Microsoft Office XP in what is apparently Windows 2000. Is that acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.124.64.163 (talk) 16:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
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)
 * OfficeXPWindows10.png