4 ms·
Came to say the same. The vast majority of these were superseded by new products or their feature set was absorbed by other tooling. Back office was one of the
by salmo 5y ago
Came to say the same. The vast majority of these were superseded by new products or their feature set was absorbed by other tooling. Back office was one of the worst examples. It became baked into Windows Server except Exchange.
I’m no fan of MS, but they tend to err on the side of overextending support and backwards compatibility. I would have killed Works 10 years before they did.
And some of these are just failures. I still have my MS Bob floppies, but come on.
- AstroJetson 5y agoI liked Works. It ran on much less hardware than the Office Suite did. The much lower cost was a big deal too. The reduced feature set was never a big deal, it's not often that I need to put reverse video blink in a Word doc to be printed.
- mbreese 5y agoIt was probably too much overhead to support Works. You’d still need an engineering team to support Works, and it wasn’t a big money maker. Much better to put some Office features behind a compiler/licensing flag and support one product with different “home” and “professional” SKUs. But I kinda wonder the same thing about Apple’s Pages/Numbers/Keynote. I’m not sure the overhead to maintain those ultimately is worthwhile. It makes me think back on the old ClarisWorks or FileMaker setup where you ostensibly had an external company that made the product, but it was an Apple subsidiary. They could then offer the product for multiple OS’s. I’m not saying that business model was all that successful, but is there a place for an MS works in the time of Google docs?
- blagie 5y agoLibreOffice >> Works. Just sayin'