Talk:Microsoft PowerPoint/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Criticisms Again[edit]

The criticism section should be removed, as they are discouraged under wikipedia guidelines. Most of the criticisms themselves are not necessarily criticisms directed at Powerpoint, but presentatiojffff general. Consider moving to Presentation software.

  • It is used to guide and reassure a presenter, rather than to enlighten the audience;

This is a prime example - This is not specific to powerpoint

  • Unhelpfully simplistic tables and charts, resulting from the low resolution of computer displays;

Openoffice Impress and Keynote will also suffer here

  • The outliner causing ideas to be arranged in an unnecessarily deep hierarchy, itself subverted by the need to restate the hierarchy on each slide;

Not just powerpoint

  • Enforcement of the audience's linear progression through that hierarchy (whereas with handouts, readers could browse and relate items at their leisure);

Not just powerpoint

  • Poor typography and chart layout, from presenters who are poor designers and who use poorly designed templates and default settings;

This isn't powerpoints fault. Should all presentation software be banned because some people can't design?

  • Simplistic thinking, from ideas being squashed into bulleted lists, and stories with beginning, middle, and end being turned into a collection of disparate, loosely disguised points. This may present a kind of image of objectivity and neutrality that people associate with science, technology, and "bullet points".

Keynote also uses bullet points as default.

  • Every slideshow made usually ends up looking like everybody elses due to the provided templates for slideshows.

I disagree. Most companies make their own templates, which PowerPoint makes pretty easy.

Matt-thepie (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. There have always been bad presentations, and overhead transparencies typed with typewriters and copied on black&white copiers were even worse. As presentation consultant Jerry Weissman points out: If you have an illegible handwriting, would you blame it on Mont Blanc company? --Ute-s (talk) 11:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
moving it means losing publisher refferences. isnt better to let user chose it by a brief summary review? i hoped to do a free frontpage publishing for the www.yahoo.com/188.25.49.106 (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms Section[edit]

The criticisms section is non-neutral POV. Someone fix.

Misc[edit]

131.109.43.30 18:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC) The adjective powerpointy does not apply only to PowerPoint presentations. It applies to anything where gloss > substance. You are hiding it in here. It is no more part of PowerPoint itself than fontitis is part of Microsoft Word.[reply]

Also, the history of the concept of a PPFZ is interesting in itself, and shows corporate culture differences.

Finally, the issue of whether advertising, gloss, persuasion technolgoies, are a problem in themselvse is not going away, and requires more articles not less.

Restore the original article, please. If you feel it's unbalanced, balance it.

But it is not part of a descripton of PowerPoint as such. All there should be here is a link.


Since powerpointy is only tangentially related to PowerPoint, I agree that an article about it should not be merged with an article about PowerPoint, not even with an article about presentation software. branko

The link to David Beatty leads to a person who died 1936, he can't be identical with the mentioned professor. Who knows more? Ute-s 19:01, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

NPOV issues here. The article is decidedly anti-slideshow and in particuar anti-powerpoint. Jeff Anonymous 23:23, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Ok, fixed I think. The criticisms aren't any shorter, but they're all attributed now. And I removed the quote from "Cathy Adams" because Google hardly knows her, and there's no apparent reason to include her opinion and not the opinion of the other sixty squillion college-level computing teachers.
However, I still very much doubt that "Jim Gray" is Jim Gray. -- Mpt 14:11, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nice re-write. Much better.

The very worst thing about Powerpoint is that it is such a dreadful distraction. It's really difficult to concentrate properly on what the speaker is actually trying to say when you are constantly being distracted by stupid (or even sensible) images. I think it reduces your "effective IQ" during a lecture by ... oh .. about one-third. Assuming that I'm not the only person to have ever noticed this, has anyone ever done a study to investigate it? Put numbers on it? If not, there is a phD for a psych major there for the taking. ;) Tannin 14:21, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Will a History major do? I just, uh, "rested my eyes" through a History lecture because I knew the PowerPoint slides were going up on the Web shortly thereafter. The rest of the class were complaining that the slides were going by too fast for them to copy.
Meanwhile, "Jim Gray" appears to be James Gray, a communications coach in Toronto. Wikipedia's quote can't be backed up on the Web, but it may be from the 2003-06-11 Toronto Globe (the quote was added two months later). EntmootsOfTrolls, is that where you got it from? If so, what makes James Gray important enough to be in this Wikipedia article while the world's other sixty bazillion communications coaches with opinions on PowerPoint are not? -- Mpt 00:26, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Ok, that quote's been removed, but even with that and my rewrite, the article's still very dodgy. The History section has been copied almost verbatim from an excellent New Yorker article, and then it jumps straight from PowerPoint 1.0 to talk in depth about PowerPoint XP, and then it makes no mention of PowerPoint 2003. And "David Beatty" still isn't David Beatty. -- Mpt 11:45, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

The Powerpoint for Max logo is from an old version of Microsoft Office for Mac. Could someone replace it with the one from the current version.

The PowerPoint for Mac logo is updated, I took this from the 2004 version. I plan to update this again once Office.Mac 2008 is released. Achiu31 (talk) 02:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been updated to the 2008 icon. Ordeith (talk) 04:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Whats new in PowerPoint 2003 ?[edit]

Anyone know how is PP 2003 different from the previous versions ? I could not find any info on the Microsoft website. Jay 16:01, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


One big (good) difference is that in PPT 2003, you can have entrance and exit animations, in previous versions, exit effects were not possible. Also, many functions such as custom animation, slide transition, clip art, clipboard, slide layout and so forth appear in a task pane instead of a dialogue box, which was the case in previous versions. (I don't really like this.) Also, the overall "look" has changed, of course, you would expect minor visual changes between versions, just like windows 2000 doesn't look the same as windows XP. --Kormerant 03:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Projectitis[edit]

Does anyone know of any 'cultural impact' stuff on Microsoft Project, in the spirit of Edward Tufte? I'm trying to expand Problems with project management software.

Mkoval 17:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't, but if I were cleaning up that article I would rewrite the bullet points as real paragraphs, and I would remove the recommendations section. Rhobite 01:27, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

VFD?[edit]

Is this just vandalism? If not, then why? Aidan 11:19, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

According to the last edit, it seems it was just vandalism. Aidan 11:20, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Include S5 link?[edit]

If we're including links to other presentation programs, the HTML+CSS+JavaScript library known as S5 by Eric Meyer (and colleagues) should probably be in there:

http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/tools/s5/

Removed Office Links[edit]

I removed the links to Outlook, Access and Word because they add no information. --Jasy jatere 14:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PPT format[edit]

There's no mention of the PPT format. (Is it open/closed, and maybe where is reference documentation available.) -- Felix Wiemann 18:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why have 'Microsoft' in the title?[edit]

Since the program didn't originate with Microsoft, and in common parlance there's no other thing called 'PowerPoint', why have the (IMHO, superfluous) Microsoft moniker in the article title? --moof 06:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Microsoft's product, PowerPoint. 165.21.154.109 18:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usage Of Powerpoint For Art Purposes[edit]

I have been using Microsoft Powerpoint in almost all my designs/vector artworks and I think it's essential to mention that this program is a very good tool for Vector Graphics and other Object-Based graphics.

I would like to show you a couple of Vector artworks (not too fancy) I made over the Powerpoint. And until this day, I keep discovering the amazing potentials within this software. I might disagree with the Criticism of it lacking the ability to make the presentations far more 'interesting' than normal basic ones.

Search in, and you'll find your way through to a good reliable program for either Presentations or Vector/Objects graphics.

Here are works completely done using Microsoft Powerpoint:

Or these other ones, done by me - Using MS Powerpoint (published on Deviantart)


I hope these are enough to show that Powerpoint is capable of handling vectors. (Though it is a vector-based program, but never used for art/graphical purposes). Omernos

All these links are broken. Your point is not made. --Tustin2121 (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

software concept[edit]

Name:Ceferino E. Cases Jr. Major Proj.#:1 Yr & Sec: I-Rose Date:03/04/06 Lesson:#2 Teacher:Mrs.Galura 

                      Software Concept

Summary:Soft refers to all instructional programs and data that are both execut - able and readable by the computer that stores or uses them. Software have many uses some categories are publishing,design,research,embedded software and busi-ness application. Some software help run the computer system by controlling hard ware components,while others help users perform different tasks. There are software which teach and inform,help to build,create,and solve complex problems. 

Software can be free,shared,or used for general usage and special requirements.Bold text'

Broken link[edit]

The link at at the end of the Cliff Atkinson sentence is broken. Olin 22:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does 2003 trash earlier animations?[edit]

Subject line says it all really - is there some compatability issue so that 2003 trashes animations done in XP (2002)? Or vice versa perhaps (one of those gotchas like you work on it in 2003 and take it back to 2002 and it's broken?) If anyone knows about this it would be a useful part of the article. Thanks. 138.37.199.206 17:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are no differences in animation between versions 2002/xp and 2003 and no compatibility issues. Animations changed from version 2000 to 2002, old presentations can be shown in newer versions of PowerPoint. Issues arose because with PowerPoint 2002 the old PowerPoint Viewer 97 was delivered, which could not display the new animations. But as a new version of the Viewer is available for free since 2003, this is not worth mentioning in the article. --Ute-s 19:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Positive cultural effects?[edit]

This section badly needed to be removed. Powerpoint can be used for good or bad. NPOV doesn't require artificially creating two sides to every argument. This section shows nothing that could not be done in any good office presentation or slideshow software, or more easily done with better software. This is similar to artists producing elaborate artwork using only mspaint, an amusing challenge but by no meansa positive cultural effect. The article ends with a quote that entirely punctures any notion of powerpoint having postive cultural effects

"Quite frankly, I have to side with Tufte on this one," Guterman said. "Byrne thinks it's funny that this tool exists, and he wants to play with it. Tufte is going for the jugular. But they both in different ways understand that PowerPoint is a broken tool." http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/12/30/byrne.powerpoint.ap/

Microsoft PowerPoint[edit]

give me definitions about microsoft powerpoint

Here's the only definition of Power Point (which is what you asked for) that you need. Power Point (N.)-The brand name of slideshow (or presentation, same thing) application that happens to be owned by Microsoft and included in the Microsoft Office package along with Word, Excel, and Entourage. Is that helpful? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Career Uses?[edit]

What kind of careers use, and are based on powerpoint?--131.109.43.30 18:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Doctors, astronaughts, business, lecturers etc. They are mostly for presentations purposes.Cocoma 05:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up[edit]

I know you MS haters need a criticism section in all MS articles, but this one is horrible. I am removing it until I or someone else comes up with something that makes even a slight amount of sense. I read this section twice and I still don't understand what the author was trying to get across other than some people saying they don't like ppt. Those aren't critisisms, those are opinions. And is this section trying to blame the columbia shuttle disaster on ppt??? rediculous... --Nytemunkey 17:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I reinstated the columbia part, the discussion is about the concept of slide shows and hasn't got anything to do with hate of microsoft but about how presentations are given and what effect powerpoint as the most popular presentation software has had.. if you read the sources correctly you would see that nasa itself invited the expert to look at its communication procedures..

Romanista 15:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mac Version[edit]

There is barely any version of the mac versions of PowerPoint past the history even though there have been mac versions even after Microsoft bought the program. I added in history for the mac versions, although it may need some clean up. Also, can anyone who knows more about the mac version put information about them into the article or even gather its icons? The windows version has this but the mac version lacks it.--BaRiMzI 20:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New material about PowerPoint history[edit]

Some new material on the history of Microsoft PowerPoint which might be useful

The Wall Street Journal, June 20, 2007; Page B1
Portals column by Lee Gomes
"PowerPoint Turns 20, As Its Creators Ponder A Dark Side to Success"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118228116940840904.html [1]
(this link to the column is at least temporarily free and open to non-subscribers)

Gomes includes links to sites listing some early PowerPoint development papers etc

Robert Gaskins personal home page
http://www.RobertGaskins.com/ [2]

GBU Wizards of Menlo Park website
("Archives of ... the people who created PowerPoint at Forethought Inc. and at the Microsoft Graphics Business Unit ... 1984-1994.")
http://www.gbuwizards.com/ [3]

Salamandrine 23:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Prewar Planning" criticism has no place here[edit]

The criticism to US's use of PowerPoint is largely irrelevant to the software itself. Even if they used beautifully made Word documents projected on a wall, the effect would be the same. The paragraph deserves no more than a sentence referring to the idea that presentation programs often get abused. --169.200.78.18 22:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Tufte's critism is enough imo. 219.74.23.131 12:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i said that the power point are very absolute —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.136.66.47 (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:PPT1.jpg[edit]

Image:PPT1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New CACM article with material on PowerPoint history, Dec 2007[edit]

"PowerPoint at 20: Back to Basics" by Robert Gaskins

Communications of the ACM, Volume 50, Issue 12 (December 2007), Pages 15-17, ISSN:0001-0782.

PowerPoint at 20 (full text PDF 63 KB)

PowerPoint at 20 (full text HTML 15 KB)

PowerPoint at 20 (CACM citation only)

Salamandrine (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:PowerPoint Icons 2.png[edit]

Image:PowerPoint Icons 2.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PPT Format[edit]

The formats PowerPoint saves in should be mentioned. The only comments are about the PowerPoint Show formats (such as pps.). Formats such as pps, ppsm, ppt, pot, and so on should have a section? Should I add it or not? Comments? Emprovision (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Add them. Dvferret (talk) 01:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did so (some user had already put in the XML-based formats when I came back, but I added the Macro-Enabled formats).--Emprovision (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot[edit]

Hi guys, how do you capture the image that the Aero Glass Border/Form is also transperent. thx,86.32.62.49 (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look for a program called Windowclippings. -/- Warren 02:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism Section Pointless[edit]

The criticism section has criticisms about users and programs in general and nothing specific about PowerPoint. It needs to be removed. Dvferret (talk) 01:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "cultural effects" section should include some mention of the accusations of negative cultural effects which received wide coverage about five years ago ( http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/ppt2.html etc. etc.). If it's discussed at Edward_Tufte#Criticism_of_PowerPoint, I don't see why it can't be discussed here... AnonMoos (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PowerPoint Poisoning[edit]

Just wondering, does anyone else think that including "PowerPoint Poisoning" in the article would be a good idea?

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=powerpoint+poisoning&start=0&sa=N
http://reinout.vanrees.org/research/papers/presentations/powerpoint_poisoning.gif/view

Scott Adams coined the phrase, and it is widely used in the business community.

HagenUK (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear sentence[edit]

"the difference in needs and desires of presenters and audiences has become more noticeable."

What does that mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oconnor663 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

e-Learning Coordinating Centre Kenyatta University —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.204.161.116 (talk) 07:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Encyclopædia Britannica article about PowerPoint[edit]

The Britannica now has an editorially-verified article about PowerPoint:

Microsoft PowerPoint. (2009). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved March 09, 2009, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1491611/Microsoft-PowerPoint[4]

--Salamandrine (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdote[edit]

Prior to general use of office computers in the US Army, we used to have a Soldier with a military occupational specialty of Illustrator within the Battalion or Brigade Operations (S3) section. His job was to prepare briefing graphics and run the duplicating machines. To assist the Illustrator, he had a large, complex drafting kit full of specialized pens, pencils, compasses, rulers, etc. This position, and the drafting kit, began to be deleted from the Tables of Organization and Equipment around 1990. The Army's assumption was that Harvard Graphics and Power Point would be the replacement and allow anyone to do their own graphics. Of course, the unintended result was that we increased the amount, and size, of briefings and the associated pain that goes with it all. On some Army staffs, an Officer who is competent with Power Point is more valued than one who can actually plan missions.[Ref: Author's experience as junior officer]206.112.75.238 (talk) 15:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PowerPoint Viruses[edit]

I think it would be a good idea for someone to create a new section regarding PowerPoint viruses. Here's an article from a few years ago on the subject. [5] I'm under the impression that there have been many exploits over the years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Zimmerlin (talk • contribs) 00:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mac version image[edit]

This image is way too small. I do not have a mac and would wish to see what the interface looks like so I might understand what a client is describing. Can someone fix this?— Supuhstar * § 01:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bold text this image is way too small.i do not have a mac and would wish to see what the interface looks like so i might understand what a client is describing.can someone fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.91.174.207 (talk) 02:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interactive story[edit]

I'm making this Interactive story game,is Power Point good for making this?~74.163.16.27~-Tailsman6767 of Sonic News Network and others

Irrelevant; please put that on your Facebook Status instead. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What?~74.163.16.27~-Tailsman6767 of Sonic News Network and others

Merge from Death by PowerPoint[edit]

The AfD for Death by PowerPoint resulted in "Merge", but it seems to have been turned into a redirect with only one short sentence added to this article. To preserve the sourced content of the other article I have copied it over into this article, from the version of 22:25, 13 November 2011. It may now be "Undue weight", but can be trimmed more reasonably from a total merge than from almost-total deletion. PamD 08:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MICROSOFT OFFICE POWER POINT[edit]

IS IT FREE TO USE?and is the download safe?does it cost?ANY MONEY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.161.235 (talk) 06:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New book: Sweating Bullets: Notes about Inventing PowerPoint[edit]

Sweating Bullets: Notes about Inventing PowerPoint

Robert Gaskins

Published by Vinland Books, 20 April 2012

ISBN: 978-0-9851424-2-1

Library of Congress Control: 2012936438

Paperback 6" x 9", 512 pp., US$17.99, £9.99, €12.99

Book Pages at Amazon (U.S., U.K., France, Germany)

Looking at the web, it appears that many other booksellers, in many countries, already offer the book as well.

The author has apparently put up a PDF containing the whole book for free download:

The US Amazon.com page says:

"Book Description Publication Date: April 20, 2012

PowerPoint was the first presentation software designed for Macintosh and Windows, received the first venture capital investment ever made by Apple, and then became the first significant acquisition ever made by Microsoft, who set up a new Graphics Business Unit in Silicon Valley to develop it further. Now, twenty-five years later, PowerPoint is installed on over one billion computers worldwide.

In this book, Robert Gaskins (who invented the idea, managed its design and development, and then headed the new Microsoft group) tells the story of its first years, recounting the perils and disasters narrowly evaded as a startup, dissecting the complexities of being the first distant development group in Microsoft, and explaining decisions and insights that enabled PowerPoint to become a lasting success well beyond its original business uses."

"Editorial Reviews

About the Author

Robert Gaskins invented PowerPoint, managed its design and development as a startup for three years, and then headed the new Microsoft PowerPoint business unit in Silicon Valley for another five years. He has written this book to commemorate the twenty-fifth anniversary of PowerPoint."

Sandroses (talk) 06:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Power Point 3.0 running on Windows 3.1.GIF Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Power Point 3.0 running on Windows 3.1.GIF, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 2 June 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Power Point 3.0 running on Windows 3.1.GIF)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Updating 2010 icon to 2013 icon[edit]

File:Microsoft-PowerPoint-2013-Icon.svg

I hope someone can update the 2010 icon with the new 2013 version when the time is right.
The new icon is at: File:Microsoft-PowerPoint-2013-Icon.svg
Zywxn |  07:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Unix-like OSes[edit]

Looks like there's something to discuss. The article says that MS PowerPoint runs on Mac and Windows. For two times (mine being the second) users added that PP runs on other operating systems as well. The first edit was reverted with a comment "a lot of things can run in Wine, but that doesn't mean it should be in the wikipedia article for all of them", the second one was reverted for being an "indiscriminate fragment", basically meaning the same thing. So all attempts to complete an otherwise incomplete list end up being labelled 'indiscriminate fragments'.

I looked at how wikipedia defines indiscriminate collections of information and I do not see how my edit fits this definition. Was is a "summary-only description of works"? No, it was not. Was it a "lyrics database"? Not even close. Was it an "excessive listing of statistics"? No, no statistics, tables, data lists whatsoever. Instead, it was an attempt to round up the existing information and present a complete list of operating systems that can run MS PowerPoint. Was the edit useless? Not at all, it is useful for people running Unix-like operating systems (which is a lot of people!). Is it irrelevant? No way, it is relevant for any software.

Why was it deleted then? If it is all about the form, the specific wording etc., then please help me put it right and don't revert it. Or is it just because someone does not what the users of wikipedia to know that they can run MS PowerPoint without having to buy MS Windows???

Vitalie Ciubotaru (talk) 14:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, there is a version of PP designed to run under Windows, & a version designed to run under the Mac OS. Wine is apparently an application which aims to allow Windows software to run on Unix-like operating systems. Wine has its own article, and it doesn't seem reasonable to mention it specifically in the article of every software application designed to run under Windows. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not all software designed to run under Windows will run under Linux or other Unix/Unix-like OS, so it not "every software application", it is not a self-evident thing, as people try to present it. Wine is not the only way to run Windows applications outside Windows, so it's not about Wine either. It is a normal practice to enumerate the platforms (OS and architecture) a piece of software will run on. There's nothing unreasonable in providing an exhaustive list to the readers of Wikipedia. Moreover, by providing an incomplete list we make the reader think that this software will not run on anything else. Vitalie Ciubotaru (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi.
Please look out for your computing-related Collocation errors when contributing to the article itself. (I see collocation errors here but we have no strong mandates in talk pages.)
I am aware of the technical points that you mentioned above, but obviously in looking at WP:INDISCRIMINATE you have only looked at the three examples of indiscriminate information provided and ignored both the lead and the chain Wikipedia policies. The lead section reads: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources."
So, first have you supplied a source? No. Second, does your sentence match the context? No. While the lead section gives an overview of the two distinct editions of the product, your sentence suddenly adds a very technical detail about one of the editions (the Windows edition) which has very weak connection to PowerPoint itself but a very strong connection to another subject, Wine. This piece of detail has a lot of missing connection. Is PowerPoint designed to run on Wine? Is it supported by its license agreement? Why Windows version and not the Mac version? Can't it run on Wine on any other OS? Most important of all, why is it important to say that it can run on Linux on Wine? (A source and supporting prose need to prove that it has due weight for PowerPoint subject.)
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. A lot of questions/remarks here. I will try to address all of them.
1. My 'colocation-related errors'. I agree that my expressions might contain collocation errors. Did anyone tell me to correct them? No. Did anyone correct them? No. Instead, you reverted my edit.
2. Sources? I agree that I did not provide sources. Did anyone request that my statement be supported by sources? No. Did anyone add sources? No. Instead, you reverted my edit.
3. Technical details. I agree that my edit was technical. Did anyone help make it less technical? No. You preferred to revert my edit.
4. Weak connection with PowerPoint. This is simply not true. My edit was explicitly about PowerPoint.
5. Strong connection with Wine. Not true, again. I explained this in my previous comment (above).
6. <Is PowerPoint designed to run on Wine?> To run on an emulator, software does not need to be specially designed, so this question is meaningless. If a piece of software does not run on an emulator, you have a bad emulator. The reality is that PowerPoint runs well on several emulators.
7. <Is it supported by its license agreement?> I don't see how your question is related to my edit.
8. <Why Windows version and not the Mac version?> Because nobody cared to write an emulator for the Mac version :-)
9. <Can't it run on Wine on any other OS?> Of course, it can. The answer to your question was in my edit. Did you not read it before reverting?
10. <Most important of all, why is it important to say that it can run on Linux on Wine?> My edit expressly stated that PowerPoint can run on Unix-like operating systems (which is a lot of OSes), including Linux. The topic of the section of Talks says the same thing. So the answer to your question is: It is important to say that is runs on many operating systems (not just Linux) and on many emulators (not just Wine).
Now my question. I want to complete the article about PowerPoint so that it contain a mentioning of the mere fact that this software runs on many operating systems. I want to do it in the most 'wikipedian' way possible. What shall I do? Any help, advice and actual editing work is very welcome. Peace. Vitalie Ciubotaru (talk) 13:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Edits that violate Wikipedia's fundamental policies like Wikipedia:Verification, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Consensus are reverted without mercy. Apart from that, it seems you obviously have trouble understanding context and the difference between rhetorical questions and normal questions. You have a long way of learning ahead of you. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you obviously did not answer my question :-) Vitalie Ciubotaru (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PowerPoint Hell[edit]

I'm not sure that the section saying "The effect on audiences of poor PowerPoint presentations has been described as PowerPoint hell" at the end of Cultural impact belongs here. There are no citations about it, and someone easily could have made it up. Dietcoke3.14 (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RE: criticisms throughout the ENTIRE article:
I may be in an edit war with Codename Lisa, but the criticisms about PowerPoint are entirely subjective, not objective, and therefore do not belong on Wikipedia. And the suggestions to "improve" PowerPoint presentations often involve other software, which is simply promotion of other companies' wares--totally inappropriate.
Mainly, though, I agree with what is said above: it is ridiculous to blame boring presentations on PowerPoint itself. Should we write an entire section in the Wikipedia article on books that books are boring because some authors are boring and terrible? I find that I now have to remove an entire section later in the article as inappropriate if she finds that the little inappropriate bit in the beginning must be there because it references the inappropriateness below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weyesr1 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 22 August 2014
Hello, Weyesr1. That's not an edit war ... yet. (You don't seem to be interested in conflict and you took remedial action... sort of.) I have no strong feeling about the subject itself so, as long as you remove both the body material and lead elements related to it, it is okay in my book.
Now, one side note: Please do not post under talk threads that are years old. (You can still refer to them.) Also please make sure you sign your message by inserting four tildes (~~~~) at the end.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 01:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Microsoft PowerPoint. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Microsoft PowerPoint. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Power point image[edit]

I have an image that compares Power Point 2000 and 2016's pop-up windows for opening up a presentation made in Power Point 95, and the image focuses on the windowsthat appear. Can I post that image? --OrangeMooch17 (talk) 03:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this right?[edit]

"Indications of this awaremess included increasing mentions of PowerPoint use in the Dilbert comic strips of Scott Adams," Here, is the word "awaremess" a new word or a spelling mistake (ps.. let me know on my talk page) Mohamed Naufan Ali Nifaz (talk) 11:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Microsoft_PowerPoint/Archive_1&oldid=1131563469"