Why "Upgrade" To Office 2007

walterbyrd writes "IMO: Office-2007 is a contender for the least useful upgrade in the history of computing. It's expensive, has a steep learning curve, and it's default format is even less compatible with anything else. Stan Beer discusses the "upgrade" in his article: Question: why do I need to upgrade to Office 2007?."

Comments

Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

a) Because Bill says so
b) Because muppets keep sending you files in a new, super incompatible format that you can't open otherwise

well... if you're gonna switch, why not

[advocate_one]

switch to OOo and for that matter, why not OOo on Linux... the training costs for the upgrade to Vista and/or office 2007 might as well be considered as similar to those for switching away from the proprietary lockin and moving to truly open formats for your data. Then you will have jumped off the upgrade treadmill and will be free to upgrade at your own pace instead, when you want to rather than when outside pressures force you to...

Re:well... if you're gonna switch, why not

[maxume]

If you are paying people $40,000 a year, $500 a year in software licensing is a consideration, but it doesn't take much of a productivity gain to justify it. It also doesn't take a very large risk of lost productivity to justify not switching to something very new.

If switching does save $500, that money can obviously be used elsewhere, but OOo is going to have to be very good to convince people that are satisfied with MS Office to switch. I am not going to speculate about how many people are actually satisfied with office.

Re:well... if you're gonna switch, why not

[Toby_Tyke]

Well done for ignoring what the parent was saying, and replying to what you wished he had said instead. What he was saying was that switching is not a small decision, because there would be a large costs involved in retraining the IT staff who had to support the new Linux systems. I can tell you for a fact that out of the half dozen support staff I work with, at least four of them have never seen a PC running Linux, nevermind supported one.

In terms of applications needed by the business, we could pretty much switch 90 per cent of our staff tommorrow. The reason I would never suggest this is that it would not be cost effective. The whole IT infrastructure of the company is set up around supporting Windows. Switching over is not just case of burnig a few Ubuntu ISOs and showing some managers how to use Evolution. We would have to extensivly retrain our IT staff, find a hardware vendor who supported Linux (which might well be somewhat more expensive), and that's before we even begin to get into the day to day hassle of dealing with all the little problems it would throw up.

Case in point, I was setting up a laptop with a GPRS card on one of our salesmens laptop last week, and it wasn't working. After coming to the conclusion that there was nothing wrong at this end, I called the service providers support line. The friendly phone drone on the other end ran through a series of troubleshooting steps over the phone before coming to the same conclusion I had, and then discovering that the reason it wasn't working was because they had not turned the account on.

Now, suppose that was a linux laptop. For arguments sake, lets assume the card actually runs under Linux. Here is how the conversation might well have panned out:

Phone Drone: Click on the start menu...
Me: This machine is running Linux.
PD: Ah, right, I just need to put you hold for a second.
(Hold music)
PD: Sorry, we don't support Linux, you'll need to install this on a windows PC.

Yes, I expect that with much wrangling and arguing I could still make him go and check things their end, but we make calls like this every day. We would have to go through that every time. And no, we would not just be able to choose service providers who support Linux. In the example cited above, we have a choice of four networks for GPRs cards. To my knowledge, none of them support Linux.

There is no doubt that moving to OO.o would remove "an important part of the need to keep the Windows platform ". Unfortunatly, there are dozens more very good reasons why companies keep the Windows platform.

as in ?

[udderly]

FTA: While I have the utmost respect for Mr Mossberg, I can't help but feel that the words in the second paragraph contradict and negate the words of the first. To my mind, a logical layout of commands and functions would obviate the need to learn how to find those commands and functions.

While I have the utmost respect for Mr. Beer, I can't help but feel that he has laid out an impossibly high standard for software menus. Is it even possible to, as he puts it, "obviate the need to learn how to find those commands and functions?"

Take what I said with a grain of salt, I'm bitter 'cause wish I had a kewl last name like his. Cue the "free-as-in-beer jokes." In 3, 2, 1...

Re:as in ?

[Dirtside]

Because you wrote it badly, I can't tell if you're joking about the learning curve or not, but just in case: The point of a steep learning curve is not to plot amount learned versus time, it's to plot amount you need to learn versus the ability to get things done. A steep learning curve is like a steep cliff: hard to climb. Long, gentle slopes are a lot easier.

This story is dumb!

[N8F8]

we adults (or at least many of us) would prefer to keep using what we're familiar with until something better comes along

These arguments are EXACTLY the arguments used with every major innovation in the past.

DOS vs Windows anyone?

Re:This story is dumb!

[2ms]

Dude, it's a word processor. Can you honestly tell me that even all of the upgrades to Word put together since like Word 95 could really be called revolutionary? You are correct that Command line versus Windowing/GUI was revolutionary. You are not correct that anything in word processing in the last ten years at least has been revolutionary. And how many thousands of dollars in Word upgrades have there been in 10 years? Gimme a break

Re:This story is dumb!

[timftbf]

Most of the evolution/revolution has come in the form of layout. Yes, many authors want the ability to create very advanced documents that feature images, figures, tables, columns, rotated text, etc. You can't compare this to Word Perfect for DOS.

You're absolutely right. WP for DOS let you do all of those things, but let you keep control of them, and made it easy to produce coherent documents, with logical mark-up, in a user interface that didn't fight you every step of the way. (I was actually do most of my word-processing work in WP for VMS at the time, which was equally versatile.)

Word encourages you to apply effects willy-nilly, while at the same time making it really hard to apply styles properly, or see exactly what tags are applied to what elements, and in which order. (Does changing *this* change the definition of a style? Create a new style? Reformat this particular element in the style with custom local changes? Most of the time, it's anyone's guess.)

What you end up with is a document that can possibly be tweaked to look flashy, but probably unprofessional, by one person, on one PC / printer combination, for a given revision. Make changes, make changes on another machine, or (heaven forbid) let someone else make changes, and what you'll end up with is a document that quickly descends into a mess of semi-random style, formatting, language, spell-checking and other tags, with little to no hope of regaining any logical structure.

I Maintain That I Don't NEED It

[eldavojohn]

Question: why do I need to upgrade to Office 2007?

Answer: Nobody needs to upgrade to Office 2007.

Microsoft isn't holding a gun to your head. You don't have a need for a ribbon. You may find out later that it increases your productivity and then you may learn that it provides a better solution for your problems. But if you're accomplishing your job and tasks with older copies of Office, why do you need 2007? The fact is you probably don't. I myself am quite successful with OpenOffice.org but I don't use the spreadsheet much if at all.

Hell, as long as Microsoft keeps supporting the copy of Office you use, who cares about 2007? Let the early adopters play around with it and work the bugs out. I'll use the ribbon when everyone else is--no reason for me to learn another "J++" Microsoft product only to have that skill be completely useless. Office 2007 will probably be the de facto standard but why pay the price and risk of an early adopter?

We're all intelligent people here (I think), and we're all capable of weighing the pros and cons of software. Office 2007 should be no different. If you want to present a good article to me on 2007, I'd like to see all sides of the issue, not just telling me why I need to use it.

Re:Shooting themselves in the foot

[Kenshin]

Speak for yourself. I've been using Word for 15 years (on Mac and PC), and I personally think the ribbon interface is a nice change.

Yes, you initially have to take time to figure out where things are, but when you know it's quicker.

I might like to mention something else about all this bitching about "users having to learn a new interface" for Office 2007: Can I not use that same argument for not switching to Linux?

I'd argue the opposite

[Xest]

This seems the least thought through attempt at jumping on the anti-Microsoft bandwagon - Office 2007 is the first version in 12 years that really changes the way you use office to truly make you more productive. There are tools in Office 2007 to let you do some of the things that used to take you upwards of half an hour in under a minute.

It's sad that MS is slagged of for not changing Office much over the years, then why they finally do innovate, and change it to improve productivity and usefulness people slag it off with "Booohooo it has a steep learning curve". Honestly, Microsoft may do a lot of things wrong, but they do also do something right (i.e. the XBox 360, Visual Studio etc.), I honestly think Office 2007 is one of those things they've done right.

Re:I'd argue the opposite

[giorgiofr]

There are tools in Office 2007 to let you do some of the things that used to take you upwards of half an hour in under a minute.

That's quite a claim! Could you elaborate a bit, please? If it's true, maybe it's really worth using 2007.

Short canned answer

[UnknowingFool]

There are some useful features in Office 2007. However, you have to evaluate whether those features are necessary enough to overcome the upgrade costs as well as the re-training that will be involved with the new interface. Some people really want/need the new features. The problem for MS is that most users are just fine with the features from Office 97.

Re:Shooting themselves in the foot

[Silver Sloth]

GUIs are detestable for many reasons I will not elaborate here That's a very bold statement to go unsupported. If GUIs are so detestable why have they been the primary interface for every computer outside the server room for the last twenty five years or so? Just because you prefer a command line....

Speaking of menus...

[maillemaker]

I don't know what these new "ribbon" menus are or what they look like, but this just prompted me to speak of my biggest pet peeve of Windows menus that came on the scene a few years back: Dynamic menus. What I mean by this is how the drop-down menus off of the toolbar change to reflect the most recently-selected options. Thus every time you pull down a drop-down menu it looks different, and you must seek out the option you need, ususally by clicking on "more options" to see the "full" menu.

Whatever menus look like, they need to be consistent. Menus that change every time you look at them suck.

Re:I've already upgraded..

[Teckla]

And if i have to explain the reasons to you, its really not worth your time is it? The fact is my business loves it, my users love it and it ties up our services and simplifies our processes so much better than 2003 that it was worth it.

So my point is, you either have a already researched features you like and will run with or you ignore everything and pretend because you don't upgrade no one else will.

Let me see if I can translate that:

My business just loves the new features, but I'm not going to tell you which new features we love, and why we love them! Nyah nyah!

And you got modded +5 Insightful... Amazing...

Re:I've already upgraded..

[cybrthng]

I've been here long enough to know the reasons i upgrade aren't the same reasons anyone else would consider it.

My point is, i've explained myself MILLIONS of times to the slashdot crowd and they always point out how those features are useless, misleading or done in other products but they forget the simple fact that Software is a Solution and as long as it solves your needs, fits your budget and is easy to use & integrate then it doesn't matter what other people think.

Too many times i get drilled down for all the wrong reasons, so if you can't find whats right with something on your own then what *I* say won't make any difference to you.

Not my fault this place is stacked with ignorant users.

For a list of features:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Office_2007

As for streamlining our business, we use Microsoft CRM and our smaller offices uses Accounting 2007 Pro and tying everything together through Office 2k7 is easy as 1-2-3. We use services in Windows 2003, Windows Longhorne Server, SharePoint, Jboss Portal, and Jahia app server to tie things together, share files and publish services/data to our clients and extranet/intranet portals.

Users love it, thats all that we needed. Upgrade was a breeze and included as part of our services.

The reason to upgrade is simple and unavoidable

[goombah99]

Eventually more and more customers and clients will send you documents encoded in MS format. You will need to not only read them but edit them and send them back. So far no one has ever been able to create a document in MS WOrd that is 100% platform interchangable. Even MS word on mac is in 100% compatible with ms word on PC, though it's pretty close, the page layouts shift subtly with tables and figures changing positions and dimensions.

Thus the only way you can work with other people's word documents is to own word. anything else as the parent points out is a waste of valuable time. the cost of word is negligible compared to your time

Re:And that's one of the features.

[JoGlo]

I've never tried to use an Excel spreadsheet with more that 64000 rows, but I sure have used Excel in circumstances where I've run out of columns, and the learning curve of Excel 2007 (which I haven't found to be too difficult) is worthwhile for me, to be able to get to those extra columns! I'm only using the Beta so far, but the Home and Student version should be arriving in a month or so for $27 above the heavily discounted version of the 2003 Teacher and Student version that I just purchased (and which I will probably never install, because I've been using the Beta of 2007 at home since early in the public Beta cycle).

The ribbons are new, and can be frustrating at times, but as I've already been through DOS, DR-DOS and its pseudo-windows, WordStar, Multimate, LetterPerfect for DOS, WordPerfect for DOS, WordPerfect for Windows, and every incarnation of MS Word since Word 2, I guess I'll take it in my stride, just like I have the previous ones.

I'm over 60, and still am surprised how "stick in the mud" a lot of people a fraction of my age appear to be when it comes to changing what they are familiar with for something newer.

"It was good enough for Grandpa, so it's good enough for me!" is such a retro reaction to change that I'll never understand it.