What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
163 Comments
- smartnerd666, on 07/13/2009, -14/+67"A new Print menu is especially impressive"
I can't imagine that this upgrade will be worth my money - gentmax, on 07/13/2009, -2/+51"worls"? What? No spell check on the new Office?
- BossKey, on 07/13/2009, -1/+30In this case, it depends on why it's new. Seriously. Printing is something that a lot of people waste time and materials on. When they revamped Photoshop's print dialog it provided so much better feedback on page fitting, options, and color that it was possible to literally save money by making fewer test prints at the wrong settings. Paying close attention to print settings is even less expected of office drones. An improved Print menu is one of those that has a chance of helping make back the cost of an upgrade, when you count not only ink cartridges and paper, but wasted time. That is, if Microsoft really did improve the usability of printing...
- PhoenixAvatar2, on 07/13/2009, -2/+26If you make an attempt at using it instead of just whining you'll find that 2007 is much easier to use. Graphs are incredibly simple to just throw up and view, pictures and word art behave like you want them to and obscure menu options are much easier to find. Kudos to Microsoft for not assuming that their users are idiots who can't handle change and for going ahead with a much improved UI overhaul.
- prisoner24601, on 07/13/2009, -7/+30Are they keeping the file formats the same? I'm just so incredibly sick of the "upgrade treadmill" that we keep getting stuck on because "my accountant upgraded from Excel 2003 to 2007 and now he's sending me .xlsm files" and "the receptionist just got a new Dell and it came with a different version of Word and saves her documents as .docx not .doc" etc.
There are only two reasons I saw anyone buy Office 2007: 1) their new computer came with it/they were too small of a company to do a volume license to be able to stay with 2003 or 2) the upgrade treadmill where one partner/employee became the "wedge" that forced everyone to follow. It's pretty frustrating. - vajra918, on 07/13/2009, -2/+24ya, the formats are unchanged. As for your "treadmill" problem, try this: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?fa ...
- robotfriendly, on 07/13/2009, -4/+22I felt the same way when 2007 came out, but would never go back to 2003 at this point.
- inactive, on 07/13/2009, -9/+25downgraded. even office 97 if better than the latest OO
- BossKey, on 07/13/2009, -0/+16We can't all write our own office suites.
- wolfing, on 07/13/2009, -8/+23lol and I'm still using Office 2000 & 2003
- dyau270, on 07/13/2009, -4/+18hmm... looks like microsoft is finally starting to get its act together. First Windows 7 and now Office 2010.
- tinkafoo, on 07/13/2009, -0/+12I can edit the ***** ribbon!! FINALLY!!!
- inactive, on 07/13/2009, -3/+14yeah..because that is the only new/updated feature.
- Crewbie4life, on 07/13/2009, -2/+13well my experience is that anyone using 2007 should assume that the other person doesn't having it unless they are sure and should save in the .doc format. With my school assignments I have had to do this all the time and it isn't hard at all. you just need to request that your receptionist use the .doc format when she saves her files. it's as simple as that.
- insertAliasHere, on 07/13/2009, -0/+9I hated the Ribbon. For about 2 weeks. Now, I love it and I can't go back. I can't find ***** in the old menus, because the Ribbon has spoiled me to have everything laid out where I can easily find it.
Some people just love to bitch, but if they ever actually made the effort to use the new UI, they would absolutely love it.
And just because it's just a "damn text editor" to you, doesn't mean that everyone uses it that way. By your logic, you might as well use WordPad or Notepad. And ***** Photoshop or GIMP, I've got Paint. - insertAliasHere, on 07/13/2009, -0/+9That "rule" you quoted, even if true, misses something important: those 90% that are only using 10% aren't all using the _same_ 10%.
Think of Photoshop. (For the most part,) Photographers aren't using it for graphic design, people in advertising aren't retouching photos, and neither of them are prototyping web layouts like the web designer is. None of them are even coming close to using all the features, but all of them rely on the same program for their job.
Just like in Office. Some people make graphs in Excel every day. Some people use it for accounting calculations, some use it for something else completely. Most never use it all, but when you combine the whole user base, all parts are being used.
My point is that just because you and the people don't use certain features doesn't make them bloat or useless. Other people do and love them. - wassim2k, on 07/13/2009, -0/+9When will these sites learn that a "slideshow" is not an ad rotator spread over multiple pages.
- Kazbaeden, on 07/13/2009, -0/+8I'm using Open Office Calc right now because I didn't have a chance to install Excel before going to work (after I installed a new build of Windows 7). I'm so frustrated. I don't know if it's because I don't know some of the nuance involved in calc or I'm so used to Excel.
Here's what's annoying me: No single button to increase/decrease font size. No way to save a style and apply it. No smart styles based on values of other cells. Inserting and cutting cells works differently than I'm used to. No single button to change cell data type (I have to go through like 3 menus).
If these functions are available, they're well hidden. Can't wait to install Excel 07 when I get home. - phpchris, on 07/13/2009, -1/+9http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow/0,1206,l=242184& ...
- chockster, on 07/13/2009, -1/+9Yeah, some people in office jobs actually want to get stuff done.
- Kazbaeden, on 07/13/2009, -1/+8Office 07 can save and read ODF since SP2.
- Kazbaeden, on 07/13/2009, -0/+7I agree with the others. I just did a quick test on my machine to open a file, since I happen to have Calc installed. Totally unscientific, but illustrates a point.
Calc 3.1.0 - 18s
Excel 2007 SP2 - 4s
That's a clear win for Excel in my mind. - charlietuna, on 07/13/2009, -15/+22PC Mag gets perhaps 50% of their ad revenue from Redmond.
They
Are
Shills. - Myztry, on 07/13/2009, -1/+8"If you haven't registered for the preview, the suite can be found on software-piracy sites—but Microsoft warns that many of these bootleg copies are infected with malware. If you're curious about the new version, don't risk compromising your Windows system."
If you want to trial anything and are worried about the effect on the system, just run it under Virtual Box with the free Win 7 RC. Even if people aren't worried about Malware this also avoids all the other gotchyas like temporary software permanently stealing file associations. - trogdoor, on 07/13/2009, -0/+7If all you want is a text editor then stop complaining and use a text editor. I almost never need formatting in what I write ( even if I don't count code ) so I almost always use plain text, and it makes life a lot simpler for me in many ways. That said, many people do need formatting and therefore need more than just a text editor, and for a general purpose word processor MS Word isn't bad.
- gordigor, on 07/13/2009, -0/+6PCMag still runs on Classic ASP?!
- coopa, on 07/13/2009, -3/+9Unfortunately there are problems with the Compatibility pack. My company is using Office 2003 currently but because we receive lots of documents (we're a publishing company) we rolled out the compatibility pack early on.
So far i have had a large number of .docx and .xlsx documents that will not convert to Office 2003. And if you google for the problem you'll see it's quite common. - LuTze, on 07/13/2009, -1/+6Did you read the article? Even grossly, "it has extended the ribbon to Publisher, OneNote, and Outlook's main menu—and introduced a customization feature that lets you add your own tab and remove some (but not all) items on the default ribbon." Personally, I think much of this should have happened in 2007 itself but you can't say that there is nothing to distinguish between the two versions.
- l034me, on 07/13/2009, -2/+7Office 2000 extended support ends tomorrow (7/14/2009).
source: http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifeoffice - xninjatylerx, on 07/14/2009, -1/+6THANKS FOR DIGGING EVERYONE, it's because of you guys that this is my first popular article on digg!
Keep on digging fellow users - jakk, on 07/13/2009, -6/+11Open Office FTW. I'm not using a web browser to edit documents.
- Spyder2k, on 07/13/2009, -1/+6A free web app version is also being released; http://www.downloadsquad.com/2009/07/13/office-201 ...
- robotfriendly, on 07/13/2009, -0/+5Excel is 10x better than it was in '03, for things like the simple but much more functional conditional formatting and filtering options (by color, text filters). Sounds stupid, but I use that stuff all day every day and it makes a huge difference.
Hated the ribbon at first, but again, wouldn't go back to standard toolbars. Quicker and easier to customize. - Tyrax, on 07/13/2009, -0/+4If you are upset about Outlook's rendering, you should be really upset by the gmail behavior:
http://www.istartedsomething.com/20090626/outlook- ...
But I didn't see a fixgmail topic on twitter, wierd. - stubear, on 07/13/2009, -5/+9Too bad Outlook's HTML e-mail rendering engine is sill going to be as ***** as in Outlook 2007. Go to www.fixoutlook.org and www.email-standards.org to learn more.
http://www.fixoutlook.org http://www.email-standards.org - SpeedSteamBoat, on 07/13/2009, -1/+5Only at first. Once you learn where things are and how they are organized it's actually a lot faster and easier.
- aamer, on 07/13/2009, -0/+4Outlook has had threaded emails forever. You just need to arrange the list by "conversation."
The difference in Outlook, however, is that a thread only applies to messages in that folder whereas in Gmail, the threads can span multiple folders (or, more accurately, "labels"). - damnshoes, on 07/13/2009, -1/+5shutup
- Kazbaeden, on 07/13/2009, -2/+6At least you probably felt right at home with the interface.
- FredFredrickson, on 07/13/2009, -0/+4I like OO, but to say that it does it without bloat is mind boggling to me. The program takes days to launch.
- or3n, on 07/13/2009, -4/+8Solid article w/ some great screenshots. Dugg. Thanks for submitting.
- inactive, on 07/13/2009, -6/+10if you want to actually succeede in a real business, Google Docs will not help you w.
- IFEice, on 07/13/2009, -2/+6It take FOREVER for YOU
Ribbon is much more convenient for me than the old menu style. - SpeedSteamBoat, on 07/13/2009, -0/+4He didn't say that. He said their wasn't enough to make it worth his money. I would tend to agree since I never use Publisher, OneNote, and certainly not Outlook. I've never had any urge to add my own tab to the ribbon. It's neat I guess, but neat enough to justify paying MS Office prices? Probably not for everyone.
- EllimistX, on 07/13/2009, -0/+3I second that, word, excel, and powerpoint 2007 all open in 2 sec or less (Core 2 Duo 2.67Ghz, 4GB RAM). However, with that said, Powerpoint doesn't hold a candle to Keynote.
- damnshoes, on 07/13/2009, -0/+3I have Office 2003, will there be a conversion tool so I can access Office 2010 documents?
- Crewbie4life, on 07/13/2009, -2/+5Haha figures... I just shelled out $75 for office Ultimate 2007. Still a worthy investment but would have rather gotten the newest version. Same thing happened with Windows 7, I bought my computer 2 weeks before I could get the free upgrade through dell, not my best move.
- sKizZz, on 07/13/2009, -2/+5I've been using, the program is extremely responsive and no issues thusfar.
I'm really considering buying stock in Microsoft the way they are going. - FredFredrickson, on 07/13/2009, -0/+3No, I'm running a dual core P4 with 2gb ram. I reformatted my machine 3 months ago and it still takes about 20 seconds to load OO.
That might have something to do with my disabling the quicklaunch exe in my startup items, but I don't use it often enough to warrant having a program launch at startup for it.
Either way, a text editor shouldn't take that long to load. - Kazbaeden, on 07/13/2009, -0/+3I've got a 1.2 GHz C2D, and most of the time is spent loading the actual file, so obviously times are going to be different across files and systems. 16 of those seconds I spend watching that green bar progress, whereas Excel opens the file instantly. This result is consistent over multiple openings too.
Again, not scientific at all, but at least for me It seems calc is the one that is slow. -
Show 51 - 100 of 164 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is