# Microsoft Office News...



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

Couple of things for Microsoft's venerable Office application...

1. Office 2007 SP2 will be released on April 28th, 2009.

2. Office 2010, the next version of Office will be available in *both 32 and 64 bit versions*. Expect Office 2010 latge first quarter/early second quarter 2010.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

Cant wait for office 2010. I love 2007 as well, but will be interesting to see what they do in 2010


----------



## Ira Lacher (Apr 24, 2002)

Anyone know why I keep getting registry hotkey errors when I try to load any Office program except Word and why it won't let me uninstall it or reinstall it?


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

Have you tried doing the Diagnostics?

If you go into word/excel, go to Office Button --> Word Options --> Resources --> Diagnose you can run them on 2007.


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

If Grentz' method doesn't cure your problem let us know. There are specail tools that will uninstall all of the Office package including registry entries and let you do a clean reinstall.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Maybe by the time Office 2010 rolls out, I'll finally be able to find all the commands I used to know (in Office 2003) but struggle locating in Office 2007. 

Change for the sake of change is......well.......change. :lol:


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

HDTVfan001... I can't believe that you of all people dont know that there is a tool for this?



hdtvfan0001 said:


> Maybe by the time Office 2010 rolls out, I'll finally be able to find all the commands I used to know (in Office 2003) but struggle locating in Office 2007.
> 
> Change for the sake of change is......well.......change. :lol:


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

LarryFlowers said:


> HDTVfan001... I can't believe that you of all people dont know that there is a tool for this?


I do....but also enjoy the "joy" of figuring it all out the old fashioned way - without reading the user manual or any shortcuts.

It's the challenge that makes it all worthwhile. :lol:

Unless you have those handy free weekend private lessons....


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

This is really useful... do it in word 2003 and it will show how in word 2007... also available for excel...

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...0B-4E24-4277-B714-66D7B18D0AA1&displaylang=en


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

LarryFlowers said:


> This is really useful... do it in word 2003 and it will show how in word 2007... also available for excel...
> 
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...0B-4E24-4277-B714-66D7B18D0AA1&displaylang=en


Thanks for that extra assistence.

I will indeed go there and learn.

I have to say the Office 2007 is certainly more powerful, but the UI was clearly designed by programmers for programmers....far to complex and has way too much regular functionality buried - at least until you spend hours re-configuring things to simplify it. IMHO, some of it is not at all intuitive.

I've worked with software since 1981, and work with all sorts of software daily for work over 20+ years...and Office 2007 is one of the most cryptic pieces of code I interact with....but that's just one person's opinion.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

I actually have to disagree hdtvfan, sorry. I think that the 07 gui is much easier for many newbies to office to find out how to do things and use. I am not saying this from my opinion, but rather from observing users. Many are using more of the functions and tools and doing things that were much more buried in menus in past office versions and thus they never touched them. 07 brings many of these tools right to your finger tips. I think many of the more common advanced functions got pushed forward and out in the open more, yet a few of the advanced functions that are less used are probably buried a bit more. Still for the general population it is a good thing and getting them to use things besides just wordart and text size/font all the time. 

I am self taught office for the most part, mostly starting with 95. I really buckled down and learned a lot in XP/2003 and that is where I am still probably most comfortable. Still I think 07 bring many of the tools in closer reach to people trying to learn it, even though it is tough for those used to the older versions to change over. Many more adv. functions in Office have always been cryptic to normal users until 07. Also remember not everyone uses the same functions as their "regular" functions. So what is regular to you might not be for others and vice versa.

Saying office 07 is the most cryptic software you have used I think is a bit of an overstatement, there are some user interfaces and programs that make it look like the easiest thing on the planet to figure out. In any event, yes it did create a gap. I have some clients requesting to stay on the old versions until they have to switch (not a problem now as MS is nice enough to provide forward compatibility to all the past office versions for free) and many others requesting to move to the new versions. So it really is personal preference and it is fine to have your opinion either way 

Of course remember, opinions are like...um...*PG13*...FINGERS!...everyone has them!  So to expect everyone to like it or have the same opinion on it is of course ridiculous and I wouldn't hold it against you one way or the other. As I mentioned, I have people asking for both versions all the time.


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

you should have seen those toolbars in the first Beta! :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


----------



## JM Anthony (Nov 16, 2003)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> ...
> 
> I have to say the Office 2007 is certainly more powerful, but the UI was clearly designed by programmers for programmers....far to complex and has way too much regular functionality buried - at least until you spend hours re-configuring things to simplify it. IMHO, some of it is not at all intuitive.
> 
> I've worked with software since 1981, and work with all sorts of software daily for work over 20+ years...and Office 2007 is one of the most cryptic pieces of code I interact with....but that's just one person's opinion.


+ a gazillion

That's far more than just one person's opinion. Considering how the vast majority of end users use the Office suite, MSFT left a lot of them out in the cold. I use Word and Excel a lot and was totally frustrated for a long time, especially with Word. MSFT tries to find compelling reasons for their upgrades to help with the sales pitch and cover for the IT guys who pull the purchasing trigger. Too bad they have to keep priming the pump for their cash cows.

John


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

JM Anthony said:


> + a gazillion
> 
> That's far more than just one person's opinion. Considering how the vast majority of end users use the Office suite, MSFT left a lot of them out in the cold. I use Word and Excel a lot and was totally frustrated for a long time, especially with Word. MSFT tries to find compelling reasons for their upgrades to help with the sales pitch and cover for the IT guys who pull the purchasing trigger. Too bad they have to keep priming the pump for their cash cows.
> 
> John


Its a mixed bag as I said above. I have many clients that are long time users and some love 07 and others prefer to stick with 03. You can get the compatibility pack for 03 that makes it work great with 07 as well so at least they are nice enough to do that 

I do wish they included a classic theme with 07 though, that would help things a lot and satisfy most groups.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

I like office 2003 and 2007. The problem is that once you become an expert, not a casual user who can do some things, and they make the changes they did it throws your game off. 2007 is actually much easier to use then 2003 but with them automating so much stuff that used to be more complicated in 2003 it makes the transition harder. It's like when they came out with the pivot table tool. Many people just wanted certain functions only that they rolled into it so you had to do more steps for a couple of "basic" functions because you didn't want the whole pivot table.

Seems like they're finally making the push though for 64 bit which is a great thing.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

With just about every Office release a new app gets added on another gets removed. I'm going to say either Infopath or Groove get cut in 2010.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Grentz said:


> I do wish they included a classic theme with 07 though, that would help things a lot and satisfy most groups.


It would be a much harder sell to convince folks to pay for an upgrade in that case, tho, wouldn't it? Same with the '03 to '07 help tools. If you already know what you want to do in '03, that begs the question why do you need '07?

I managed our corporate IT software budget 10 years ago, and unless the model has changed, our 5000 Office seat licenses used to cost us a small fortune, IIRC. The way Microsoft used to get us to upgrade to a new office suite wasn't based on new features. It was by scaring us into thinking we'd get no future support for the old suite.

That begs the question, tho, of what needs to be supported? I've watched Excel and Word evolve, starting in the 80's, and guess what? *99% of the users create the same basic word processing and spreadsheet documents, using the same basic 25% of the features that are available in these programs.*

With free Lotus Symphony and Open Office suites out there, I find it baffling that big IT shops continue to pay Microsoft for per-seat licenses for all but a fractional percentage of their "power users".

Just my .02. /steve


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Grentz said:


> I have many clients that are long time users and some love 07 and others prefer to stick with 03.


Hmmmm...we just did a 500 employee evaluation cycle in our business unit and got a 78% "reject" vote, and will stick with 2003 indefinitely. The biggest complaint was that Office 2007 has moved and "buried" many of the most common daily functions, rendering it a potential for lost productivity.


> I do wish they included a classic theme with 07 though, that would help things a lot and satisfy most groups.


A very good idea - that would have made much more sense, and actualy increased the adoption based on less "risk". They've done that before in upgrades, and it never hurt them in sales.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

Steve said:


> It would be a much harder sell to convince folks to pay for an upgrade in that case, tho, wouldn't it? Same with the '03 to '07 help tools. If you already know what you want to do in '03, that begs the question why do you need '07?


True, but at the same time they have done it with Vista, XP, etc....keeping classic interfaces as a theme option. You can still make Vista look somewhat close to Win 2000.



Steve said:


> That begs the question, tho, of what needs to be supported? I've watched Excel and Word evolve, starting in the 80's, and guess what? *99% of the users create the same basic word processing and spreadsheet documents, using the same basic 25% of the features that are available in these programs.*
> 
> With free Lotus Symphony and Open Office suites out there, I find it baffling that big IT shops continue to pay Microsoft for per-seat licenses for all but a fractional percentage of their "power users".
> 
> Just my .02. /steve


I do agree, and that was sorta my point above. So many users use barely any part of the full office apps besides wordart and text size/font. I think 2007 really helped to get people to use more of the theme and more advanced functions, even if it was not all of the functions. It pushed many more out into common view.

Though, also like I mentioned, it can be confusing for long time users and some of the lesser used more advanced functions (overall, they might be some persons most used) got pushed back a bit more out of sight.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Change for the sake of change is......well.......change. :lol:


Change for the sake of change is what you do when your VARs are complaining bitterly that they can't sell new product or training.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Grentz said:


> True, but at the same time they have done it with Vista, XP, etc....keeping classic interfaces as a theme option. You can still make Vista look somewhat close to Win 2000.


How it looks is only window dressing. How it works is what people know and don't want to throw away. Changing up things (operation, file formats) without adding features that could be implemented with the existing paradigms is just soooo Micro$oft.


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

When 2007 came out, one of my largest clients was under a software assurance license for 2003, so we moved rather quickly to 2007. The uproar was immediate.

We pulled them all in a meeting room and asked what the problems were and it became quickly apparent that A.) people don't like change and B.) the new toolbars were causing some problems.

A week later, we brought them all back in and spent 1 hour reviewing the basics of the 2007 toolbars. We gave them cheat sheets for "F" codes and provided each user with the Flash applications for Word and Excel. The Microsoft built flash apps were simply a Word/excel 2003 interface that you would do what you were trying to do in word/excel and it would translate them into the new toolbars.

Within a month, over 30% of the users were happy... in 2 months that had risen to 80%. By 3 months the complaints were virtually non existent.

During that 3 months we held no further information meetings for 2007.

In the 4 month and every month thereafter we would spend 15-20 minutes on some new feature.

Teaching them how to use 2007's new document properties window has had a dramatic impact on the "searchability" of the file strucure to the point that even the most technologically challenged users have commented on how easy it is to find what they are looking for.

Change is never easy and even tougher for large organizations, but I expect a lot of organizations that skipped 2007 will change when 2010 comes out.



hdtvfan0001 said:


> Hmmmm...we just did a 500 employee evaluation cycle in our business unit and got a 78% "reject" vote, and will stick with 2003 indefinitely. The biggest complaint was that Office 2007 has moved and "buried" many of the most common daily functions, rendering it a potential for lost productivity.
> 
> A very good idea - that would have made much more sense, and actualy increased the adoption based on less "risk". They've done that before in upgrades, and it never hurt them in sales.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

I think one of yesterday's "Quotes of the Day" might apply here.  /steve

"_There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all._"
*Peter Drucker (1909 - 2005)*


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

harsh said:


> How it looks is only window dressing. How it works is what people know and don't want to throw away. Changing up things (operation, file formats) without adding features that could be implemented with the existing paradigms is just soooo Micro$oft.


True, but dont bash Microsoft here completely. There is a lot of new good stuff in 2007 and the new file formats are EXCELLENT.

The change is for a good reason, if you ever have worked with huge excel sheets or other documents you know how the old file formats were aging, the new XML based ones are much better in these cases. They also allow more efficient saving and use less space. Plus as I said, backwards and forwards compatibility is provided through free addon packs. They did not leave anyone out in the cold. Seems pretty darn good to me, I cant think of too many other major file format changes by other companies that have gone that well!


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

A User Interface is anything but "window dressing".

It drives user acceptance, navigation for both common and non-regular activities, and overall user productivity. Many software development operations spend big bucks studying, getting user feedback on, and fine-tuning user interfaces to address those issues. They can make or break a software product, in terms of sales success.

In the case of Office 2007, there are a number of new conveniences and a few new capabilities, but in the end, a number of folks also recognize that there is a big price to be paid for those, in terms of sacrificing intuitive navigation in the product.

I agree with Grentz' comment that they should have allowed a "classic look", which would then satisfy the broad user market, and also facilitate people transitioning to the new "look and feel" at their own pace.

Forcing a major change (through design) in the common daily activities of many users in Word and Excel doesn't encourage adoption. IMHO, they missed the boat with "2007", which unfortunate, because the new capabilities are actually good ones.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

All I know is that they abandoned FrontPage mumble, grumble, mumble....:eek2:


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

phrelin said:


> All I know is that they abandoned FrontPage mumble, grumble, mumble....:eek2:


No they didnt. Microsoft Expression Web is the replacement.

It actually is much better too, it makes proper code most of the time and uses more standards compliant coding. It has moved away from the frontpage extensions and frontpage specific idea while still making simple site creation easy. It is nice as most frontpage web pages look like crap these days.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Grentz said:


> No they didnt. Microsoft Expression Web is the replacement.
> 
> It actually is much better too, it makes proper code most of the time and uses more standards compliant coding. It has moved away from the frontpage extensions and frontpage specific idea while still making simple site creation easy. It is nice as most frontpage web pages look like crap these days.


Yeah, but it didn't come in any of the Office 2007 packages. And once I had to buy outside the package, I was already using some CoffeeCup software anyway. I'm already "fluent" in HTML and Java, so what's the point in giving Microsoft another $70? mumble, grumble, mumble


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

True, although frontpage was not included in 2003 either. Expression comes with all sorts of other relevant web apps that MS is developing. So for someone interested in doing that sort of thing it is something to invest in instead of buying frontpage separate, they just buy the expression pack separate. Plus the expression web pack is actually cheaper than frontpage 2003 was.

I think Microsoft's idea was to give most of the basic web site creation functionality through their new Office Live (which really can make things that look better than what most simple users spit out with frontpage). Then for those that want to do more web developing and such they created a more standards compliant and universal web toolkit in expression web.

I agree most web devs will use something like dreamweaver though if they are going to buy some thing.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

phrelin said:


> All I know is that they abandoned FrontPage mumble, grumble, mumble....:eek2:


I'm surprised FrontPage lasted as long as it did. It was pure garbage. I used just about every version of FrontPage, What an awful program. Dreamweaver is so much better and powerful.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

phrelin said:


> All I know is that they abandoned FrontPage mumble, grumble, mumble....:eek2:


Have you tried Microsoft SharePoint Designer? It's actually quite nice, and works with web pages and sites with or without Windows SharePoint servers. It's a free download as well.

http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/sharepointdesigner/FX100487631033.aspx


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Speaking of Office 2007, did everyone catch the AP article about the person who brought us the Ribbon? The same lady is in charge of the Windows 7 de-Vistafying: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2009-04-19-12-38-41


> The change is for a good reason, if you ever have worked with huge excel sheets or other documents you know how the old file formats were aging, the new XML based ones are much better in these cases.


One could argue that using Excel for large projects is to be using the wrong tool. Using a spreadsheet for a particular task can at one time look like using a rear-tine rototiller for weeding a rose garden and at other times look like using a four function calculator to add up the National Debt.


> They also allow more efficient saving and use less space.


Sparse technology has been around for years and if you look at the OpenDocument spreadsheet format, it produces much smaller files for the same functionality.


> Plus as I said, backwards and forwards compatibility is provided through free addon packs.


I must endure conversions almost daily and I don't find it at all a good thing or somehow better for my employer or our business partners. XML and to a lesser extent the 16 bit character set are an enormous waste of space and impede conventional search tools horribly. Did you happen to catch the size of the current document conversion pack? It is larger than the software portion of Office 2000.

I'm also not all that enthused about a file format that is so carefully tailored to the printer that the original author used that it may not look at all good on any other system. NeXT had the right idea to make the whole system device agnostic.

It isn't about how all-inclusive you can make the format but how efficient it can be. Any format that requires new primatives wasn't well enough thought out in the first place. How much has printing technology changed in the last 10 years???

Why must all documents use 16 bit character sets? XML just feels good because it always feels better when you stop pounding your head against the wall with the likes of the previous embedded binary formats.


----------



## turey22 (Jul 30, 2007)

LarryFlowers said:


> This is really useful... do it in word 2003 and it will show how in word 2007... also available for excel...
> 
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...0B-4E24-4277-B714-66D7B18D0AA1&displaylang=en


I also want to Thank you. This is going to help me sometimes. I didn't know this existed.


----------



## Ira Lacher (Apr 24, 2002)

Grentz said:


> Have you tried doing the Diagnostics?
> 
> If you go into word/excel, go to Office Button --> Word Options --> Resources --> Diagnose you can run them on 2007.


 Nope. Still the same problem.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

My big question would be... what percentage of your users actually use anything in Office 2007 that wasn't around in Office97? The people I work with would happily use Office97 and wouldn't miss anything. I agree that Office 2007 is a great step forward in user interface design, that XML is a great way to build a program, etc. but how much money has been spent in upgrades that bring no functionality to the average user? 

The only reason I keep my users current is to make sure that they're secure. 

It's also worth noting that OpenOffice, a free alternative to MS Office, looks an awful lot like Office97.


----------



## kevinwmsn (Aug 19, 2006)

I've used Office 07 at work for about 2 years and I still have issues figuring out where they moved everything. The did a double whammy on us, they changed the file format and moved everything around too.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

kevinwmsn, I don't know if I'm reading your message right, but did you know there are docx, xlsx, etc. converters for Office 2003? They help when your legacy users try to open a newer document.


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

Office 2003 was updated to automatically trigger a request to download the converter as well... the file format problem should be a non issue.

Also the new formats take substantially less storage space.



Stuart Sweet said:


> kevinwmsn, I don't know if I'm reading your message right, but did you know there are docx, xlsx, etc. converters for Office 2003? They help when your legacy users try to open a newer document.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> My big question would be... what percentage of your users actually use anything in Office 2007 that wasn't around in Office97? The people I work with would happily use Office97 and wouldn't miss anything. I agree that Office 2007 is a great step forward in user interface design, that XML is a great way to build a program, etc. but how much money has been spent in upgrades that bring no functionality to the average user?
> 
> The only reason I keep my users current is to make sure that they're secure.
> 
> It's also worth noting that OpenOffice, a free alternative to MS Office, looks an awful lot like Office97.


I like a lot of the new formats and styles built in. You can make presentations and sheets that look much nicer than in the past. The Chart/Graph handling is also much improved between the programs (example copying a chart from excel into word) and the charts themselves are much easier to create and customize.

I notice when I save a lot of my documents in older office formats I lose a lot of the nice styling and look that makes the pages look more modern and today. Not important for everything, but it adds a nice touch to reports/presentations/etc.

That being said, a lot of people do not use a lot of those things and a lot are just fine with the older styles.


----------



## Hansen (Jan 1, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> My big question would be... what percentage of your users actually use anything in Office 2007 that wasn't around in Office97? The people I work with would happily use Office97 and wouldn't miss anything. I agree that Office 2007 is a great step forward in user interface design, that XML is a great way to build a program, etc. but how much money has been spent in upgrades that bring no functionality to the average user?
> 
> The only reason I keep my users current is to make sure that they're secure.
> 
> It's also worth noting that OpenOffice, a free alternative to MS Office, looks an awful lot like Office97.


Although I like Office 2007, I see your point and until recently would have agreed with you. However, I think I recently figured out where MS is going with this dramtic change in functionality and things being a bit difficult to find at times. Some things in Office 2007 are difficult to find for *us* because we're all use to Office 97 and 2003. That's what we've been using and grown accustomed to wanting to use. Office 2007 turned that all upside down for us "old users". But, for new users....the future...it's a whole different story. This was best illustrated to me when my 2nd grader came home and started working on his own with Office 2007 to put together a project for school. He was doing things that blew me away and his project, when done, looked better than some of the stuff I've done in Office 2003 after years of experience. The schools are using Office 2007 and the kids are being trained on it. The kids have open minds and no preset ways of prior Office versions. They pick up on what and where MS wants the user to go and do with the ribbon bars, etc. and they do it with ease. So, Office 2007 is really all about the future generations.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

That's one thing I've never gotten about Micorosft. Why move things around with each version change? If that's the only diference, then there is no difference.

Imagine if other products did that.

I bought a new car, but I haven't found the accelerator and brake yet.
My new pants have the pockets at the bottom of the legs instead of at the waist.
My new keyboard has the F keys at the bottom.

The new space-saving file system?
Really?
When was the last time you saw a drive being full because of Word Documents and Excel Spreadsheets?

I agree with Stuart Sweet.
For the majority of users and offices, Office 97 or Open Office is all that's needed. Besides, SpyHunter was fun.


----------



## thumperr (Feb 10, 2006)

Marlin Guy said:


> TThe new space-saving file system?
> Really?
> When was the last time you saw a drive being full because of Word Documents and Excel Spreadsheets?


I know multiple orginizations that run out of space because of Word, Excel, and PowerPoint presentations on their File and Print servers.


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

Everyone has a certain handle on this... I never have had a problem with the changes in Office because I beta test them as they come along so by the time they come out, I have a pretty good handle on them.

I actually like the new toolbars and have customized them to suit the way I work. Anyone can do this or at least anyone who wants to can do it. I also know that Microsoft brings in people from all walks of life to talk to them about what they like and don't like, what they use the Office programs for. Of course this has an impact on the final product. 

It is easy to show that for an average user, Office is overkill. No question. You could create an Encyclopedia Brittanica with Word if you wanted to and the average user types a letter.

Microsoft has though, firmly embedded Office as THE program in this category. Not that that couldn't change... just ask whoever it is that owns the remnants of WordPerfect.. at one time that program owned word processing and the thought of not using it was unthinkable.

I do some basic spreadsheets in Excel, and my skill level is fairly high with excel Macros and formulas, but I recently had the opportunity to see a spreadsheet created by someone who knows spreadsheets, and I mean really knows spreadsheets... a 22mb monstrosity that shows what a powerful tool Excel is for those that both need and can make it work for them.

Microsoft has taken some interesting and well thought out steps to embed Office in the marketplace. A "student" version of the program that can be had for less than $100 and can be used on 3 computers... software licensing for big business that is both attractive and if you buy it right, upgradeable for virtually nothing... charity licensing that ensures that a legitimate charity will never use anything but Office.

It is not unusual for people who have used the program for a long period of time to resent and resist any change in the comfort zone of the way they work... conversely, newcomers adapt easily and don't understand what the fuss is all about.

Microsoft also has a habit (not necessarily a good one) of trying to adjust everything to the "look and feel" of the current OS. Office 2010 will no doubt be brought in to the "look and feel" of Windows 7. There are also always some changes to take advantage of capabilities in the new OS... Office 64bit will become a reality because of Windows 7. 
Windows 7 64bit will make memory levels higher than 3 GB as common as 2GB today. More Memory will naturally allow for more powerful applications because we all know that programmers can't resist writing more features (and sometimes more bloated code) when they have the system overhead to use it.

I fully expect that Microsoft will make new tools available to help users transition from both Office 2003 and Office 2007 to Office 2010 similar to the tools they made available for moving Office 2003 to Office 2007. A very large group of users will be going from Office 2003 to Office 2010 because they skipped Office 2007, but there will be impetus to move forward from the older software.

I have no doubt that there will be plenty of moaning and groaning about Office 2010, but thats ok, change is always difficult, but we will learn to use it and go forward. At least for the forseeable future, the miniscule market share of Open Office is little threat to Office.

Something interesting... everyone knows that Office is Microsoft's cash cow, but in spite of the best efforts of Microsoft and law enforcement agencies around the world, for every single LEGAL copy of Office in the world, there are 3 illegal copies. Can you imagine the $value if Microsft could get that to 1.5 or even 2 legal copies?


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

thumperr said:


> I know multiple orginizations that run out of space because of Word, Excel, and PowerPoint presentations on their File and Print servers.


The facts that they have Powerpoint presentations and that they're running out of space on file servers both point to a larger and much more serious problem.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

LarryFlowers said:


> [...]
> Something interesting... everyone knows that Office is Microsoft's cash cow, but in spite of the best efforts of Microsoft and law enforcement agencies around the world, for every single LEGAL copy of Office in the world, there are 3 illegal copies. Can you imagine the $value if Microsft could get that to 1.5 or even 2 legal copies?


I believe Microsoft may have analyzed the piracy and possibly decided it was worth allowing, as a cost of keeping Office front and center in everyone's minds. If they really clamped down, they'd just drive more folks to explore equally full-featured and free alternatives, like Symphony or Open Office. E.g., Open Office is claiming 50 million downloads, to date.

Just my .02. /steve


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

Not sure I understand this post... what are you saying?

I recently added 4 server drives to a clients file server because they were running low on space. They have many things stored but a lot of it is Office documents and PowerPoint presentations, etc., that they have reasons for keeping. They need more space so I provided it. They don't have a problem, it is what they want to do.



Marlin Guy said:


> The facts that they have Powerpoint presentations and that they're running out of space on file servers both point to a larger and much more serious problem.


----------



## Art7220 (Feb 4, 2004)

I bet it doesn't beat OpenOffice. At least in the price category.

Don't let the IT departments know about this. They could save TONS of money by not giving it to MS, oops.

-A- Heh.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Live server drives seem like a pretty crummy archiving medium but given the obscene sizes of many of these documents, there aren't many archival formats that can readily store the bulk.

The idea that the hardware is cheap so care doesn't have to be taken is how Windows and most other Microsoft products got as badly bloated as they are.

A two paragraph memo shouldn't need to consume 64K of storage space (the default block size on larger volumes). Next time you're feeling bored, do a properties on a representative document and see how much space it consumes.

Saving this post as a Word 2000 document comes up to 19,968 bytes even though there are just 557 characters.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

harsh said:


> Live server drives seem like a pretty crummy archiving medium but given the obscene sizes of many of these documents, there aren't many archival formats that can readily store the bulk.
> 
> The idea that the hardware is cheap so care doesn't have to be taken is how Windows and most other Microsoft products got as badly bloated as they are.
> 
> ...


Its kinda the way of the technology world. By the standards of the first computers even the 90s technologies were bloated.

I am not saying its right, but there has to be more to it than "just because" and "there lazy". Even linux, OSX, unix, etc. all have the same bloating over time, just like Windows.

The ones that are not as bloated tend to be the equivalent of older versions of the same things on the other side of the fence or have much reduced functionality (like some of the micro linux distros). Its amazing how small you can get Windows even when you take out some of the functionality and universality of it.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

If users are filling up today's larger drives with Office files, then the root problem is with the packrat nature of the users, not with the inherent base file size of the documents.

The same dork who crams a 3 MB image into a Word or PowerPoint file will just as eagerly cram that 3 MB image into a Office 2007 document.

The same doofus who keeps a seven year old PowerPoint showing irrelevant and outdated sales or marketing materials from nearly a decade ago will equally never tidy up his or her new file space.

Set and enforce storage limits on users and archive older files on NAS devices or dump them altogether.

What would you wager that at least half the users on any given corporate network in these United States have personal music and photos stored on their company desktops and servers?

That is what I mean when I say that it is indicative of a larger and more serious problem.

Stop accomodating bad behaviour by adding more disk space.
Fix the root of the problem in a systemic and deliberate manner, and stop putting gravy on road kill.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

...except when government regulations say you have to keep that stuff for years because you emailed the presentation to someone.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

djlong said:


> ...except when government regulations say you have to keep that stuff for years because you emailed the presentation to someone.


But they don't say that you have to keep the original file on your PC, the server copy, and the e-mailed copy in your Sent items folder.

I'll betcha any given user has at least two of those three.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

As far as licensing and free software no IT department will ever go with something open source as a primary system. IT departments work on stability and assurances. Everyone knows that MS is going to be around tomorrow and for the next 2 years, at least right now, so that means you're buying their products for support purposes. 

Home copies of MS products make them money but the real money is in their volume licenses for business's. OEM's are profitable but that is also a business deal not a personal decision 99% of the time.

2007 is really superior to 2003 if you don't look at it like an upgrade. My kids can do things with 2007 in half the time it took in 2003. I can do things faster as well now that I took the time to learn it rather then to fight it. Do I wish some things were the same? Sure however I also understand that they're going to keep moving forward and that consumers will learn. 

Most people don't need 2007. In fact the only reason I have it is because I got a school discount on it from the kids school district for $50 so I figured why not. I have 2003 and 97 retail box as well. If I didn't like it I could easily install 2003 again and be ok. Most people won't need to buy 2007 if they have something else. Companies will eventually have to upgrade due to support however that is at least 4 years away.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Shades228 said:


> As far as licensing and free software no IT department will ever go with something open source as a primary system.


You've obviously been to the Microsoft school of FUD.

Many IT departments depend on open source tools precisely because they are more stable and forward compatible than the offerings from Redmond. Regular security patches through a dedicated patching system are much slicker than trying distribute occasional patches through a web browser.


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

Harsh... in all of my years in the IT business I have never seen any major company using OpenOffice... not one and I have never heard of any major organization using it which would be banner headline news for all the Microsoft Haters out there. If you can point me to one please do so.

I do not doubt that there are people using OpenOffice, probably some companies as well. There are optiomistic estimates that OpenOffice has a 5% market penetration...

But 5% is pretty insignificant agains Office's 90% market penetration... also considering that for every single copy of Office in the world legaly acquired there are 3 illegal copies.

It also doesn't take into account people like me who have a copy of Open Office on one of my PC's to a.) be able to assist anyone who does use it and b.) I try most software... not just Micorosoft's. That fact that it is installed doesn't mean I use it day to day.

You also obviously have never managed a Network that uses Office.. keeping the software current and patched is pretty much automated unless you are incompetent.

Among all the criticisms I have ever heard of Microsoft Office... and there are plenty...stability and compatibility aren't in the list.

Granted, criticizing and hating Microsoft is a National Pastime :lol: but it doesn't change facts. Microsoft Office dominates and controls the marketplace... is the 2nd most widely stolen software package behind Windows itself)... and is the least of the problems a Network Adminsitrator faces on a day to day basis.



harsh said:


> You've obviously been to the Microsoft school of FUD.
> 
> Many IT departments depend on open source tools precisely because they are more stable and forward compatible than the offerings from Redmond. Regular security patches through a dedicated patching system are much slicker than trying distribute occasional patches through a web browser.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

LarryFlowers said:


> Harsh... in all of my years in the IT business I have never seen any major company using OpenOffice... not one...


I can testify that at least 4 of the Fortune 500 companies who have employed me to date never used OpenOffice.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I can testify that at least 4 of the Fortune 500 companies who have employed me to date never used OpenOffice.


OO has only really been a viable alternative since 2005, when version 2.0 was released.

I suspect given the state of the economy that the "free" IBM Lotus Symphony and Novell/Sun OO distributions are going to be given a lot more scrutiny in the future. Also, it will be interesting to see what Larry Ellison does with Star Office, now that Oracle owns Sun. /steve


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Steve said:


> OO has only really been a viable alternative since 2005, when version 2.0 was released.
> 
> I suspect given the state of the economy that the "free" IBM Lotus Symphony and Novell/Sun OO distributions are going to be given a lot more scrutiny in the future. Also, it will be interesting to see what Larry Ellison does with Star Office, now that Oracle owns Sun. /steve


Sorry for any confusion, but 3 of the 4 companies I referenced are Microsoft-only development adopters, and we are a preferred partner....so I suspect its not going to happen in the near future here anytime.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I can testify that at least 4 of the Fortune 500 companies who have employed me to date never used OpenOffice.





Steve said:


> OO has only really been a viable alternative since 2005, when version 2.0 was released.





hdtvfan0001 said:


> Sorry for any confusion, but 3 of the 4 companies I referenced are Microsoft-only development adopters, and we are a preferred partner....so I suspect its not going to happen in the near future here anytime.


My point was simply that you may not have worked for 4 Fortune 500 companies since 2005, when the product actually became a viable alternative, IMHO. /steve


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Steve said:


> My point was simply that you may not have worked for 4 Fortune 500 companies since 2005, when the product actually became a viable alternative, IMHO. /steve


Understood.

Worked for 2 of the 4 since then....and its Microsoft or nothing there.


----------



## Hansen (Jan 1, 2006)

Looks like SP2 for Office 2007 is available now. I noticed it was on the list of auto updates for one 64bit laptop.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Wow! SP2 and THEN some ...


----------

