| Click here to select a new forum. |
| Wow! o.O Expensive haul for $15!! |
Posted by: coius on 2009-01-23 12:01:59
I was at the local thriftshop where my mom volunteers at looking for keyboards (my last PS2 one broke a pin in the plug) and I found two keyboards and powercords for $5.36.
Then, since my mom works there, I got to go into the back with unprocessed stuff.
I was looking through the stuff, and found a NIB *UNOPENED* box of Microsoft Office 20003, and got it for 10 DOLLARS!
that's right, NEVER OPENED.
So for $15 total,
on top of that, it's a 3-machine license!!
Sweet!
|
Posted by: porter on 2009-01-23 13:49:57
I was looking through the stuff, and found a NIB *UNOPENED* box of Microsoft Office 20003, and got it for 10 DOLLARS! That's got 17994 years of bloat ware added to it. You do realise Moore's Law is exponential?
|
Posted by: Mike Richardson on 2009-01-23 16:31:35
I always like Office 19997 myself, but I have a soft spot in my heart for Word 55.11
|
Posted by: joshc on 2009-01-23 16:44:10
I always like Office 19997 myself, but I have a soft spot in my heart for Word 55.11 19997? 55.11?
Come on Mike it's only 2009. :lol:
|
Posted by: Dennis Nedry on 2009-01-23 18:37:41
Moore's "law" is a scam. It'll break down any time now.
It projects processes being smaller than an atom, and proceeds on to negative size which is obviously impossible.
|
Posted by: MrMacPlus on 2009-01-23 18:58:42
Fix yo' number keys Mike!
|
Posted by: iamdigitalman on 2009-01-23 19:00:19
ten dollars for a copy of office 2k3? That's $10 more than I paid for my copy. No, I did not pirate it, my school offers a free copy of 2k3 pro.
|
Posted by: Brooklyn on 2009-01-23 21:43:07
You could ebay that 2003 Office, they go for over $100.
|
Posted by: slimac55 on 2009-01-25 02:44:14
Wow, I'd love Office 2003 for $10. It's still (in my opinion) the best version of Office.
|
Posted by: MrMacPlus on 2009-01-25 10:00:17
Office 97 is my choice.
|
Posted by: coius on 2009-01-25 11:46:48
I went absolutely giddy when I saw it. I can't pass up a box of software like that. Especially when it's soooo cheap.
Glad i got it too 🙂
|
Posted by: Mike Richardson on 2009-01-25 13:49:53
You could ebay that 2003 Office, they go for over $100. That's what I did with a copy of Office 2003 I got out of the trash at CompUSA.
Personally I would use Office 97. It probably still runs fine on XP and Vista and I bet it's fast as hell. I don't need to read other people's files very often, but it would still create files that everyone else can read just fine.
|
Posted by: bluekatt on 2009-01-26 17:36:04
office 2000 is stil my office fo choice on the windows side
light enough to run on every pci throw it at new enough to be able to read most other files
office 2004 on the mac side of things
|
Posted by: Christopher on 2009-01-26 18:57:30
For me it would be Office 2004 for the mac, it has all the standard things needed, plus it has can have the XML converter.
Office 2003 because its the latest before it got all crapafied.
|
Posted by: defor on 2009-01-28 15:45:11
Moore's "law" is a scam. It'll break down any time now.
It projects processes being smaller than an atom, and proceeds on to negative size which is obviously impossible. that's what people have been saying since the early 00's...
moore's law is technically not specific- nor exacting- it does not necessarily apply any particular technological principle in reality- YES, the original "transistor count" statement was what is most often quoted, but moore's discrepancies on the period of doubling creates problems for example...
regardless, the message that should be gleaned from moore's law is that technological improvements to the most part continue on a logarithmic scale. be this performance, capacity, speed, or whatever.
the statement was originally made using what was known of technology at the time- how would modern advances be categorized otherwise.
regardless... yes, transistor density does have a limit, but that's not to say that the same performance doubling cannot be achieved by other means that we have not yet determined.
Moore's law really should have never been called such as it has implications far greater than just those in the computer industry, and historically many other technological innovations have been shown to follow the same trending.
The greatest arguments against moore's law recently have been coming from the supporters of the singularity "cult", and from those who want to dilly dally around in proving a general statement false based on technicalities.
for the first one... stop watching so much crappy scifi.
as for the second one.. grow up and well.. does it really matter? regardless of transistor count the performance will still follow the same trending. look back to the industrial revolution and other major historical breakthroughs if you want proof that technology in itself expands and accelerates on a logarithmic scale.
In the end, didn't mean this to end up in this thread, but bickering about this stuff is pretty dumb...
that'd be like seeing the curve of hdd capacities, yet saying well, they cant fit it into such a small package always due to magnetics, and completely ignore the advances in ssd that will eventually almost guaranteed, replace hdd altogether.
|
Posted by: benjgvps on 2009-01-28 16:34:36
I enjoy Office 2007 on the PC side. Easy to find everything and I like how the titles look. Pretty easy on the eyes too.
|
| 1 |