[calstraycat]

The review (technically a preview; see below. --ed) of Office 2004 lacks information on two critical features that hinder acceptance of Macs into the enterprise space. What I'd like to know is whether the new version has a fully-featured, fully-compliant MS Exchange Client and does it support long file names. All the clever new features are worthless unless these two deficiencies are addressed.
Does anyone have any information on these issues?

[d00d]

Review? Where? Macworld has only published a preview. Macworld doesn't review things until they go full version (which if I remember correctly, Office will be this summer).

[calstraycat]

OK, so it was a "preview" and not a "review":
http://www.macworld....e2004firstlook/
I suppose MacWorld had to sign some non-disclosure agreement and were only allowed to reveal certain aspects of the new version. MS has begun to advertise the product and let journalists have a go at it, but are staying mum on the two most important features required to put it on par with the Windows version. That's not a good sign. Who knows. Maybe they'll surprise us.

[molitors]

I too am wondering what's going on with Office 2004. This latest preview doesn't add any new info from what we've heard at the Macworld. Seems to me that Office 2004 is full of eyecandy without any real meat behind it.
For example:
1) Does PowerPoint support advanced animations first introduced in Office XP? Right now, I can't play those at all under OS X.
2) What about XML export?
3) What about InfoPath?
Seems to me that Office 2004 for Mac is nothing more than a toy, personal, version of Office without any enterprise options. Quite useless and outdated, indeed. After it comes out and if it doesn't support any of these features, I'll be using PC version with VPC instead.

[Jon Seff]

In reply to:

---

I suppose MacWorld had to sign some non-disclosure agreement and were only allowed to reveal certain aspects of the new version.

---

It wasn't a question of what we were allowed to reveal--Microsoft only briefed press on certain features, and did not hand out any betas of the software. All we had to go on was what MS provided.

[Grant_G]

Jon, I have just a wee problem with that. Because it implies that you've given MS a bunch of free publicity based on only THEIR take on THEIR new product. Preview/review? I would feel better if you would stick to your guns -- and stated aim -- of not reviewing any product until you receive a shipping version; and please add the letter 'p' to the beginning of that word.
G

[Jason Snell]

But that's just it, we didn't review it. People want to know what's in the next version of Office; we got to look at a preview version of the app and wrote about it. We will write about it more when it comes out, and we will review it then, too. But ignoring Office isn't the answer. People care about it, and want to know what's coming.
And if we were non-disclosed on more information about Microsoft Office 2004, we couldn't tell you we were. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif
But rest assured, we will answer ALL the key questions about Office 2004 when it comes out. This was just a "preview." (And for the record, because of our deadlines this story was written before Macworld Expo -- although it came out afterward due to the time it takes to make magazines happen.)

[Grant_G]

Fair enough, Jason. But how about a disclaimer of some kind when you don't, as Jon stated, get any actual hands on touchy-feely of the product and must instead rely entirely on the manufacturer's hype. I didn't read the entire article, but I did scan it and I also read David Leishman's editorial in the MacCentral Weekly newsletter. Both made me feel like you actually "played" with Office, not that you watched someone else demo it for you. What am I missing?
G

[Grant_G]

Cough, choke, chortle. The lead item in this week's Macworld Weekly newsletter's MACWORLD REVIEWS section is (gasp) "Office 2004: First Look."
G

[Jason Snell]

we will identify the guilty party and have them executed at dawn.

[d00d]

Will it be webcast?

[molitors]

Jason,
Please, please compare it to Windows Office 2003! Please tell us how it compares to it and whether it has ANY of the enterprise critical options. Don't just go into eye candy... does it fade toolbars etc. those features are quite useless. Please review it from advanced users' point of view and how it compares to Office for Windows.
Thank you!

[Nobody]

In reply to:

---

Please, please compare it to Windows Office 2003!

---

I second that! I would definitely love to read about this. Please consider it, Jason.

[Jason Snell]

we're definitely talking about it.