Word 2007 - it's awful!

Money_Grabber13579

hundredk wrote: »

I have Office 1997. It does all I need and more; the menus are easy to navigate and you can find the functions where you expect them to be.

All very well adding all these new whizzy features, toolbars, ribbon interface etc etc but how many are really needed or used. I imagine the vast majority of office and home users use the basic funtionality for basic letters, tables, columns etc.

Only problem is that many people have upgraded and by staying with 97 you've very nearly cut yourself off compatability wise! Unless the documents have been saved in a compatible format, which I never do!

hundredk

Money_Grabber13579 wrote: »

Only problem is that many people have upgraded and by staying with 97 you've very nearly cut yourself off compatability wise! Unless the documents have been saved in a compatible format, which I never do!

Yes, this is of course what Microsoft want to happen.

For me the compaitbility isn't a problem (yet) as all the docs are saved in 97 version. If I use newer versions of Word elsewhere they are backward compatible and open the older file. If newer saved files need to be opened in 97 the worst that happens in my experience is a message saying some functions may not work in earlier version but these are, no doubt the advanced functions that are rarely used anyway.

It's not primarily a money saving thing for me by not upgrading, just the fact that the 97 version works and is plenty functional enough even in 2009.

Money_Grabber13579

hundredk wrote: »

Yes, this is of course what Microsoft want to happen.

For me the compaitbility isn't a problem (yet) as all the docs are saved in 97 version. If I use newer versions of Word elsewhere they are backward compatible and open the older file. If newer saved files need to be opened in 97 the worst that happens in my experience is a message saying some functions may not work in earlier version but these are, no doubt the advanced functions that are rarely used anyway.

It's not primarily a money saving thing for me by not upgrading, just the fact that the 97 version works and is plenty functional enough even in 2009.

It'll be interesting to see what they do in the 2010 version! Probably eliminate all compatibility with everything bar the 2007 version. Just to make everyone go and upgrade again!:mad:

At my dad's work, they still use Office 97 as well!

chunter

hundredk wrote: »

I have Office 1997. It does all I need and more; the menus are easy to navigate and you can find the functions where you expect them to be.

All very well adding all these new whizzy features, toolbars, ribbon interface etc etc but how many are really needed or used. I imagine the vast majority of office and home users use the basic funtionality for basic letters, tables, columns etc.

I'm still pottering away with 2003 and it's fine. It's not broke so I don't need to fix it.. as I'm sure the majority are still doing.
Most don't (and maybe never will) need the fancy features Word 2007 kindly provides.

[Deleted User]

Money_Grabber13579 wrote: »

It'll be interesting to see what they do in the 2010 version! Probably eliminate all compatibility with everything bar the 2007 version. Just to make everyone go and upgrade again!:mad:

At my dad's work, they still use Office 97 as well!

I'm using 2010 and it's just as compatible as 2007

isofa

What many posters forget is Microsoft is a business, if they didn't release new products to sell, they'd collapse and go bankrupt. It's in their interests to create new versions with better facilities even if sometimes it's controversial. They aren't a charity.

You don't have to upgrade and buy new versions, but in today's on-line society, using very out of date applications and systems puts you at a security risk. God knows the security holes in using Outlook 97 as an e-mail client today: no advanced blocking of attachments or in msg image downloads, scripts, content and extension filtering, let alone many other issues...

If people are still happy to run DOS or Windows 3.1 and try to get a PPP stack up and running for an internet connection then fair enough I'm sure it'd be run like lightning on a Core 2 Duo! Presumably these people are also driving around in 17-20 year old cars with their lack of safety features...

Personally I'm still happy with Office 2003 as many of my corporate clients still use it, but happy also to use 2007 too, it was radical departure (hardly now 2 years on) and has ruined some bespoke Access apps, but many find the ribbon brilliant. But I'm not happy to use anything older than 2003, that is far too dated technology for me and with insecure risks attached.

Most users don't need 95% of the features that any version of Word has offered since 6, yet the majority use Office. I wonder how many people use the footnotes and references, or many other powerful features. Yet most people try and use it for DTP, which it is hopeless at, and complain when the results are awful! Right tools for the job 'n' all that!

Money_Grabber13579

anewhope wrote: »

I'm using 2010 and it's just as compatible as 2007

That's good to know! I assume it still isn't automatically compatible with 2003 and earlier? I wasn't selected to try out the Technical Preview.

[Deleted User]

Money_Grabber13579 wrote: »

That's good to know! I assume it still isn't automatically compatible with 2003 and earlier? I wasn't selected to try out the Technical Preview.

The programs still use the OOXML file formats as their default, but you can still change that if necessary. Personally, I think they are a better format than the binary ones which is why we almost exclusively use them throughout now.