backtop


Print 107 comment(s) - last by Just Tom.. on Mar 31 at 8:20 PM

Support for Office 2003 ends April 8 along with Windows XP

Microsoft has stepped up its efforts in recent months to kill off Windows XP for good, and those efforts are now extending to Office 2003. Office 2003 has been around for over a decade and Microsoft wants users to switch to Office 365.
 
Microsoft wrote in a blog post, "Office 2003 no longer meets the needs of the way we work, play and live today. For this reason, it is time to say farewell to Office 2003 and embrace the productivity solution of today – Office 365."
 

Microsoft wants users to ditch Office 2003

Many people have been using Office 2003 for years simply because it does all they need and it's paid for. Office 365 requires a subscription and you will need to continue paying to keep it active.
 
Microsoft says that support for Office 2003 will end on April 8.
 
We already knew that support for Windows XP would also end on April 8, and Microsoft has resorted to pop ups to tell XP users the end is here. Microsoft also offers a $100 discount to get XP users to upgrade to Windows 8. 

Source: Office



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Just A Matter Of Time
By mgilbert on 3/25/2014 9:29:36 AM , Rating: -1
It's just a matter of time before all companies force us to use subscription services for all our software, so they can dip into our pockets, month after month after month. Thank goodness for pirated software.




RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By cditty on 3/25/2014 9:41:56 AM , Rating: 5
You can still buy Office 2013 outright. You don't HAVE to do 365. For a family, 365 is a pretty good deal. Especially if you use multiple device types (PC, tablet, etc...). Since they are announcing Office for iPad in two days, that device would just count towards your five device limit.

I don't need the multiple device approach, so I just bought 2013. To each their own, but they are not forcing anyone to subscribe... Yet.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By 91TTZ on 3/25/14, Rating: -1
RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By StraightCashHomey on 3/25/2014 11:11:24 AM , Rating: 3
Just curious, but do you work for an IT Consulting Company? I do, and I work in a medium-sized city (200,000) and it's VERY rare that I see an environment that does not have Active Directory and Office.

Google is the largest competitor and/or threat to Microsoft, NOT open source. Really the only places that use Google Apps en mass are K-12 institutions. Microsoft needs to do a better job penetrating that sector, because these kids are going to grow up using Google Apps instead of Office, and those kids are going to grow in Tech Directors who are really going to push that initiative.

With that said, Office 365 is really an amazing suite. I highly recommend it.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By 91TTZ on 3/25/2014 1:14:57 PM , Rating: 2
I currently work for a datacenter and I've been in IT since 1996. I've never been at a place that didn't use Microsoft Office and everyone has used Windows Server. But my perception is biased since I'm a Windows guy and I wouldn't be hired at a place that doesn't use a Microsoft environment.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By inighthawki on 3/25/2014 11:13:16 AM , Rating: 4
Sounds like the ramblings of a standard open source nut. "Big business is just keeping us down by censoring the greatness of open source software!"

Ever consider that a lot of it just kind of sucks?


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By BRB29 on 3/25/2014 11:51:20 AM , Rating: 2
For professional use, there's nothing better than Office. Believe me, I tried doing case studies and complex graphs iWork, Google and OpenOffice.

I would say use the Google Suite as a student or the Apple Suite. If you got a job, get Office. It's really not expensive anymore especially when you buy it through your job or student discounts.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Solandri on 3/25/2014 12:34:45 PM , Rating: 4
A lot of companies, schools, and organizations which buy site licenses for Office also allow employees to buy a copy for home use for $9.95. I'd check that out first. Most people don't know this program even exists.

http://www.microsofthup.com/hupus/chooser.aspx?cul...

I got my copy through Technet so I'm not sure what HUP actually gives you. But I've seen people recommend you spend the extra $14 to get a DVD copy for future installations.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By marvdmartian on 3/25/2014 1:59:00 PM , Rating: 2
MS Home Use Program, for Office 2010, gave me a download for $9.95. If I wanted it on a disk, it cost extra (though I don't recall how much).

As long as that's available to me, I'll utilize it. Not really a huge fan of the whole online/cloud thing yet, as I doubt that security and my privacy are their biggest concerns.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By marvdmartian on 3/25/2014 1:59:05 PM , Rating: 2
MS Home Use Program, for Office 2010, gave me a download for $9.95. If I wanted it on a disk, it cost extra (though I don't recall how much).

As long as that's available to me, I'll utilize it. Not really a huge fan of the whole online/cloud thing yet, as I doubt that security and my privacy are their biggest concerns.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By drlumen on 3/25/2014 12:12:30 PM , Rating: 2
There is no similarity between Linux and Windows. Apple is a branch of a Linux flavor so if anyone were to be sued it would be Apple. SCO tried to sue Linux users for, supposedly, impeding on UNIX code and they crash and burned.

Never heard of SCO? Get my point?


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By 91TTZ on 3/25/2014 1:19:08 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not saying that they'd have a strong legal case against a well-funded company, I'm saying that you have a few immense companies that have the cash to harass a small community to death.

If I was rich enough I could sue you into oblivion and never win a case against you. I don't need to make a good enough argument to win the case, I only need to make a good enough argument to have the judge agree to let the case proceed to court and not make me pay your legal bills. By making you spend money to defend yourself you'd go broke.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Stephen! on 3/25/2014 3:09:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Apple is a branch of a Linux flavor


Apple is using BSD, a Unix derivative.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By mellomonk on 3/25/2014 3:16:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is no similarity between Linux and Windows. Apple is a branch of a Linux flavor so if anyone were to be sued it would be Apple. SCO tried to sue Linux users for, supposedly, impeding on UNIX code and they crash and burned. Never heard of SCO? Get my point?

MacOS X and iOs are based on Darwin. Which in turn is based on FreeBSD, not Linux. Completely different kernel, though both are Unix-like operating systems. Apple's involvement in the open source communities is controversial for some because so much of what they do is proprietary. But they have contributed back code to FreeBSD and open source in general. For example the Webkit technologies.

SCO Group sued Unix and Linux distributors and corporate users, primarily IBM and Novell. Linux would not have been involved at all except that SCO asserted that IBM contributed back some of the code in question to the Linux kernel. Ultimately Novell prevailed in it's case dealing a huge blow to SCOs assertions. SCO still exists and is still in court with IBM.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By NellyFromMA on 3/25/2014 1:31:59 PM , Rating: 3
I can't help but look at it as a tale of theory vs implementation in a given moment (which so far is virtually all of tech history).

Open-source is great, in theory. You don't have to pay which is GREAT for consumers, don't get me wrong.

However, there is a whole tried-and-true-for-decades reality that people WILL PAY for QUALITY which open-source is nearly always inferior to a proper paid product.

This is especially true for businesses as we require reliability over cost-reduction... To an extent, of course. But that extent has more or less been figured out by Microsoft and other paid-product corps for quite some time hence their business financial health.

You could actually argue that BECAUSE of open-source initiatives making in-roads into MS coveted business-market that MS and many other corporations are trying to sweep us into service-based offerings as a result.

Open-source offerings simply need to meet the quality of paid products to replace them for business purposes. The only offset to this that comes to mind is hiring IT or other specialists to deal with the issues that inevitably arise from open-source implementations which easily can offset the licensing / subscription costs of a paid product.

Of course everyone awaits the day we can have paid-quality at no-cost. The likelihood, however... well, theory vs implementation it seems.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Solandri on 3/25/2014 2:32:21 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Open-source is great, in theory. You don't have to pay which is GREAT for consumers, don't get me wrong.

However, there is a whole tried-and-true-for-decades reality that people WILL PAY for QUALITY which open-source is nearly always inferior to a proper paid product.

Open source software is great. The problem is the developers.

In paid software, the customer is king. If a large number of the customers want a feature, it doesn't matter what the developer wants, the customer will eventually prevail. See Microsoft backtracking on Win 8 for a great example.

In open source software, the developer is king. The customers can all want a feature, but if the developer doesn't want to implement it (or for larger projects, the codebase maintainer doesn't want to include it in the main codebase), the customers are SOL. Sure they could fork it and start up their own version, but that still leaves the new developers in control. The only thing a pure-user customer can do is bow and lick the feet of the developers.

In theory, the open source developers are altruistic saints who listen to everyone's requests and fairly allocate development time to what's most needed.

In practice, the developers are like regular people - once they get a taste of the power that comes with controlling something, they frequently turn into selfish pricks who consider themselves to be a different and superior caste. They work on what they want, and not only ignore what those of the lower caste (users) need or request, they mock them for their inability to write code.

That's why so much open source software is difficult to use. Ease of use is considered a waste of time because it helps the incapable user, rather than empowering the programmer. For the same reason, the best open source software products are the ones the user never sees. Most routers run open source software. The router developers acts as the middleman. They present a competent face to the OSS developers so get the changes they want. They sell a product so they make the effort to do what the OSS developers consider to be beneath them - make the software easy to use.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By NellyFromMA on 3/25/2014 3:27:02 PM , Rating: 2
Excellent points all around. Well put.

Of course, in the end, open-source software is virtually always developed by volunteers, so I can't really dislike it for what it is.. but, you as the user have to really understand the nature of that choice in order to evaluate whether or not a paid product is worthwhile in the face of an open-source alternative.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By bsd228 on 3/25/2014 5:59:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
quote: Open-source is great, in theory. You don't have to pay which is GREAT for consumers, don't get me wrong. However, there is a whole tried-and-true-for-decades reality that people WILL PAY for QUALITY which open-source is nearly always inferior to a proper paid product.

Open source software is great. The problem is the developers. In paid software, the customer is king. If a large number of the customers want a feature, it doesn't matter what the developer wants, the customer will eventually prevail. See Microsoft backtracking on Win 8 for a great example. In open source software, the developer is king. The customers can all want a feature, but if the developer doesn't want to implement it (or for larger projects, the codebase maintainer doesn't want to include it in the main codebase), the customers are SOL. Sure they could fork it and start up their own version, but that still leaves the new developers in control. The only thing a pure-user customer can do is bow and lick the feet of the developers.


Is it really any different for Adobe users right now? Or Office 2003 users for that matter? In each case, the company is dictating to the users that if they want updates, it will be by subscription only. If you're committed to Photoshop, you don't really have a choice in the matter. Professionally speaking, the alternatives are weak. It still is a showdown in progress - Adobe keeps offering cheaper and cheaper subscription plans to those of us who bought CS6 and said "no mas." Eventually, I think they will have to offer a CC/CS7 license.

Unfortunately for MS, few people actually need the 5% premium offered by Office products. Most would do just fine with GoogleDocs or the various OpenOffice variants.

As for the easily mockable claim by the prior poster than open source is always inferior - just look at how much open source product MS has adopted as its own. Or compare the number of Exchange servers to sendmail/postfix ones out there (or the number of MSCEs it takes to keep that turkey running).

Open Source developers are trying to solve a problem. If it's their own problem, then yes, they're going to set the agenda. They're putting it out on SourceForge to let others benefit from it and yes, offer updates via pull requests. If they don't accept them, then you do have the option of forking it, or offering them money to meet your needs.

OTOH, when people put stuff out there to solve a broader problem, they are in fact interested in your needs, and are generally inclined to work thru them, based on resource and priority. Which is also exactly how commercial software is developed.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By bsd228 on 3/25/2014 5:59:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
quote: Open-source is great, in theory. You don't have to pay which is GREAT for consumers, don't get me wrong. However, there is a whole tried-and-true-for-decades reality that people WILL PAY for QUALITY which open-source is nearly always inferior to a proper paid product.

Open source software is great. The problem is the developers. In paid software, the customer is king. If a large number of the customers want a feature, it doesn't matter what the developer wants, the customer will eventually prevail. See Microsoft backtracking on Win 8 for a great example. In open source software, the developer is king. The customers can all want a feature, but if the developer doesn't want to implement it (or for larger projects, the codebase maintainer doesn't want to include it in the main codebase), the customers are SOL. Sure they could fork it and start up their own version, but that still leaves the new developers in control. The only thing a pure-user customer can do is bow and lick the feet of the developers.


Is it really any different for Adobe users right now? Or Office 2003 users for that matter? In each case, the company is dictating to the users that if they want updates, it will be by subscription only. If you're committed to Photoshop, you don't really have a choice in the matter. Professionally speaking, the alternatives are weak. It still is a showdown in progress - Adobe keeps offering cheaper and cheaper subscription plans to those of us who bought CS6 and said "no mas." Eventually, I think they will have to offer a CC/CS7 license.

Unfortunately for MS, few people actually need the 5% premium offered by Office products. Most would do just fine with GoogleDocs or the various OpenOffice variants.

As for the easily mockable claim by the prior poster than open source is always inferior - just look at how much open source product MS has adopted as its own. Or compare the number of Exchange servers to sendmail/postfix ones out there (or the number of MSCEs it takes to keep that turkey running).

Open Source developers are trying to solve a problem. If it's their own problem, then yes, they're going to set the agenda. They're putting it out on SourceForge to let others benefit from it and yes, offer updates via pull requests. If they don't accept them, then you do have the option of forking it, or offering them money to meet your needs.

OTOH, when people put stuff out there to solve a broader problem, they are in fact interested in your needs, and are generally inclined to work thru them, based on resource and priority. Which is also exactly how commercial software is developed.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By GTVic on 3/25/2014 1:40:36 PM , Rating: 2
The main issue with color is that you can't tell when the window is active but I wouldn't use that as the major point to a discussion about subscription software.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By inperfectdarkness on 3/25/2014 12:08:27 PM , Rating: 3
I'm used to Office 2010 and .docx files and the like. This is mostly due to the PC's where I work being upgraded & also because I qualify for MS discount on Office software. I don't have a huge issue with the migration from the "ease of use" standpoint.

What I do dislike is "change for the sake of change". I get XP going away. The longer an OS is in the tooth, the more and more exploits are found for it. Eventually, like an old car, you end up with so many "fixes" that it's time to start over with something new.

Office isn't like that. Not even close. To me, the forced Office upgrades are unnecessary. A money grab at best. Between all of the added features, MS could potentially justify ONE upgrade to office since 2003, but not a handful.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By DT_Reader on 3/25/2014 12:29:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can still buy Office 2013 outright.

Or you can continue to use Office 2003, which still runs on Windows 7 (I can't speak for Windows 8). No support after April? So what - I haven't had any real support from Microsoft for years. Any questions are answered on blogs, not official Microsoft support sites.

And there are several very good free alternatives to Office 2003. If Office 2003 does all you need, you'll be very happy with Libre Office or Apache Open Office or Kingsoft Office.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Murloc on 3/25/2014 2:58:32 PM , Rating: 2
1. Office 2007 onwards offers a real productivity increase.
Really, it was like day and night. After that, it was just nice but incremental upgrades again.
2. Open source office suits from a user point of view are just ugly and cluttered.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By smilingcrow on 3/25/2014 6:26:47 PM , Rating: 2
"If Office 2003 does all you need, you'll be very happy with Libre Office"

Even a 10 year old version of MS Office has more features and is much faster than the current version of Libre Office.
If you are happy with Libre then you never needed MS Office in the first place which is true for many home users.
For myself the lack of an email client is a limitation as well.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Golgatha777 on 3/25/2014 9:55:30 AM , Rating: 2
Yea, Adobe went subscription only a few years ago and their stock is nearly triple the price now. I expect this gives Microsoft a serious hard on for a subscription only model since they have a similar stranglehold in the OS and Office markets.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Vytautas on 3/25/2014 10:04:47 AM , Rating: 3
Yes and no. I'm one such user of office 2003. Yes it's paid for, so I don't have much incentive to acquire a new version, but it's much more than that. Fact is the shitbon interface started the stupidification of windows in general. Instead of having the most needed functions one or two clicks away the ribbon interface forces the user to do two, three, or even more clicks for pretty basic things, which for me is unacceptable.
I use office for a living (being a freelance translator) and the ribbon interface reduces my productivity 15-20%, besides it looks ugly, something made for kids, not for serious work.
Besides the free office versions are slowly catching up, so I expect in a couple of years when I will finally be forced to slowly start moving away from office 2003, libre office and the rest of open software versions will finally have all the functionality needed in my line of work while retaining a workable interface. Sadly I've had to write off Microsoft as a software making company that supposedly knows what it has been doing.
Ruining office, then ruining skype, then windows with the whole METRO or "ANTICUATED&BACKWARDS WIN 3.11 INTERFACE ALL OVER AGAIN" in windows 8 debacle...
They are continuously taking the extra step needed to ruin software productivity and usability. May be the restructuring will turn the ship around, but I´ll not put my hopes up.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Just Tom on 3/25/2014 10:23:36 AM , Rating: 1
If you don't like using the ribbon interface just put your most commonly used commands on the quick access toolbar. One click and you're done.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Accidic on 3/25/2014 10:37:13 AM , Rating: 2
I've done this. It helps but it's still a headache and not worth being troubled with it. They're lucky the spreadsheet area is far superior in 2007+ or there'd be literally no reason to ever get away from 2003 aside from Office compatibility. I would never dream of spending money on a 2007+ version of Office. I may get forced to use it at work but that's as far as I'm willing to go.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Just Tom on 3/25/2014 11:24:05 AM , Rating: 1
While I understand not upgrading, my home machine still has Office 2003, I don't see how it is a headache to add commands to the quick access toolbar. The process is pretty simple and straightforward.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Accidic on 3/25/2014 11:31:20 AM , Rating: 2
You can actually download freely created versions as well (ubit comes to mind). You still lose quite a bit of real estate. Our portable is restricted to a 13" screen at 1360x768. That's a lot of real estate to abandon. In 2003 I use a minimalist layout. 1 line, 2 at the absolute max with the 2nd at the bottom to intentionally segregate items. I don't mind people who bought in disagreeing with my opinion on the subject. You can call me stubborn even if you'd like. But I'd point out it's no more stubborn than Microsoft and the stupid ribbon in the first place.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Just Tom on 3/31/2014 8:20:49 PM , Rating: 2
You do realize you can minimize the ribbon? If you do so it takes up the same space as the traditional menu bar.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Vytautas on 3/25/2014 10:42:45 AM , Rating: 5
There are too many commonly used commands to do that. As I said, I use office for a living. Not just writing a letter and hitting print. So I do need and use a wide array of formatting tools.
Up to office 2003 you just activated the corresponding toolbars and could access any number of commands with one click.
Besides the toolbars are compact and a great number of needed functions can be fit in two or three rows at the top of the screen. This is not quite the same with the ribbon interface and its´fisher price sized icons.
Microsoft in the last ten years has been moving from usability and functionality centered towards aesthetically centered and dumbified interface design.



RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By inighthawki on 3/25/2014 11:16:33 AM , Rating: 2
The ribbon is really nothing more than a more advanced drop-down toolbar that's more intelligently organized. If you have a problem with size, just minimize it and pretend each tab is just an entry on the menubar with a horizontal dropdown list.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Vytautas on 3/25/2014 11:26:04 AM , Rating: 3
:) :). You don´t get it, do you? Yes, you CAN do everything with later office versions that you can with office 2003. What you CAN´T do is do everything you need with more or less ONE CLICK. In other words later office versions DO TAKE more time to do the same amount of work. I have measured it and in my case office 2003 is 15-20% faster to use than later Microsoft office packs. I value my time too much to spend money on a product that makes me loose productivity.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By inighthawki on 3/25/2014 11:42:09 AM , Rating: 2
While a somewhat valid counterargument, if you're spending 2 weeks, 10 hours a day each, doing a particular task, you should really know the keyboard shortcuts to do everything at that point. Probably would have saved you 15-20% of your time regardless of which version of office you used.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Vytautas on 3/25/2014 11:55:35 AM , Rating: 2
Again, your words clearly show you lack much experience in this field. When I speak about formatting tools I´m not talking about Ctrl+B, or Ctrl+I, or Ctrl+U, Ctrl+C and similar really common functions. I´m talking text boxes, columns, embedded tables, watermarks, comments, footnotes and similar functions.
Besides defending shitty interface design decisions with the fact that there are still keyboard shortcuts is the same as defending the decision of a car manufacturer replacing the wheels on one side of the car with square ones with the argument that you can still drive at the same speed while driving on the side with only the round wheels :). Or a wheelchair manufacturer that announces a wheelchair with square wheels, saying people can still go as fast with crutches.

The fu


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Vytautas on 3/25/2014 12:00:35 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry for the misstype at the end of my post.

The fact is that in 16 years of work as a translator I have learned the shortcuts that I find useful. For example when working with macros or translation plugins like wordfast or trados there are more useful shortcuts. But there are plenty of functions that are easier and faster to use with a graphic interface.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By inighthawki on 3/25/2014 12:13:09 PM , Rating: 2
You're right, I don't have your experience, so I don't even know specifically what you do. But by shortcuts I meant the fact that you can do any command on the ribbon with alt commands. And if you know the commands well enough, using those alt commands should still be faster than clicking a toolbar icons.

I was also not trying to defend the ribbon via a function of "still having keyboard shortcuts." That was actually a completely separate point from the ribbon altogether.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Vytautas on 3/25/2014 12:37:44 PM , Rating: 2
It may be as you said, but you have to admit it´s still a very weak argument to be considered a point "in favor" of later office versions. There are a lot of shortcuts in office 2003, but even so I don´t use them ALL. It´s just not worth it. So saying the interface of later office versions doesn´t decrease productivity thanks to shortcuts can´t be considered a serious idea.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By 91TTZ on 3/25/2014 1:23:56 PM , Rating: 2
It sounds like you're saying that the Ribbon isn't a bad idea because it's still possible to work around it.

Sort of like how it's not a bad idea to place a boulder in the middle of the street because everyone should know how to drive around it.

The fact is that when the "old" way of doing things was more intuitive and faster for most people than the "new" way, they've taken a step backwards in the development of the product. It seems like the older versions of programs were all about functionality, but newer ones are all about style. At some point they began placing style before substance.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Vytautas on 3/25/2014 1:38:51 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Would rate you up if I could :)


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By inighthawki on 3/26/2014 6:54:31 PM , Rating: 2
No I feel that the ribbon is an improvement for the vast majority of their users, but for people like you who seem to have very specific performance needs, keyboard shortcuts are still available for everything you do to work just as quickly as before.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Accidic on 3/25/2014 11:26:51 AM , Rating: 2
While not entirely untrue, it also takes up at least double the real estate that I use in 2003 (more than that for most users) and is less intuitive than the prior menus. With that in mind you can replace the menus (custom) but that doesn't do much for real estate which blows if you're on a lesser resolution machine. Additionally, while you do gain functionality and some new features that are potentially nice to have, it also abandons features that 2003 had by default and unless you're willing to pay $$$ to replace them your SoL. Your company may be better than mine and pony up that dough. Mine does not.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Vytautas on 3/25/2014 11:38:20 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, screen estate and menu logic is quite important too. More or less on the same line of thought, that the ribbon interface does make office less efficient for serious work.

Of course writing a letter isn´t serious work and office 2013 will do an excellent work in such a work scenario. Even wordpad would be plenty for such usage patterns :).


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By chripuck on 3/25/2014 10:39:27 AM , Rating: 2
People may have Windows 8 somewhat justifiably, but if you haven't changed over to the Ribbon in 2010 then you're missing out. Win 7/O2010 is the new gold standard in machines and replaces XP/O2003.

I develop Office apps as a third party consultant and I would never go back to 2003. You're crazy man...


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Accidic on 3/25/2014 10:58:12 AM , Rating: 2
Different strokes for different folks. I'm forced to use the combo you mention for work and I consider it garbage personally.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Vytautas on 3/25/2014 11:01:33 AM , Rating: 2
Funny you say that. Not every new idea or interface design must be better than the one before. Fact is the ribbon and metro interfaces are more or less POS for any serious work productivity.
And I´m not some kind of Luddite sticking to something of the past just because it´s supposedly "the thing I know".
I have tried to use the new office versions and even windows 8, but productivity loss is too great. 15-20% may not look like much, but the difference is quite real. Just like these last two weeks I´ve been translating about 200 pages of text. This will take approximately 100-120 hours of 12 ten hour days of work. By switching to a later office version it would take me 2-2,5 ADDITIONAL 10 hour workdays to finish this job. Quite the difference, don´t you think?
I actually studied computer science, so it´s not like I don´t know how to use software.
Up to office 2003 I did upgrade almost immediately after a new version was released. I even made the switch from XP to win 7 almost immediately (although windows vista and 7 did fumble quite a bit with the interface too. Mainly with network settings management, but really quite a lot of system configuration functionality was hidden 3-5 clicks away, when it was only 2-3 clicks away in XP), because the advantages were very obvious.
So again, it´s a point of perspective. A dumbified interface makes software easier to use and more pleasing for very basic usage patterns and inexperienced users in general, but a pain in the neck for any serious work.

Yes, compatibility problems (even with microsoft compatibility pack) are starting to crop out. So it´s only a matter of a few years before I WILL be forced to upgrade. But it does seem it wont be to a Microsoft product, but rather an open software version, because of the interface tendencies in Microsoft.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By inighthawki on 3/25/2014 11:19:17 AM , Rating: 4
You're full of it. There is nothing so inherently unproductive about the ribbon that would take that much extra time to accomplish something. And if it really did, then you could have easily learned a handful of keyboard shortcuts.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Vytautas on 3/25/2014 11:34:27 AM , Rating: 2
How much pages do you write, edit or otherwise do serious work each day? Not so many, don´t you?
Yeah, thought so. A 15% loss in productivity may not seem like much when writing a 2 page document. It is quite a big difference when you work on large documents.

There is NO way two, three or more clicks take equal or less time than 1 click. It´s as simple as that. Clicks take time. That time is equal to lost productivity.

If I didn´t have to use so much and varied formatting tools MAY BE the loss of productivity wouldn´t be so great, but I do. So the end result is a net 15-20% loss when using later versions of microsoft office packs.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By _devo on 3/25/2014 6:35:48 PM , Rating: 2
I created an account just to back up the original poster. I also use Word up to 10 hours a day. Serious productivity was lost for after moving away from office 2003 (forced migration from work). On top of that Microsoft purposefully gimped the compatibility mode. For example, resizing pictures is usually not allowed via the ribbon and complicated macros no longer work. Much needed functions are simply not in the ribbon menu when you try to do any serious work. I will admit that for commonly used functions the ribbon menu is quite fast for keyboard short cuts.
*I won't be replying to comments ~I got work to do*


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By DT_Reader on 3/25/2014 12:46:05 PM , Rating: 2
I have Office 20something with the ribbon at home, and I know what you mean. I have Office 2010 at work, and in 2010 you can customize the ribbon. I've created a custom tab with all the things I use. It's great, and I wish I could do it at home, but not enough to throw more money at Microsoft for an "upgrade".


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By lagomorpha on 3/25/2014 10:11:15 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
It's just a matter of time before all companies force us to use subscription services for all our software, so they can dip into our pockets, month after month after month. Thank goodness for pirated software.


Or you could just migrate away from all Microsoft/Apple software to Linux/Libre Office as the former get too audacious in their demands of consumers.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By chripuck on 3/25/2014 10:41:10 AM , Rating: 3
Ha, you're funny. Office is the one Microsoft product that is done right. Libre office/Open office/Google docs etc. etc. are garbage for an enterprise user. Home use, who cares, but for people trying to actually get work done you don't use that limited open source variants.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Accidic on 3/25/2014 10:54:56 AM , Rating: 1
Well if you decree it it must be so.

Sidenote, OpenOffice has saved our bacon more than a couple times in an Enterprise environment when 2007 and 2010 bowed up and insisted on being fubar. Office is just more idiot friendly. If I have to teach them how to make it work for them though there is little difference.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By chripuck on 3/25/2014 10:58:11 AM , Rating: 3
I develop Excel applications for a living. I've been tasked to convert Excel apps to various open source variants and it's always failed because they just don't work as well.

Word, PowerPoint, Outlook the open source variants are fairly spot on and can replace it in a pinch, but Excel is the cream of the crop in terms of end user data analysis.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Accidic on 3/25/2014 11:00:54 AM , Rating: 2
I don't develop for a living but I do use spreadsheets predominantly for a living. And I can work with either without too much issue. Sorry but there haven't been a lot of improvements I can't live without since 2003 was released and to that end, the alternatives are starting to gain ground. At least for the purposes of which I need it.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Vytautas on 3/25/2014 11:06:56 AM , Rating: 2
I do agree on your take of open source excel equivalents, at least for now. They ARE quite limited. But at least in my case (I don´t manage spreadsheets of 66k or more lines), I really don´t need anything more than what the office 2003 version of excel has to offer. An the open source versions are getting better all the time. :)


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By ipay on 3/25/2014 12:12:00 PM , Rating: 2
As an enterprise and web application developer, I'm curious... what do these Excel applications do? Over the years, I've converted a number of Excel (and Access) to client/server and web apps, because they just didn't work for the clients. What does one done right look like? I haven't seen one and am honestly curious.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By DT_Reader on 3/25/2014 12:55:49 PM , Rating: 1
If you must exchange files with people who use Microsoft Office, then Libre Office or the others can be a hassle. But if I were starting a new company I wouldn't allow any Microsoft products in the building. Period. In fact, I wouldn't allow anything without an open license. Too much hassle keeping things legal for the BSA - a company with no legal standing that will swoop in on you demanding to see the license for all your software. I'd prefer to be in a position to tell them to sod off, and I can't understand any company under 50 employees using any Microsoft products other than sheer inertia. If you hire an employee and they can't learn Libre Office in their 90 day probation period, then hire someone else.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By DT_Reader on 3/25/2014 12:42:09 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know why you got downvoted to oblivion, other than your comment about pirating software. But that was simply a stupid comment - you can't pirate Office 365.

Everyone is going to subscriptions if they can. On-line newspapers are going behind paywalls. Hulu is now Hulu Plus, for "only" $8/month. The Disney company is fixated on finding a way to charge you every time you view a movie, like in the old days when you paid each time you went to the theater. The very notion of you paying once for a DVD or Blue-Ray and watching it forever boils their blood.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By justsomeone on 3/25/2014 2:24:39 PM , Rating: 2
I will run away faster than Forrest Gump from any and every subscription model I possibly can until the day I die.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By NellyFromMA on 3/25/2014 1:22:23 PM , Rating: 5
Office 2003 is over a decade old and you're upset its being EOL'ed?


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Motoman on 3/25/2014 9:58:45 PM , Rating: 2
Why shouldn't he be? For that matter, why shouldn't people be upset that they're being told they have to leave XP?

Say you buy a car. It's not been perfect - you'd had to have a couple things fixed over the years, but you like it and it suits your needs perfectly. Then one day, 10 years after you bought it, Ford calls you and says your car is no longer safe to drive, and you can't use it anymore.

I understand completely that it makes no sense for Microsoft (or anyone else) to continue to provide support for old products that they're no longer making money on. But to tell the consumer that he shouldn't be upset that he's being forced to buy a new product...when the old product is perfectly fine?

You're horribly out of touch. Virtually no one needs any features in an office suite that weren't present in 2003 (or, really, the Win3.1 version of WordPerfect for that matter). Nor do they need any OS features that aren't present in XP. They're being forced to buy new products, when there's nothing wrong with their old products.

Imagine being told by the company that made the door locks on your house that, since those locks are 10 years old now, they're suddenly going to be insecure and there's really no way to secure your house from intruders and thieves unless you run out and buy new locks.

Sucks, doesn't it?


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By corduroygt on 3/26/2014 12:42:37 PM , Rating: 2
But MS isn't saying people can't use O2003 anymore? It's similar to driving your car to a Ford dealership and them wanting you to sell a new car saying your car is 10 year old and that they won't be able to service 2003 models anymore. Which is fine, there are plenty of places that will service old cars.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Motoman on 3/26/2014 2:41:26 PM , Rating: 2
Not really.

XP/2003 are now forever going to make you vulnerable to security breaches. Saying that "well you can just keep using it anyway" isn't really all that valid, now is it?

There's not the slightest validity to saying it's like an old car the dealer doesn't want to maintain anymore. Your old car isn't going to let someone in and steal your purse because Ford doesn't want to service your door locks anymore.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By NellyFromMA on 3/27/2014 1:51:04 PM , Rating: 2
So should MS offer support for XP in perpetuity for life? Who's life? Your's? Bill's?

Are you suggesting MS should do it for free?

Or, should they offer a security service for a fee for those who choose to stay on XP and are overly concerned with security ramifications?

Would you pay? If so, how much? Would it basically just add up to the cost of Windows 7?

See, that's why its going away. Because it doesn't economically make sense.

Your analogy just doesn't fit the reality of what we're discussing. Choose a better one.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By NellyFromMA on 3/27/2014 1:48:17 PM , Rating: 2
No one says you have to leave XP. There is no kill-switch for the OS. You can use it as long as you want.

However, MS has decided that it doesn't make any sense to support XP, just as they had for 3.5, 95, 98, ME, 2000 etc.

It's just not new. You can keep using any of those OS including XP. You just aren't going to get updates forever. Starting any moment.

quote:
You're horribly out of touch. Virtually no one needs any features in an office suite that weren't present in 2003 (or, really, the Win3.1 version of WordPerfect for that matter). Nor do they need any OS features that aren't present in XP. They're being forced to buy new products, when there's nothing wrong with their old products.


I'm not horribly out of touch, but thanks for making it personal..

On that note, I don't expect ANY software company that ISN'T subscription based to support their product for the entirety of my life. Rather, I expect them to support the product for as long as they STATE. And to that end, you actually got more than that because they already delayed the EOL date. So, you actually got MORE than what MS said you would.

Sure, Office 2003, and XP for that matter, largely reflect the FUNCTIONALITY of todays world from an end-user perspective. What they don't do is offer sufficient SECURITY.

Sorry, but I don't expect MS to support Windows 95 - XP forever. I think the thought that they should is well, horribly out of touch.

Also, no car is garunteed to be safe 10 years after it was purchased. It SHOULD be, IF properly maintained. However, no car manufacturer even offers warranty greater than 10 year, 100,000 miles to my knowledge. That doesn't mean you can't still drive it.

So, that analogy isn't quite right either.


"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki