Talk:Microsoft Office 2010

message: I've installed office 2010 x86 and x64 editions on Windows XP Professional x64 Edition and it works flawless. updates included.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.69.69.72 (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations.  Pitty it's original research. 86.184.24.140 (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Office 2010 does not support Windows XP Professional x64 Edition

message: Other versions of Microsoft Office have had Wikipedia pages from their inception, including Microsoft Office 12 (now Office 2007) which had content as early as September 2005.  There is a significant amount of information from well-regarded Office experts about Office 14, and although few official details are available, I think there is enough to keep this article as a stub. White 720 19:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Microsoft employees posted some information about the retail pricing of office 2010 today.
The versions and prices seem not to match what is listed in the article.
I already added a new citation to the table of edition... On the linked website one can find a table with the prices and below it a link to a .doc file with more information.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.2.154.219 (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Versions and pricing 

message: There are two versions of this article, Microsoft Office "14" and Microsoft Office 14. "14" is shorter, but contains the original source of the data (a link to AeroXperience, aeroxp.org, with an article written by Stephen Chapman.) 24.211.230.92 00:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two versions 

message: How sad is that, its still the 13th version, there is nothing they can do about that!
:Actually it's not the 13th version; Office 3.0 was the first Windows version, followed by 4.0, 4.3, 7 - 12, and now 14. Stannered (talk) 09:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: first Windows version != first version. I'm pretty sure those other versions exist. At least internally. 71.155.241.19 (talk) 07:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The version history of Office is actually extremely strange. If you consult the Microsoft Office article, you will find it goes 1.0, 1.5, 1.6, 3.0, 4.0, 4.3, 7 - 12, 14. So as it turns out Office 14 is in fact the 13th Office but not because Microsoft likes counting normally. Orizon (talk) 04:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Strange conclusion, Orizon. There are only two jumps in the version numbers here: (1) Between 4.3 and 7; (2) between 12 and 14. Both have good reasons: (1) Parity across the components; (2) Customers' tendency to avoid 13. Both of these reasons are financially/commercially justified. Fleet Command (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not calling it 13 

message: Info about the MDM app in Office 14: Mary Jo Foley, PatricG --soum talk 15:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: Not to be mistaken with Machine Debug Manager. Fleet Command (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Master Data Management 

message: The referenced release date for Office 14 is based on this story.  that is a blog, quoting another blog. Blogs are not suitable as references according to WP:SPS. That this one quotes another blog is a problem. Both of which fail WP:FUTURE as they are discussing a release day of a yet to be released application. While looking for a release date I have yet to find a new site that lists a date. The closest are like this one  that say that office 14 "ships at an unstated date in the future" AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release date based on a Blog? 

message: Now that it has been confirmed that Windows 7 will be called Windows 7, what official word is there about this MS Office version's official name?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As also noted down the page it will be called Office 2010. --Farthen (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official name confirmed?? 

message: Why was this  from Microsoft Office 14 to Microsoft Office 2010? Microsoft refers to the product as "Office 14" (and on many Microsoft blogs), and so does every other language Wikipedia (IT, NL, PL, RU, simple). I suggest to move it back. Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be the citation in the first sentence, at . The links you provide were all released prior to the article referenced. The other Wikipedias simply haven't been updated with this new information. Stannered (talk) 12:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name

message: Hey everyone,
I don't remember where, but one Microsoft developer who was blogging about OneNote's future Ribbon Interface in Office Ten did this:
For some reason, he had a screenshot of the Office 14 apps in the Win7 start menu, with the names "Microsoft Office (XXX)14, and the Aero Theme inplemented.  However, all of the screenshots of the actual programs were in the "Windows Classic" shell...
My question is why anyone would take screenshots of MS Office 14/2010 in the Windows Classic Theme under Win7... looks messed up, and is it me, or did the uploader want MS Office to look ugly?
FInally, the "Developer" seemed to have no idea what a button in the Quick Access Toolbar did in OneNote... weird when he claims to be a OneNote developer!
We should be careful not to listen to unreliable sources about Office 14...
Also, please try to obtain screenshots of Office 14 that show the actual colour schemes included, thanks.
Tangmeisterjr (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As of my information there is only one color scheme available in the technology preview and two "placeholders". --Farthen (talk) 12:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenshots and Proper naming 

message: Happen to have a source for the "30-day expiration"?
From what I can tell, it expires on November 31, 2010. Jrdaigle1000 (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm quite certain that's incorrect, as November has 30 days :P --Resplendent (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expiration Date 

message: Office 2010 will come in 32-bit and 64-bit versions of the Windows software. Office 2010 can updated from office online.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.10.99 (talk) 07:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version 

message: Rather than continuing to revert each other's edits, let's discuss whether or not the size of Office 2010 belongs in the article.  I would say no for the following reasons:
* There's no official release, and therefore no official size.
* Other Office pages do not list the size, despite their official release, because there are many different versions (and languages).
* Is the size the installed size or the image size?  The install size changes based on operating system and pre-installed software.  Image size changes because of different language packs, and, since it's still in alpha, on whatever build is the most current.
Just because your version is a certain size, doesn't mean that that's everyone else's.JeffyP (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The ISO file that I received was 674 MB and the actual programs unpacked were 797 MB. I am also using Microsoft XP OS and using both the English and French language versions (which are the same in size).Alex (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is that the the size of your ISO (which I don't argue with), doesn't mean that it's the official size.  In fact, I can guarantee you that since it's still in the alpha phase, internally, they have newer releases that are a different size. (btw, thanks for fixing my notes.  I have a large screen, and didn't think about it being annoying for other :P) JeffyP (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Do you agree that there are certainly other versions of this program that are different sizes (even if they haven't been leaked to the public).  If so, then there's no way we can put the size in the article.  And I'm open to arguments if you think there aren't. JeffyP (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of Office 2010 

message: Could anybody check if this link is appropriate or simply an unnecessary promotional microsite and a better page could be found? This unusual link on Wikipedia was mentioned here: .  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shane.Halloran (talk • contribs) 11:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to 'MicrosoftOffice - the Movie' 

message: How about telling the reader what day Office 2010 will be released rather than teasing him by telling him an up-to-the-day countdown can be found somewhere at office2010themovie.com? - Josh (talk | contribs) 21:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release date? 

message: I removed a link that someone included refering to this software being linked on July 12, 2009. The URL was not a reference site but actually a download. I'm sure it won't be the last time someone tries to put a link to hacked software on this article!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snoh8r (talk • contribs) 17:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspicious Link 

message: Any word on Office having regular expression yet? Imo, the one reason you'd want to use OpenOffice over it. --96.56.249.74 (talk) 12:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regex 

message: Any particular reason why 'Mac OS X' underneath the comparison table links to Office 2008 for Mac rather than the more intuitive Mac OS X? In my opinion, the phrase 'Mac OS X Version' should be the wikilink if one is wanted to an article on Microsoft Office for Mac, and it should go to Microsoft_Office#Macintosh_versions as the 2008 suite probably isn't what most people are looking for.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.91.105.174 (talk) 09:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikilinks 

message: I'm sorry, but if I open the Microsoft Office 2010 Official Website, I get different logo (see here). Notice the arrow-pointed shape of the inner edge and lack of the "four square". Is this the official new logo or what?
--Malikussaid (talk) 07:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Logo 

message: Office 2010 is not going to be appearing on Mac OSX; Office 2011 will be appearing on the system.  Can OSX be removed from the listed operating systems on this page?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpkondas (talk • contribs) 22:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Operating System 

message: Since RTM is now here, the article needs cleanup for tense and some of the prophecies about what the product might someday be need to go, so some such material simply needs to be cut. Could anyone pitch in and help out?CecilWard (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now needs major cleanup for tense 

message: Microsoft has released the RTM version of Microsoft Sharepoint Designer 2010 to the web for free. See http://sharepoint2010.microsoft.com/product/related-technologies/Pages/SharePoint-Designer-2010.aspx Thljcl (talk) 08:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The final RTM version number has been confirmed

message: Should statements of fact such as "includes extended file compatibility" be backed up by citations that refer to Microsoft's press releases? I thought that citations had to be from independent sources that are not just dedicated to the subject matter. — PhilHibbs | talk 10:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations in Microsoft press releases 

message: I couldn't find anything that suggests it's a special license. Primexx (talk) 02:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Office Professional Academic 2010 

message: Check the revision and see for yourself. Article needs fixing.
The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits; if you wish to undo the change, it must be done manually. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Microsoft_Office_2010&diff=369187533&oldid=369172338  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.30.46.28 (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, you needn't go through all the trouble of manual reversion. You should have just reverted to the last good edition, undoing its edits all in a row. Fleet Command (talk) 06:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edited: languages, years 

message: You know, I really think that low-res images are fine for movies and posters, but anything other than pixel-perfect screenshots of computer programs is almost useless, because one can't make out any of the icons or text. It would almost be better to keep it exact-resolution, but only focus on a small part of the screen, if the issue is that a screenshot can't be too big. At least you could see something that way. Esn (talk) 13:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia Non-Free Content policy mandates screenshots to be of a resolution that gives adequate quality without being unnecessarily large. The existing images, judging by their fair-use rationales seen in their description pages, are of such quality. There is no need for higher resolution images.Now, I know that (1) you'd rather have full resolution pictures and (2) Microsoft license for the pictures perfectly authorizes such a resolution. However, this here is Wikipedia (an encyclopedia which disappoints many) and does not accept full resolution images.Sorry.Fleet Command (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me but what you say is blatant nonsense. These screenshots aren't of adequate quality becuase you can see almost nothing on them. Such screenshots are perfectly useless. And since when does Wikipedia not accept full-size screen shots? Look in many software related articles and you'll find big screen shots. I haven't got the slightest idea what makes you think that Wikipedia doesn't accept them. --Maxl (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, yeah? Tell that to Wikipedia: Non-free content criteria policy; that's what says image should be low res, not me. Go ahead and upload whatever resolution you wish; the one who's going to downsize it won't be me.Fleet Command (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Screenshots being low-res

message: There was some obvious vandalism on the date a couple months ago that slid through the radar, it previously said 2006; just a note. Ryan Norton 09:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Development started in" note 

message: Greetings, everyone.
While I try to assume good faith, I cannot shake off the strong suspicion that the asserted list of languages in which Office 2010 is supposedly available contains fake entries.
Please provide source for it. Remember, in Wikipedia, everything must have a source: Unreferenced material are challenged or deleted. Fleet Command (talk) 18:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't write that, but did just that, nearly all check out; in fact there may be some missing even. Ryan Norton 19:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No source for supported languages 

message: Hi, can anyone find any information on Office 2011's file format support? I can't find it anywhere, I think it'd be good for the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackster (talk • contribs) 07:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Office 2011 ODF Support? 

message: Currently, both Office 2010 and 2011 are discussed at this page. Shouldn't they be split up?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.118.103.217 (talk) 12:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate lemma for Office 2011 for Mac 

message: Is is said in the article that "A notable accessibility regression from 2007 is that the menu button no longer follows Fitts's law" if the WP entry for Fitt's Law is correct it appears that the law is a calculation, so ok, Fitt's law might show that the menu is worse to use than the 2007 version but is it fair to say the menu no longer follows the law?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DancingGerbil (talk • contribs) 11:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fitt's Law 

message: Is it known if Office 2011 will run on Tiger or not? Barleycorn (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  10.4.11 Compatibility 

message: The graphic/table and article leave out an important piece of information. The Standard, Professional, and Professional Plus editions of Microsoft Office 2010 have a different version of Outlook than the Home and business edition. The Home and Business version of Outlook does not contain the Business Contact Manager application as part of Outlook.
This is a rather big difference and it is not well documented in some of Microsoft's own charts comparing versions of the product.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.83.10 (talk) 06:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The graphic about the different versions is incorrect. 

message: The article says Microsoft Lync and Communicator are included in Microsoft Office 2010. Well, that's wrong. We have Microsoft Office 2010 Professional Plus installed on our network but I don't see Microsoft Lync or Communicator in it. An by the way, if Lync comes with Microsoft Office, then why it is available as a freeware download? Well, then I say there is something wrong with the source. We need a better source. Fleet Command (talk) 07:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I found concrete source for Lync being included in Microsoft Office 2010. So, I re-added it to the article. Fleet Command (talk) 05:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of Lync and Communicator 

message: Did they discontinue it or something or did they just not put it into office 2010 because it still has the Office 2010 style and logo on the Visio article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.105.84 (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Like always it is part of Microsoft Office family, although but not part of any Suite. (Like always, you must purchase it separately.) Same goes for Project. Fleet Command (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Viso 2007 was also a standalone product. Available in Standard or Professional edition, needs a product key and a setup disc on its own. Its not even included in the "ultimate Edition" of Office 2007 nor in the "Enterprise Edition" for corporations. I have a technet account and access to all the products, and it is listed as standalone for all the 2003,2007 and 2010 Office System packages.  94.220.77.231 (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I said the same thing. What's your point? Something that I don't get it? Fleet Command (talk) 09:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visio's not a part of any Office 2010 edition? 

message: Professional edition is available OEM, we just bought an OEM copy. The 'Table of Editions' needs updating to reflect this, but I'm not sure how to edit it.  Update: actually the license appears to be called 'Product Key Card' license. However, the terms appear to be the same as OEM ie needs to be installed on a new PC. Either way, table needs updating.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.113.30 (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Professional Edition licensing 

message: Reference #41 has a dead link. It should be http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/microsofts-office-2007-team-wants-in-on-web-2-0/194.
I tried to edit the references section but the editor window contains only three reference entries not the 50+ that this article has. 
What am I missing?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyfiend2000 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Didn't encounter any problem at all. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glitch when trying to edit references 

message: Some animations were removed in PowerPoint 2010. For instance:
*Entrance
**Color Typewriter
**Compress
**Crawl In
**Ease In
**Flash Once
**Fold
**Glide
**Light Speed
**Magnify
**Random Effects
**Sling
**Stretch (brought back in PowerPoint 2013)
**Thread
**Unfold
*Emphasis
**Blast
**Change Font
**Change Font Size
**Change Font Style
**Color Wave
**Style Emphasis
**Vertical Highlight
*Exit
**Collapse (brought back in PowerPoint 2013)
**Color Typewriter
**Crawl Out
**Ease Out
**Flash Once
**Fold
**Glide
**Light Speed
**Magnify
**Random Effects
**Sling
**Stretchy
**Thread
**Unfold
Maybe this could be added? 2601:8B:4000:CD80:5CE6:D5A0:1F57:6A66 (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  PowerPoint Animations 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Microsoft Office 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091119004049/http://geeksmack.net:80/microsoft/810-microsoft-office-2010-public-beta-bits-available-on-msdntechnet.html to http://geeksmack.net/microsoft/810-microsoft-office-2010-public-beta-bits-available-on-msdntechnet.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The page is badly garbled but it is readable. Fleet Command (talk) 10:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The release dates year displays as 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.135.51 (talk) 14:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for vigilance! :) Fleet Command (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong release date for Service Pack 2 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Microsoft Office 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140202204646/http://www.microsoft-office-2010.com:80/? to http://www.microsoft-office-2010.com
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Would someone please reassess this article based on the criteria of the quality scale?  (IanWilliam20 (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: . Usually, you should do it yourself. If anyone disagree, he or she would revert you. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I must say that I prefer outside assessments rather than my own assessments. One could say that I am biased, for example, and I do not desire this. (IanWilliam20 (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality scale reassessment 

message: The language of this installation package is not supported by your system. in windows 10 223.224.6.236 (talk) 07:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The language of this installation package is not supported by your system. in windows 10