OS and Software > Microsoft Help > [Info] How many of you still use older versions of Office?

reply to drew

Re: [Info] How many of you still use older versions of Office?

I believe there are free versions of office out there - but they're supposedly limited functionality (word/excel only) and have ad's built in.

»www.pcworld.com/article/173382/a···rks.html

- FM
--
Q: How many theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Two. One to hold the bulb and one to rotate the universe.

Yep. That free Word/Excel with Ads is optional on new Dell Vostros. I want Word OEM or Works Suite OEM neither of which are offered any longer. I don't want ad supported Word and I can't see buying Word retail especially since I don't want the ribbon anyway.
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson

reply to FutureMon
If you know where to look (ie. Google), there are guides to getting the free ad-sponsored versions of MS Word & Excel 2010. However, I just couldn't think of going from MS Office 2003 to MS Office Starter 2010 as an "upgrade".

Again, for the prices MS is asking from retail customers, I'd rather just keep my Office 2003.

Technet sub = 2010 Pro for me.

I like ribbon. I do still use keyboard shortcuts though

reply to drew
I used both Office 2003 and 2007 one and work and one at home, the confusing part is noticeable going from one to the other. Send, folders, delete are there but in different format, you sometimes have to search more before you do find it...once you do you will not go back to 2003 again...love 2007 although have not tried 2010 yet..hope that helped..

reply to Thaler
that's true! I got 2010 pro thru my HUP (home user's program) for $9.95

reply to brtcute1
You are right. I took me months to get used to the ribbon, and I'm not sure my productivity has improved. But going back to 2003 is just torture.
--
Ken

reply to slajoh01
Office 2003 mostly but I support a handful of users on 2010.
We skipped 2007 after it was tested in our main office only. The feedback from that test was 100% negative towards Office 2007.

I also despise the ribbon. I think it is horrible. Office 2010 does offer some improvements over 2007 but not enough for me to change from 2003.

Every user in our organization that needs Office 2007 or 2010 hates it but they must use it for a custom Excel budget spreadsheet that will not work correctly with the converter.
There are formulas in the spreadsheet that the converter will not handle.
Most of the 2010 users requested 2003 be reinstalled and then only Excel be upgraded to 2010 only so they could work with the budget spreadsheet.

If it were not for the master budget being created in Office 2007, we would all be running Office 2003. I know they looked into rewriting the budget spreadsheet in Excel 2003 but decided against that idea as it was too risky and may introduce errors.

For those that need to see the current budget, they have one of the staff with excel 2010 print the relevant section for them! Kind of stupid if you ask me but that is how they do it.

Another fine example of users running the show.

As an IT professional, if I listened to the users complain and aquiessed to their demands, we would be running win98 and everyone would use floppies. Also, Outlook Express would be the bane of my existence.

In the professional world, users should have little to no say in what software they use. Technical input from power users is welcome. Further than that... Sit down, shut up, and do your job.
--
flickr | Of faith, power and glory

reply to drew

reply to drew
Damn, it's you that gives us professionals in IT a bad name with that holier than thou attitude. I've encountered your type in the workplace and they make everything that much more difficult and usually end up getting booted. If not it's because the boss has the same holier than thou attitude as they do which comes with an uptight and unhappy workplace environment.

I agree with kruser entirely, let users choose between which Office version will best maximize their productivity. I sure as hell am no fan of the ribbon either and will continue to use 2003. Aside from the ribbon changes I don't see why there's a reason to use anything newer than 2003.

reply to slajoh01
Office 2000- -- does everything I need.
--
Wacky Races 2012!

reply to drew

Did you read the post I replied to? He was speaking to a business environment.

Guess I interpret business as all kinds and sizes. If we're talking megacorp (ie. IT is handling hundreds of computers), then yeah. Your job is to keep needed tools working and their job is to use them.

I'd argue that standardization is even more critical in those kinds of environments.

I'm not an IT elitist and I am one of the best customer-facing people my department has. I've been given numerous accolades for this from the CIO. The bottom line is that users are going to bitch about anything and everything under the sun. Read this thread for a perfect example. Doing something, like staying on previous versions is delaying the inevitable. If you're doing it for budgetary reasons, it's one thing. There's no need for most (many? all?) businesses to upgrade their office productivity suite everytime a new one comes out.

That being said, Office 2003 is antiquated. Office '15' is already in technical preview (under tight NDA) and due out around the time Win8 will be. Your user base WILL have to get acclimated to a new UI for their office applications, like it or not.

Personally, I find myself more set in my ways the longer I do something. I've found the same to be true of the numerous other user groups I've supported. The very same truism applies to the Windows UI overall... imagine all these corporate users who are going to crap bricks when IT finally gets the dollars to move off XP.
--
flickr | Of faith, power and glory