Get Office 2007 now and get Office 2010 for free.
Get Office for Today or Tomorrow
Starting today, consumers who purchase and activate Office 2007 will be able to download Office 2010 at no additional cost when it becomes available in June 2010.
"Buy Office 2007 now; get Office 2010 free"
According to MS Office website, a single licence for 2007 Pro costs $499.95. 2010 Pro, again according to MS, will be worth $499 but the 2010 version can be installed on two PCs. Why would anyone buy 2007 now?
do other programs of similar age work such as Wordperfect Office 2000?
Not with 2010 but you could use OpenOffice to save your WP2000 files to an open source format which 2010 could then read. Probably the formatting would be "off" but the meat of the documents would be retained.
Biggest problem with 2010 is that it's very bloated and all the navigation paths have changed; so a whole new learning curve is involved.
According to a recent post, 90% of Microsoft Office users actually use less than 50% of the features. I'm still looking for the value proposition.....
The problems you have with office 2010 would have been the same problems you had with office 2007 =). In fact, office 2010 hasn't changed much at all compared to office 2007. For an average user, I would suggest using office home and student. You do not need access, outlook, sharepoint, etc. lol An average user with a learning curve should download Ribbon Hero.
Ribbon Hero
It is a game that is also an addon for offfice 2010. It basically helps you with learning the software. Office 2010 is also faster, and lighter. It doesn't use any more resources as 2007. Also, office 2010 is the only suite that gives you 64 bit.
(Also, for all users of office, I discovered something =). You can go through the tabs using your scroll wheel, instead of clicking on the ribbon >.< I never knew that.)
The problems you have with office 2010 would have been the same problems you had with office 2007
I don't have operational problems with Office 2010 (or 2007). I have value issues with it.
In fact, office 2010 hasn't changed much at all compared to office 2007.
Agreed.
The original post queried Office 2000 compatability with Windows 7. Notwithstanding MS claims of incompatability, many folks find that Office 2000 works perfectly well under Windows 7. That said, the next logical question is: "What additional value will I receive if I spend several hundred dollars upgrading to Office 2010?" Well, for "Average" users, probably not so much other than they would replace a 10 year old application software with the current version.
The fact that Office 2010 (and 2007) "swamps" the user with "eye candy" belies the fact that basic functionality hasn't changed much, for the "Average" user.
An average user with a learning curve should download Ribbon Hero.
This is bizarre. You missed the point. It takes only some usage to figure out the new locations of the basic commands. The real point is "Why did MS relocate all the basic commands?" What purpose does it serve other than to make the consumer believe they are getting more of an upgrade than is actually the case?
Just too much "Smoke and mirrors" nonsense for my taste.
The thing here, is a balance between innovation and usability. Take a look at the Mac OSX. The software for them is constantly changing. Iworks has changed so much since 2000. However, the users of apple hardly ever complain because they are encouraging the positive innovation of apple company.
Look back at microsoft. If microsoft never creates something new or experiment with new ideas, then they would be further criticized for being uninnovative and a poor competitor. I actually believe the ribbon was a step towards innovation. Microsoft relocated all the basic commands because they believe that the new setup would be more reliable and productive. Of course, it is all your choice whether you want to upgrade or not.
The choice is comparable to the upgrade from xp to windows 7. Why did you upgrade from xp to windows 7? (you wouldn't be on this forum if you haven't otherwise) It is not because "it swamps the user with eye candy belying the fact that basic functionality hasn't changed much for the average user", or at least I don't think it is. It is the same with office because they want experimenting, with something new! It is positive growth for the industry and can only potentially benefit the consumers.
The people who do not benefit are those who chose not to try the new setup. In this case, you can always fall back to office 2000. Office 2000 is completely usable, there is really no problem with it. I just think that we all need some innovation in our personal computing, and the office ribbon is something that I believe was inspiration and brilliance. It enhances our usabiliy with new graphics and an easier to read font.
It is all your opinion, but at least I can tell you the need for new innovation and change in the software.
BTW...the OP has stated he/she likes Office 2007 and would like to have it...
Also Microsoft did not blindly create the ribbon, it went though extensive testing.
Logicearth:
Office 2000 definitely works on Windows 7. Personally verified by me, several associates and check the "Interweb" for similar testimonials. However MS will not "support" Office 2000 after 2010. So what? Who cares? It works!
The "Ribbon" was extensively tested by MS and "Associates", those with a vested interest. Typical marketing conflict of interests?
Pichu:
Of course, it is all your choice whether you want to upgrade or not.
Out of context - yes. In context - No. When MS announces they will no longer support a particular version of software, the "masses" imagine the worst and feel compelled to upgrade. All part of the MS marketing plan and irrelevant to end-user value.
The "Ribbon" is not an innovation. It's a variation on an old theme. MS-DOS (circa 1978) was an innovation. The PC GUI by Apple, circa 1980, was an innovation, copied by MS approximately three years later. The integration of word processor, spreadsheet and database applications (Office) was an innovation by MS, approximately 1989.
Since 1989 not much has changed, except the GUI and according to MS, "major" improvements in security. (How would we know?)
If you research carefully, you'll find that most aspects of every MS operating system published since 1978, rely heavily on MS-DOS, including Windows 7.
Today's OS and Office software are basically 80s technology with an "improved" GUI and better security. So I say again, where's the value proposition? It's not there.
I didn't say it didn't work!
What portion of Windows 7 relies heavily on DOS? Maybe if you do further research you would know Windows NT which what Windows 7 is based off, was a completely rewrite with zero code from DOS.If you research carefully, you'll find that most aspects of every MS operating system published since 1978, rely heavily on MS-DOS, including Windows 7.
Riser, nobody is telling you to get the new office suite, but I truly believe that the newer office suite gives you a better more graphical environment that is more pleasing to the eye. It actually helps me become more productive in working and such. By your logic, none of us even needs windows 7!! Screw windows 7!!! We can have the same functionality with windows 2k?!?! It would be a speed demon on an i7 core processor =.= Yes, you can "do" the same things on windows 7 and any NT versions of windows (perhaps with a few third party enhancements).
Yes, it is possible that the feeling we get from running newer versions of office is like a placebo. However, the backstage view truly helps!! The print screen in the backstage is so integrated into the office suite. No need for additional print windows! Not only that, outlook has support for jumplist, word has a now customizable ribbon, and the software runs magnificently.
Quote