Talk:Microsoft Project/Archive 1

2002

There was also a version of project dated 2002 so someone might like to add this to version history. I have evidence here in the form of software licenses and google seems to confirm that both 2002 and 2003 versions existed. I haven't edited the page but someone might like to. All the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.113.77 (talk) 07:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have Project Professional 2002 installed on one of the PC's at my company and it is listed as version 10.0.8326, so it sounds like an update to Project 2000. Cobbjn (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

I used a version of Microsoft Project under DOS. I don't think the statement that the first version of Project was "Microsoft Project for Windows v1.0, was started in 1987" is correct.

I corrected the dates on the history of Project. 131.107.0.73 (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This must be the most cumbersome and difficult to install and use suite of sofware on the planet. Why can't Microsoft just admit that EPM needs to be rewritten as a proper web-based application rather than consisting of a bunch of clunky add-ons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Viking67 (talk • contribs) 03:15, December 21, 2006 (UTC)

Wow, marketing-speak-riffic. I tried to beat it into submission. Alan De Smet 02:30, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Removed complaint about pricing. Added new paragraph on pricing in the United States and United Kingdom. A brief note comparing Project's pricing to similar products would be appropriate and could be neutrally stated, but I lack enough information to say if Project is unusually expensive. Alan De Smet | Talk 02:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The External Links section was pretty much all spam. microsoftprojectviewer.com and Afinion were just ads for companies offering viewers. MVP Web Site and MVP Web Site were just general resources for users. Neither is terribly useful as a reference site. 23:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Remove expand tag

This article should be 1) shorter 2) include criticisms 3) link to rivals. Addhoc 18:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ms projects

i need an example of a project that you could use MS Project on —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.220.243 (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ms projects for Macintosh

I cannot find any information on Microsoft website that they support MS Project on Mac. The ref links give nothing. I have searched everywhere on MS site to try to confirm it. So I suggest that the Mac part gets updated.

Add a link to the Project Roadmap

Consider adding a link to the Microsoft Project Roadmap. It will help users navigate Microsoft Project features from the perspective of standard project management methodology. The roadmap was designed and written by Microsoft Project writers. Link is http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/project/HA102143771033.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trout001 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately this is just a how to on Project. It's not an especially insightful resource into Project as a reference topic. We don't generally link to "how to use the topic of this article" articles. There is just too man of them. — Alan De Smet | Talk 02:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that such a link is ideal in an article specifically about Microsoft Project. How better to understand the product that view an article that aligns Projects features along starndard project management concepts. I can understand not putting such a link on a general project management or pm software page, but on this page it would work. I read in WP:ELNO that links to avoid include, "sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article." The roadmap relates directly to the subject of this article, and will serve to answers confusion about project. Come to think of it, I should probably update the project version information in this article. There are some inacurcies. Thanks.Trout001 (talk) 02:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that while the roadmap may not fit into this article because of WP:HOWTO, an external link if it is valuable is just fine. Also, be bold in improving this article any way you feel you can. - xpclient ^Talk 09:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also viewers

I removed the link to the list of viewers, since it included a measly two live links. I just included the two live links directly. I'm not worried about the list getting out of control, provided we limit ourselves to viewers that actually have articles. If they have an article, they are presumably noteworthy and should be listed here. If they're not noteworthy enough to list here, presumably they shouldn't have an article and the correct solution is to get the article deleted (then delete it here when the article is gone.) — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need to reinstate this: I noted a recent edit put in and then got whacked mention of K-Sol Project Viewer. It seems a shortfall to have no mention of project viewers or something here to offer a path to discovery of them. See Also now looks a bit excessively pruned down versus this long-ago See Also -- gone now is the link to related MS product Microsoft Project Server and the link to List of Microsoft Project Viewers was removed then that list itself deleted in favor of a redirect back here which is now no longer useful because it presumed items here which are now gone. The list of viewers was only to some articles in wiki since deleted as advertish (LiveProject, Seavus Project Viewer, SteelRay, ValleySpeak Project Server) but obviously many others exist. I'm thinking that the better way to handle this is to reinstate the See Also to both, and to recreate a list of viewers but this time as only notable ones are wiki links and other entries are simple text with cite to hyper refs. Any thoughts on whether it's better done as a subsection in here or as a separate article List of or some other way ...? Markbassett (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Markbassett. The contribution to which you are referring didn't add a "mention" of K-Sol Project Viewer; it added an external link! In Wikipedia, if something is important, one should write about it and prove its importance as highlighted by WP:SECONDARY and WP:GNG; spamming and advertising has the opposite effect. There are software wikis and DMoz that would gladly accept such contributions. Wikipedia does not.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 00:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Codename Lisa Why do you say that ? The question was not about a single line of "*Viewer for Microsoft Project by K-SOL" in the external links section. It is about resolving the failed redirect/merge of List of Microsoft Project Viewers into this article -- it's not readily apparent that such is a wiki-redirect that got made bad as folks deleted individual K-SOL and such items. You seem inappropriately citing article creation guidance for an External Links edit, are you perhaps meaning that justifying List as separate should determine between separate List or put into existing article ? Please expand on what you mean or if that was oops, thanks. Markbassett (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Add an external link to User Group

I'm wondering if it's appropriate to add an external link to MPUG, the "official" user group for Microsoft Project (http://www.mpug.com) It's been around for 20-plus years -- under a couple of names -- MPA and MPUG. I can't add the link myself, since I do writing and editing for the site, so I have vested interest in the outcome of the decision, so to speak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dianschaffhauser (talk • contribs) 00:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can add the link, but discussing it first is probably wise. Many editors err on the side of deleting potential advertising. Is there any evidence for MPUG being "official"? If it is, that might be an okay addition. If there is at least a little third-party coverage about MPUG testifying to it's size or importance in the community, that would be a pretty compelling argument to include it. — Alan De Smet | Talk 03:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's something from the General Manager of the Office Project Group at Microsoft: "MPUG has been the User Group for Microsoft Project for over ten years. MPUG connects project managers from around the world, enabling them to collaborate and learn from each other to maximize their project's success. With MPUG, users can get Project support relevant to their job from within their local community user group and online. Companies, project managers and consultants all benefit from membershipo in the global MPUG community." It's that first use of "the" in his quote that signals to me that MPUG is the official user group. :-) This quote appears on our home page. We have 47 chapters around the world and a robust online community. Should I add it to the external links list? Thanks for input. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.28.78.184 (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we could verify the General Manager's quote, it would be a very compelling argument for inclusion. Something from a reliable third party, or even directly from Microsoft, supporting that the GM said the quote, would do the job nicely. — Alan De Smet | Talk 01:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, do you really believe that Microsoft would allow us to leave that quote on the home page if it weren't true? What exactly are you asking for in the name of accuracy? -- Dian S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dianschaffhauser (talk • contribs) 22:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

? While prominent and long-standing, MPUG seems an independant and unofficial group, similar to PMI. It is the first of helpful sites in the book New Perspectives on Microsoft Project 2010, but that list includes ones that are more definitely official Microsoft: www.microsoft.com/office/products and msdn.microsoft.com/office/program/project and technet.microsoft.com/en-us/office/. And if I BING for what is it, I get an support.office.com post about connect with other users, which points at MVPs, answers.microsoft.com, facebook, twitter, and eventually MPA at www.mpug.com -- so I think any adding it needs to cite a basis other than 'official'. Markbassett (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Banner ?

This section is to discuss process for closing the banner. I'm starting a thread to do some consideration for how to proceed. Did not see a process at Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute. For background, there are two sub-issues, and it seems perhaps the tags concerns have gone since when they were applied :

need additional cites (Feb 2011) - there were 3 cites then, now there are 9
out of date info (Jan 2013) - had content largely about Project 2010 r2, now there is some re Project 2013

So ... can anyone point to the WP guidance for closure ? Markbassett (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

The first item is associated with Wikipedia:Verifiability that says any item that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source. In presence of this article-wide tag you must assume the majority of the items without source in this article are challenged. For example, "The new Team Planner shows resources and work over time, and helps spot problems and resolve issues" definitely needs a source.

The second item is far less strict. If you can't find any outdatedness or any talk page discussion regarding it, feel free to remove it.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 14:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have removed the outdated tag, and will look further for the general more-cites-wanted. Markbassett (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see a couple of cite reclamas, for example "The new Team Planner shows resources and work"

The material in cite at section top may be intended/used on the section, not just the prior line.
The exact text from MS "shows resources and work" gets quoted all over -- in blogs, books (New Perspectives on Microsoft Project 2010), slideshare, training, etcetera ... apparently dub MS to convey what they provided.

I will ping the originator and see if they recall what they originally intended ... Markbassett (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User Talk and Thumperward said It's still a little heavy on uncited statements, but not egregious. Feel free to remove the tag. Thanks for the notice. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC). So I'll delete the banner ...Markbassett (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox edits

I'm going to snip out some infobox lines here. I noticed the second cite (system requirements) did not go to the page mentioned, but now goes to a generic start page - and I could not find the prior page by googling. That led me to notice that the version number is over 2 years ago so is no longer the 'current version'. I will delete both as equivalent cites are not readily findable and they are moving targets so seem not encyclopedia data for wikification anyway. Markbassett (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NASA and/or USAF origin?

The page for Advanced Launch System (a conceptual rocket design from the late 1980s) has a paragraph about the United States Air Force's ALS project office using Macintoshes and Microsoft Project, added by Macmaxim in October 2013 with no references. Their original paragraph has been edited since then, so that "helped pioneer the use and development" of Project is now "pioneered what later became" Project. The office only existed from 1987 to 1990, which predates the first Project version for Macintosh and probably predates the first version for MS Windows. Has anyone ever heard of NASA or USAF involvement in the origin of Project?

MS Project predates that - version 1.0 was released in 1984. Maybe the ‘pioneering’ reference implicitly meant NASA - e.g. ‘pioneered *at NASA*’, or meant ‘pioneered *planning on computers* which later became MS Project’. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]