MS Office 2003 programmed to delete? 1

[MakeItSo]

Check this out:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/ZDM/office_2003_commentary_pcmag_040322.html

It's about Office 2003 deleting old MS SOftware on installation.
I would call this malicious injury of property, wouldn't you?

What do you think about this?

Andy

 

[Rhys666]

I've done a complete install of Office 2003, and during it, it asks whether it should remove/leave previous versions. I asked the installer to leave them, and it did. But this wouldn't be the first time I've seen someone rush through an install of a big(ish) product, not read what's being asked of them and have it do something they didn't actually want.

My opinion: User error

Rhys
"When one burns one's bridges, what a very nice fire it makes" -- Dylan Thomas
"As to marriage or celibacy, let a man take the course he will. He will be sure to repent" -- Socrates

 

[MakeItSo]

it asks whether it should remove/leave previous versions

I know. But (excuse this question, but I've never used Photo Editor) if you do a complete install and remove old versions, you still have Word, Excel, Access after the installation.
But if a product like Photo Editor has been completely removed from the bundle, shouldn't the user explicitely and separately be warned of this circumstance before removing the program?
This is not an upgrade, but a replacement and should thus be handled differently.

Of course this certainly was a user error - but one with tacit acceptance by MS - or should I say intended?

I consider this very bad practice...

 

[Rhys666]

Can't really debate that, though it probably wasn't intentional. My experience suggests that we're almost always needing to produce applications for the lowest common denominator in terms of user ability, but that's almost impossible in reality because you'd be handing out crayons and paper (at least in the case of some people I've had to deal with)

Rhys
"When one burns one's bridges, what a very nice fire it makes" -- Dylan Thomas
"As to marriage or celibacy, let a man take the course he will. He will be sure to repent" -- Socrates

 

[BabyJeffy]

Judging by the tone of the article, I would imagine at this stage the author would be more than happy with both crayons and paper *grin*

Jeff

 

[Stella740pl]

Rhys666,

I didn't install Office 2003,
but is it possible, that the question whether to remove previous versions pops up only if you do a Complete or Custom install, and the author did Typical?
That's what most users do, especially those not technically inclined.

 

[Stella740pl]

After reading some of the comments to the article, especially those that seem competent, I've come to the conclusion that you are right and it must have been user error. Many of them.

Which doesn't clear MS completely, though.

Stella

 

[Stevehewitt]

RTFM.

Don't want the standard - MS give you a customisable option which is clearly stated.

Are some people so dumb that they can't read the screen options during a installer wizard?!

Steve.

 

[Dimandja]

Stevehewitt: "Are some people so dumb that they can't read the screen options during a installer wizard?!"

Yes, of course.

But, would a "non-dumb" person fail to notice a microsoft feature?

Yes, of course. Microsoft software instructions can be mind-numbingly unfathomable.

Dimandja

 

[MakeItSo]

Agreed.
And mind you: this was just an upgrade. Why would a "normal" user want customized installation when simply upgrading a standard-installed Office version?

This is not about a full install from scratch.

 

[rfr100]

If they purchased an upgrade copy of Office it will remove/upgrade the previous version.

Therefore making it appear 'deleted' to the user.

Or have I gone mental ?

 

[MakeItSo]

You haven't, rfr100.
The problem here is not with Office components being upgraded to the higher version, but with one component being replaced with a completely different one.

Have you taken a look at the link mentioned in the article?
In

http://pubs.logicalexpressions.com/Pub0009/LPMArticle.asp?ID=298

, there a obviously more experienced user tells you, he's been taken in too.
I always do custom install, since I need several versions of singular Office components installed parallelly (especially Word: 95,97,2000,XP,2003)
So I never experienced special "features" like this.

However, if I think about the old co-installing Access 97/2000 Problem...
-->

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;241141

M$ thinks of something to amuse/astonish/unsettle the user...

 

[rfr100]

Oh well, at least Im not going mad.
MS does have a KB article letting you know how to put Photo Editor back though - not that it makes taking it without warning ok !

Not wanting to defend MS but surely they have the right to add/remove components from their software as they see fit. It does tell you on the box what will be installed ! Maybe they should add a bit telling you 'what's new/what's going away' ??