Office 2007: Are you planning to upgrade?

should be available in mid-2008, but it won't be exactly like Office 2007 as they are very different teams that work on the products. MS should have filters very soon for Office 2004 Mac that will convert the new xml format properly (similar to filters for the Office 2000/2003)

We have already upgraded to Office 2007 Pro Premium. Some users have issues with the ribbon interface; however, overall we like it.

anthemwebs, I was also there in Las Vegas on Jan 30th, so we probably saw each other. :)

Speaking as an young'un (32, look like 20s), I learned Office 2007 much faster and easier than my coworkers who are more your age. However, I have far more of an IT background than them, so that's not really surprising. I do agree about the PEBKAC. The biggest issues seem to happen because people don't bother to think things through and don't bother to explore and learn the interface.

We updated at the largest environment I support because 'we are a Microsoft shop', etc.

The learning curve for the users has been interesting; most of the chatter has been, 'what on earth did they do THAT for?' -- referring to the drastic changes in GUI design.

I can't see good reasons for the change; but I'm sure that they are related to Microsoft's push to obliterate the feature-parity of competing suites. Just look at the effect that moving a large office environment from .DOC to .DOCX can have -- or removing the current advantage that the OpenOffice people have been able to tout, that 'if you know how to use Microsoft Office, you can use the same skills in OpenOffice'.

This can be extremely frustrating, both for users and for support staff.

On the upside, this build has been the most stable first-rev I have ever seen (and I've been doing this since 1992). Remove the evil marketing people from Redmond, and I might start liking Microsoft again.

Is there a training DVD that anyone recommends to learn the diffrences?

The recent posting here called my attention to next-earlier post of macindy mentioning DOCX format. I encountered my first DOCX document this week, and it is not a simple matter to open it. This surprises me for two related reasons.

If this format has been released to public for more than a year, and is touted as an "open" format, why, apart from the fact that the DOCX spec is said to require 6000 pages to define, is it so hard for other companies to accommodate it?

And, indeed, why is it hard to read an XML format in any case? As I understand it, XML is the eXtensible Markup Language because, unlike HTML, one can create any tags whatsoever, and simply define them in the schema, so every XML-capable application can read the document. So how could even an evil genius make an XML document unreadable?

I have several comments.

First, we have upgraded to Office 2007, we are running it on newer machines and older ones with no problems. When we do have problems, it has been my experience of hardware issues on older machines that are failing (which falls in the normal aging cycle of pc’s –they do not last forever)

Secondly, as far as the GUI, which includes the ribbon bar, my users had initial problems, but once they are able to make the paradigm switch they like it much better. I just provided them with basic training tools, and tutorials to help smooth the transition. There were a few bumps, but overall it went just fine. My experience is that most users do not use all of the tools available in 2003 (or even knew they were there). Now that tools are all visible on the ribbon bar, instead of in drop down menus, it can be confusing at first. Eventually they begin using more of the tools available in Office 2007.

I am not touting all Microsoft here. I really like Office 2007 and Visual Studio 2008, but I would highly recommend staying away from Vista. In your office network stick with XP, if you are looking for a new home computer (and I say this with a big gulp), I recommend getting an iMac. Simply for the ease of use and reliability compared to Vista.

The comment about docx is off base, the reason for the two different formats is the use of WPF and XAML used in Office 2007. Earlier versions cannot read those formats, so it would treat as corrupt. The open source software will catch up and begin using more XAML and WPF.

The comment about XML is incorrect. Yes, XML is basic markup and tagging language with common specs, but when XSLT began to be used to format the XML data, programs that did not have XSLT schema capable could not read it. Now the next evolution is XAML along with XSLT (which Microsoft did not create), and software that cannot translate XAML schema cannot transform the XML into readable bits of info. It is still in its original XML format, but it does not know how to present it. The WCC3 have been pushing this spec for several years, so software that does not make the transition will become obsolete. The major functionality of the iPhone uses XAML, and the next iMac OS will use XAML, as part of the presentation layer. Please get your facts right.

Thanks for the information about docx and XSLT and XAML and (by implication) WPF. I really did not know about that, but have now tried to get my facts straight by Wikipedia. I am far from understanding it, and so I will not be able to keep all the facts straight for long.

However, from Wikipedia I find that some of your statements seem to be imprecise. W3C did create XSL, but I cannot find that W3C has any hand in XAML nor, of course, WPF.

Indeed, the article on XAML says, "With XAML, critics, for instance ECIS, fear that Microsoft aims to introduce content on the web that can only be served from the Windows platform. They argue that XAML is positioned to replace the cross-platform HTML standard. Effectively, once XAML usage becomes widespread enough, users will risk having to purchase Microsoft products to access web content,[3]. However, XAML is cross-platform by design and cross-platform implementations do exist, for example eFace for Java."

We upgraded right away and it has been fine.

We started to get docx sent our way from various sources outside the organization and instead of going around and installing the viewers on every machine we figured why not just go around and install the new version. That way we'd be able to view both formats and we'd be able to produce both formats - and of course we can also take advantage of some of the new features.

The only minor concern I had was the new interface, so I created a quick info section on our Intranet about it just to give employees a heads up in advance. Most of them have reported that it took them a day to get used to the major changes, and they are still slowly working through and getting used to the minor changes. (like, for example, why on earth does the new outlook calendar not include a word wrap in its monthly view? :confused; Hahah)

We are a non profit with around 50 PCs. We're grateful that we can purchase software through TechSoup and that so many different companies donate. That said....I was only going to upgrade some of the PCs to Office 2007. It's always difficult for people to get through a change in software. Was I surprised. They LOVED it. Everybody wanted it. Purchased more licenses. Primarily, what they were happiest about was the ribbon. Things that were hidden before are now easy to use because they are easily seen. We did provide classes for all employees. Software isn't much good if the people with the software can't use it. They are also aware that they should never send any document out to other agencies as a .doc. That's assuming that all other agencies are using Office....they save the documents as .doc or .docx but if they want to send it out they change it to .rtf or with one click in Office 2007 they can change it to .pdf and send it out.

They love Office 2007 in our office. We have about 100 employees scattered throughout several offices and cities. We made 2 hours of training mandatory and scheduled them in groups of 5 or less. I think, perhaps because of the training, and the positive fun attitude of the trainer, this was the easiest change for our employees. What's the point of having current technology and software if the users can't use it efficiently. Easiest rollout to date.

Hi Tracee,

Looks like your org managed this transition particularly well - well done! - did you implement a transitionary period? (a tiered roll-out or utilize O2K3 with the O2K7 compatiability kit etc.), or just do the roll-out and provide training to everyone at the same time?

Because it went so well for you I'm interested in how you managed the process.

Don

Just upgrade already. It's 2008. 2003 was FIVE years ago. That's forever in tech time. It's not a big deal. We had NO problems. Get one or two users on board and then roll from there. You will hate 2003 once you use 2007. I tell users to try the new interface for a week. If they don't like it, I'll switch them to classic more. Everyone likes it once they get over the hump. Don't worry about the compatibility mode. If you are in 2003 and you try to open 2007, you get prompted for a download. Just do it.

LOL - Being named 'Office 2003' doesn't mean it went EOL in the year 2003 - O2K3 is still a current and supported product, as is O2K7. When we do roll-out O2K7 organization-wide we intend to properly plan and manage the deployment.

Cheers - Don

i rank office 07 up there with vista ..

not gonna happen

ever..
its just not intuitive i have been using word since the 2.0 mac version ~1988 or so and this version is aweful

ill move the company to open office first