| 3:02 am on Jan 7, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I just installed the beta and I have to say, they probably need not worry about customer loyalty as there's not much more than 2007.
| 3:54 am on Jan 7, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I would say that Office 1997 covers 90% of what the average users needs it for. So, it's a challenge to keep making it it interesting
| 3:59 am on Jan 7, 2010 (gmt 0)|
The menu system on Word 2007 is so inefficient to use. Microsoft... you are not a mac! Stop trying to make things look good and stick to what you do best.
| 5:05 am on Jan 7, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I know old habits Die Hard, but when I got used to the new Menu System I found it much more efficient, I find it's also easier to teach newbies to use it as everything is more visual.
| 6:01 am on Jan 7, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I just install Office 2010 in my PC,it better and very helpful than its old version i have no problem with this 2010 version of Office.i if any one use other version of Office they should try it one time and see different in your own PC.
[edited by: bill at 6:47 am (utc) on Jan. 7, 2010]
[edit reason] No links please [/edit]
| 6:18 am on Jan 7, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|I know old habits Die Hard, but when I got used to the new Menu System I found it much more efficient, I find it's also easier to teach newbies to use it as everything is more visual. |
You seem to be in the minority on this one... read reviews on Amazon to see what I'm talking about.
| 6:34 am on Jan 7, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I'm used to Office 2008 (mac version), recent was forced to use 2007: it's the worst I've ever used. Nothing can be done with that menu, everything you need is hidden way deep. So we can hope 2010 improves that and brings back real menus.
| 7:01 am on Jan 7, 2010 (gmt 0)|
The ribbon interface is here to stay I'm afraid. Even the upcoming Mac version of Office is supposed to switch to the ribbon. That's the interface you'll have to get used to going forward, like it or not.
I didn't like it at first either. It does take some getting used to, but I can work with it just fine now. It is designed to be intuitive for the user, and after a bit of use I realized the changes are not as bad as I initially thought. I reacted much the same way as most in the beginning. It wasn't initially intuitive to me either after more than a decade working with Office products. If you give the interface a chance it will grow on you.
To stay on topic...
I don't think the ribbon interface is big draw feature for most Office users who would be upgrading. Initial reactions from experienced users tend to be negative.
| 2:38 pm on Jan 7, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I can't for the life of me understand why folks still use MS Office. OpenOffice offers complete compatibility with you MS Office docs, it is free, and upgrades are free.
Maybe this move by MS will push more folks over to OpenOffice.
| 2:46 pm on Jan 7, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I've already starting using OpenOffice.org on one of my computers. I haven't found any shortcomings with it that MS Office overcomes. No upgrade pricing on Office will be the final push for me to go entirely to OpenOffice.org
| 3:45 pm on Jan 7, 2010 (gmt 0)|
There's no way I'd be shelling out $499 for Office Professional like a new purchase.
They can go pound sand.
In related news: NO UPGRADE PRICING FOR OPENOFFICE - STILL FREE! :)
|I've already starting using OpenOffice.org on one of my computers. |
Their stuff seems to do everything I've needed from Office for the last 10 years without the added expense of actually paying for the software.
Sure the menu system looks like it's from Windows 3.1 and it may not have a few features here and there but it gets the job done and that's all that really matters.
| 3:55 pm on Jan 7, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Considering their main problem is nobody wants to bother upgrading to current versions anyways, this move would shoot themselves in the foot. I'm guessing it's a move to push people into a monthly rental scheme.
| 5:08 pm on Jan 7, 2010 (gmt 0)|
M$ Office, of course, has Outlook; OpenOffice has no analog. Aside from that, I can't think of anything M$ Office offers that OpenOffice doesn't (and better, IMO). My email is online anyway: I don't use Outlook. Were my email offline, I'd use Thunderbird.
And for those who wish a snazzier GUI there's the slower IBM Lotus Symphony built on an OpenOffice base.
| 5:15 pm on Jan 7, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Microsoft Office will be for those millions who don't realize that there are open source alternatives. It reminds me of the millions of AOL subscribers who believe that is the internet.
| 6:09 pm on Jan 7, 2010 (gmt 0)|
okokok, i've used MS office and open office
if you are typing and printing documents, sure open office is for you. but MS Office has many features that blow away open office, its the really advanced stuff where MS office is the clear winner.
that and try to make a PPT on open office that doesn't look like office 97 spit it out.
open office can get the job done but lets not get ahead of ourselves.
| 6:16 pm on Jan 7, 2010 (gmt 0)|
What is the OpenOffice analog for MS-Access? Of the Office suite, Access is the one I can't live without.
| 6:45 pm on Jan 7, 2010 (gmt 0)|
OpenOffice: I've had document compatibility issues in the past. Probably the format used by Microsoft being the issue, methinks.
The "no upgrade pricing" policy may help drive more users away, but it'll be harder for corporate business to move away than for home or SMB users.
| 7:18 pm on Jan 7, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I think this is a silly move on Microsoft's part. I've already began moving my office systems away from M$ and move to OpenOffice. I might even consider Google Docs!
| 11:11 pm on Jan 7, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|What is the OpenOffice analog for MS-Access? |
OpenOffice BASE - it's not compatible but it does similar things.
Other people recommend installing XAMPP on Windows and using PHP and MySQL, which is more powerful than Access but still not compatible.
|I've had document compatibility issues in the past. |
The only documents I had issue with were large manuals with style sheets.
Luckily I don't write large manuals anymore ;)
| 12:46 am on Jan 8, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I feel insulted. $499 for something I already have but with a few changes? I'm with incrediBILL, they can go pound sand.
Seriously. What other evidence of them relying on their monopoly could top this? I use excel to a pretty advanced degree and I regularly interchange these documents with different people. Unfortunately for me I'm stuck with MS, but I'm sure as something not going to be paying them $499. What an insult to their customers!
The funny thing is, when a meeting of how to reduce piracy comes, the only thing they can think of is getting more lawyers. Actually treating their customers with decency so that they aren't angry is something I'm sure they won't even consider.
| 2:55 pm on Jan 8, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I still can't find 20% of the commands I need in office 2007 ribbon. i keep switching back to office 2003 to get things done. Not looking forward to trying to learn 2010.
| 4:52 pm on Jan 8, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I'm not upgrading any of my computers to Office 2007/2010 nor Windows Vista/7. They will remain at WinXP & Office 2003/2003 for the rest of their days. Soon I'll be putting Open Office on my computers so that we can start to learn how to use it.
| 8:56 pm on Jan 8, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|I can't for the life of me understand why folks still use MS Office. |
Open Office refuses to implement an Outlook clone. If they would, Open Office could become dominant.
Outlook is the link between the home and business user.
| 10:01 pm on Jan 8, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|Outlook is the link between the home and business user. |
Outlook uses Word for it's editor and saves as junk HTML and doesn't render properly to the rest of the world.
Not a real show stopper for the rest of us.
Besides, Firefox and Thunderbird is the combo I use with OpenOffice.
| 10:20 pm on Jan 8, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|corporate business to move away than for home or SMB users. |
Corporate licenses allow you to run any version you like, you just pay a yearly fee per seat and you get to use whatever version you fancy.
| 3:23 am on Jan 9, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Way to go Microsoft. You just opened the door for Google to make a compelling case against your products.
| 3:45 pm on Jan 9, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I guess I should have said corporate (vs business) user. Large corporations with IT departments standardize on one and only one software configuration for most corporate PC's. From my history in the large corporate world Outlook was by far the server based mail client standard. (Therefore, so I could put in even more hours, corporations make sure Outlook is set up at home!)
If Open Office would clone that standard, corporate IT managers might start thinking about the (tremendous) cost savings of Open Office.
I use Firebird too, but the same argument applies in the corporate world for Firebird. What's the corporate IT standard?
(Plus Firebird's startup and shutdown times are bad, clearly memory management issues.)
| 2:16 am on Jan 11, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Once you need to sync your calendar with a PDA/phone, you may find that these free alternatives don't work. I found that the biggest drawback of using an iPhone - Outlook Notes don't sync to it.
At work I have to live with XP Pro, Office 2003 and IE6 and at home Windows 7, IE8, and Office 2007, so I have to know both interfaces.
In Australia there was initially no attractive pricing for Win 7 but after hearing a lot of public criticism they brought in a Family Pack. We already had the Office 2007 Student & Staff Edition that almost anyone could buy, but at an even cheaper price MSFT brought in a "It's Not Cheating" (huh?) version for tertiary students for AU$75. They have just introduced a similar deal for Windows 7.
My guess is that MSFT is merely testing the reaction for Office 2010 upgrades but will eventually "relent to public pressure". No story here.
| 5:43 am on Jan 11, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Agree with Anallawalla here. The future and recent business products of MS uses or provides too much ease to business user or business productivity users to work on those applications (MS Office in client PC intracting direclty with multiple business applicaitons, ERPs and MS products) and hence they are trying to get reaction to this.
| This 38 message thread spans 2 pages: 38 (  2 ) > > |