Talk:Microsoft Office 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of Computing WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to computers and computing. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an rating on the importance scale.
Microsoft Office 2007 was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Delisted version: June 5, 2006
To-do list for Microsoft Office 2007: edit · history · watch · refresh

Things that needed to be done with this article:-

  • more info needed on reception to office 2007

These links might come in handy:

Contents

[edit] Page renaming

Why did you have to follow some stupid internet rumors and rename the page? There were neither change on the official Office "12" page nor press release from Microsoft. Please, revert!

http://www.office12watch.com/, amongst many other places is reporting that "Office 2007" is an unsubstantiated rumour. Internally and externally, Microsoft is still calling this product Office "12", and the article name should reflect that until we have an officially announced name. I've renamed the article back to Microsoft Office "12". Warrens 07:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

http://news.com.com/2100-1012_3-6040071.html?part=rss&tag=6040071&subj=news says it's called Office 2007 now. Nova Prime 07:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I use as my default Word Processor, Microsoft Office Word 2007 (Beta) so hopefully that clears that up any dispute, though this issue seems to have been settles. Aeroplane 19:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The entire suite is officially called 2007 Microsoft Office system. So the page name issue is still not settled. --soumসৌমোyasch 20:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help?

Umm, I downloaded the beta2 and now, the default page setting is is now that there is a paragraph break after each paragraph and the line setting is set to multiple so each time I have to change it to single space and change it so there isn't spaces between the paragraph-a big pain! Can you change the default setting, anyone? Signor Pastrini 02:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Should be in the paragraphs dialog box. --soumসৌমোyasch 05:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

Could somebody please create an infobox at the top of the page with a screenshot from [1] this page? Also does anybody know the release date? Djone2121 07:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the screenshot from the link, thanks! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 18:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I just added some more stuff from the Microsoft Preview site. Could someone please include the relevant screenshots in the right places? Djone2121 07:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

We just can't add stuff from the preview site though. We need to paraphrase some of it at least... otherwise we have a copyright violation on our hands... as for the images I'd hesitate to include any more because of copyright issues... maybe I can crop them though.... Ryan Norton T | @ | C 07:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough, will start paraphrasing. Do you want to do it or me? or we can both do some if you want. I'm not to familiar with the copyright stuff... I thought it would be ok as long as I put in the quotation marks and cited my source.

Would it be useful to state somewhere that when Microsoft questioned what users wanted from the next version of office that 9 out of 10 people questioned answered with a feature that already existed? This led Microsoft to realize that the power of Office is somewhat lost inside its confusing layouts and menus, which led to this versions new design. Hamdev Guru 22:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that would be very useful :) --Wulf 19:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Could someone say if Clippy, the office assistant is still around.

[edit] PR?

Sounds like a public relations message to me. It can't be definitely stated that it "will present a streamlined, uncluttered workspace that minimizes distraction and enables people to achieve the results they want more quickly and easily," as few people have used it yet. Maybe this is the intended outcome, but it sounds pretty assertive.

Anyone else notice the pinstripes, brushed metal titlebar, and Aqua-y toolbar buttons?

Yea - I fixed that part. For the most part though - the rest of the article are direct quotations so its obvious they are PR. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 19:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I created this article. All the stuff under Whats New is direct quotations off the Microsoft Office 12 Preview site. Yeah its a load of PR, but its the only information around at the moment. Does anyone have a (estimated) release date yet? Djone2121 07:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Wasn't it going to be released concurrently with Windows Vista? Ryan Norton T | @ | C 07:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

The programme has been out for months now and it still reads like a press release. I would regard this article as seriously unbalanced - lots of "great new feature" and "Microsoft says" and no "tradeoffs". I, for one, found it tremendously frustrating to find the options dialogues, which I needed to set the default save formats to 97-2003 style (necessary as none of my clients are using Office 2007, and neither does my account at the University). I am sure that people who have used it more would be able to talk about this. Also no reference to controversy over Microsoft's "open" format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.175.143.25 (talk) 23:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title

I havent heard Microsoft reference to this product as Office Vista, only Office "12" (its codename). This is used on the Microsoft beta page. Try searching for "Office Vista" on the Microsoft site, then try "Office 12". Plz fix --203.206.92.193 07:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, why would anyone rename the page to Office Vista?
I second this. Please rv it, or will you please "find-and-replace" the 12s in the article so its consistent. --Perfecto 15:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I moved the page back to Microsoft Office 12 --Djone2121 09:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Galleries and Live Preview

First of all, I thoroughly respect anon's contributions. Second, I'm the one who added the second paragraphs of Galleries and Live Preview. My initial mistake is that, in my first edit, I added the previewing ability in Galleries. So I fixed my error the next day by moving the previewing ability to Live Preview.

Isn't that what makes sense? Previewing changes is called "Live Preview", and an assortment of pictures showing how layout changes would look like is called "Galleries". Photoshop's image enhancement dialogs have a "preview" checkbox to do "Live Preview", and Print Shop and Microsoft Works have galleries of layout choices, but not the ability to preview them on the document.

--Perfecto 16:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

OK - that makes sense I suppose :). Though I'd avoid comparing products to other specific products made by other companies (such as Print Shop) unless you have to. Also, if the anon reverts you again maybe consider rewording it a bit to take into account the previewing part. Just some ideas for ya :).Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Whatever, folks :) I disagree with comparisons, because combination of galleries and live preview is nothing like two separately, but have it your way. It'd be cool if you put back my note about not having to ok separate dialog and preview living in the same document.

[edit] Link farm warning

Whoops, this article looks to be growing its own little link farm. ;-) Wikipedia is not a link repository and all that. I think there's especially a whole lot of blogs in there, but also starting to become a considerable number of review links. -- Jugalator 17:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah... there's a tricky balance here. A lot of those blogs are for Microsoft employees, and a lot of them *do* have useful information that is updated on a regular basis. The Channel 9 videos are good, too. Should we try to roll in of the good information from those sources into this article? Repetitive things like screenshots should probably be pruned down... Warrens 17:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Please keep the links. The page is about future product, it is not easy to find good sources on Google :(
I came back here after some time and would just like to add to my original comment that I'm pretty happy with how it looks now after Office has been released for a while. :-) The Microsoft bloggers often provide good first hand info, and the other material linked looks good. Just wished to add this on to me old comment that I guess no longer applies. (and yes, I've since switched username on Wikipedia) — Northgrove 11:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SharePoint Designer

Has it been confirmed that FrontPage is being renamed SharePoint Designer? If so, please cite your source. Or did the author get confused and believed that Windows SharePoint Services (which is a separate software in itself) was the new incarnation of FrontPage?Viltris 23:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

FrontPage has indeed "gone away" in Office 2007 -- they've gone so far as to say that it won't be supported after June 2008. It's being replaced with two tools: Microsoft Office SharePoint Designer 2007 which is descended from FrontPage, but focuses more towards intranets. And, Expression Web Designer is Microsoft's new "web design" tool for world-facing web sites, focusing more on design and web standards and all that. Source: Microsoft PressPass.Warrens 08:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page name

Okay, we've got an interesting conundrum... Microsoft is at times referring to the entire Office line of products as "2007 Microsoft Office System", but individual Office suites are called, e.g., "Microsoft Office Professional 2007". I've renamed the page "Microsoft Office 2007", reflecting the latter usage, because it's the more well-known naming scheme (who really refers to it as "Office System" anyhow?) ... *sigh* Microsoft and their "special" naming schemes. :-) Warrens 08:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The official name is "2007 Microsoft Office System". So what should be done with the title of the article? --soUmyaSch 08:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First doc editor without menu

Microsoft Office Word 2007 is the first document editor without pull-down menus since the heydays of menu-less WordPerfect for DOS and Lotus 123. But the menu-less ui is consistent across most of Office 2k7. So why just Word? Either Office 2k7 be mentioned, or the entire line be pulled out. --soUmyaSch 08:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it does mention the entire suite; it merely offers Word as an example. Like saying "NASCAR is extremely popular; driver Jeff Gordon attracts thousands of fans..." ---B- 09:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
That whole section bugs me since it's little more than a copyvio plus that sentence you mentioned. As for the sentence itself, BSchorr is right; it's an example. Explicitly characterising it as such is probably the right way to go. Warrens 10:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Almost the entire description of new features (Ribbon, c.tabs, galleries et al) are just direct quotations with next to none explanation. It needs some rework. --soUmyaSch 14:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Let's tackle that when Office Beta 2 comes out and reaches a wider audience, so we can at the very least provide our own screenshots instead of copping shots from MS employees. Warrens 22:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Meanwhile, I am starting work on the text. But as I am on a vacation (till 23rd), I cannot be swift.--soUmyaSch 03:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Copyrighted text

The UI section of the article is more or less a replica of this article, with the same structure and offers just quotations. There is no need of the "Design goals" section, it is merged into the lead and the UI section. I am initiating a re-write, starting with the "Ribbon", which I will expand in the coming days. Please chip in, and also help with the other subsections of the UI section. See the "To Do" list. --soUmyaSch 10:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV?

IMO, this reads a bit like a sales pitch. I know it's not properly out yet, so getting a balance will probably be tricky, but I tink it quotes from the sales blurb a bit too much. --H2g2bob 14:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we know that. But its not even a full fledged POV. It doesn't even copy properly, half the features are not even mentioned :-). Anywayz, if you read the previous post, you would know that we have started working on it. Expect lots of changes in the next few days. --soUmyaSch 14:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
It's looking really good now, congrats and good luck for getting good article status! --H2g2bob
Thanks. --soUmyaSch 15:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I still think this has too much of the nature of an advertisement. It's not so much anything wrong with the text as the impression due to the length, catalog-like pictures and omission of shortcomings. --Theosch 11:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editions

Those prices in the table in the article is ?? Dollars? What kind of dollars are they? You should relize that Wikipedia is viewed by the whole world and not USA. By the way prices are unnecessary in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winxptwker (talk • contribs)

I added the prices because I felt that it reflects an important peice of information about this product. Wikipedia is a new breed of encyclopedia. I also changed it to reflect they are US$ I thought, maybe wrongly, that $ was almost universally refered to as US$ unless otherwise noted. Sir hugo 13:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Then, in my view, $ means Australian Dollars. :P Winxptwker 17:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes

Well, the article has changed quite a lot in the last few days. Now we need a feedback. Please comment on the article. --soUmyaSch 16:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Upgrade?

What is an upgrade? Is it from MO 2003 or from a "more basic" version of MO.

Aleksei 10:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Done!!!

The known list of most-needed topics are now covered. Cheers to all who helped get this done. --soUmyaSch 06:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

Looks like to me that the pictures are starting to overtake the article. Shouldn't the Office Application screenshots be in a gallery at the bottom? Winxptwker 04:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel that way. They are just to the right of the respective application, thus making it easier to relate to what is being talked about. --soUmyaSch 06:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
And from now the article can only grow in text (barring a screenshot of project, which i cant provide as i have no plans to install it), further diluting the effect of the images. --soUmyaSch 12:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BETA

Just a question, is the BETA free?Because I want to download it today. - Bioran23, using I.P address 202.85.42.140

Yes it is free. Available from: http://www.microsoft.com/office/preview/beta/download/en/default.mspx Winxptwker 05:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.
How come not all the office softwares got the file icon replaced? - Bioran23, using I.P address 222.166.196.132
Sorry, I didnt get u. If u r referring to the Office button thingy, then it is there in only those apps using the ribbon UI have it. --soUmyaSch 07:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black vs. blue screenshots

Not really a very important issue at all, but it seems like all the screenshots of the new UI that we have are with the black color scheme. Given that the default color scheme on most computers is blue, should we not have at least some shots in the blue scheme for accurate representation? rdude 07:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Does that really matter? Its takes, what, around 5 clicks to switch. --soUmyaSch 07:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
You're right, of course. No, it doesn't really matter. Especially given that this is a beta and for all we know by release the default scheme will be chartreuse. rdude 16:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Nah, a much better color scheme would be thistle. --soum সyasch 17:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I thought of taking offence on your sarcasm, but later decided against. :-) --soum সyasch 17:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Please don't take offense at my words. Sorry if they sound offending. They are not meant to be so. --soumসৌমোyasch 19:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't trying to be sarcastic. Sorry if I came across that way. rdude 01:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FAiled GA

Sorry for the person who thought this was a GA but it doesn't satisfy the Stability criteria. Re-nominate it once the product is on the market (that means 2007). Lincher 17:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Product is on the market now, for business. It will be available January 29, 2007 for consumers. Please re-nominate it now.--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 10:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] System requirements

Possibly the most important point for me is missing; that Office 2007 requires Windows XP. If this is strictly true, then this is going to affect a large number of corporate users, small business users, and I am assuming some non-Windows users. --Adx 01:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Non-windows users? When did any windows version of office work on anything but windows? And Mac versions on non-Mac systems? Office 2007 is windows only. The system requirements can be viewed here. --soumসৌমোyasch 05:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm guessing Wine users might be affected. Definitely it will be NT only. I don't think this should be a suprised to anyone (was 2003 even 9x/ME compatible?). I'm surprised they did not decide to support W2K, but I guess this is MS... Nil Einne 13:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Since Wine is not officially supported by MS it would be foolish to expect MS to make their product Wine compatible. But if Wine can successfully emulate XPSP2 and higher, it should run fine. --soumসৌমোyasch 13:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, more to the point, there are a lot of people out there still running Win2K and even Windows 98 and Windows 95. I came to this page specifically because I wanted to know if Office2007 would run under Windows2000 (for some documentation I'm reviewing)... Aliza250 23:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Etc

Supported blogging sites include MSN Spaces, SharePoint, Blogger, Community Server etc.

The etc to me implies most blog sites are supported. If this is true, it'll be far better to say Most blogging sites are support such as... or something similar. Nil Einne 13:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Not all blog servers are supported. But the major ones are. But, since only these blogging systems are known to be supported, its better not to write anyting original by infering from the "etc". See this blog for more info. --soumসৌমোyasch 14:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing Communicator from Ultimate edition

According to Microsoft, suite comparsion, communicator isn't available in the Ultimate edition. I was going to remove it, but I wanted to see if someone knew what I don't. - James

[edit] Bonus Pack?

Can anyone dig up a cite for this? --soumসৌমোyasch 07:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OEM/RETAIL

Microsoft Office Home and Student 2007 will also be for sale at OEM.

http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,2180,2001181,00.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.97.203.140 (talk • contribs)

[edit] External links

Do we need that many "external links". I think most of them are unnecessary. —Jared Hunt August 21, 2006, 15:11 (UTC)

[edit] Text-to-Speech

Is it still possible in Excel as with 2002 version read aloud each cell and if so, how? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.145.146 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Cost of Editions

Could someone please add the converted cost in GBP Sterling? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.145.146 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Userbox?

Could someone please make a userbox for MS Office 2007?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.203.133 (talk • contribs)

The closest is {{user msword}}, or you could make your own, eg ("edit" for source):
This user is using Microsoft Office 2007
--h2g2bob 14:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the icon should use the Office 2007 icon and the text shouldn't say contributes using, but uses. --soumসৌমোyasch 10:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Changed text to "is using" ("this user uses" looked a little odd). It's quite easy to set the text to whatever you want though. The logo, however, is more difficult. I don't know if using the (copyrighted) official logo would qualify as fair use, so it's probably best not to use the official logo (see Wikipedia:Logos for details on where you can and can't use logos). --h2g2bob 19:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
You can't use fair use images in userspace (Wikipedia:User page). Harryboyles 08:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beta 2 seems to have been taken down

The 'Get the beta' links and others seem to be redirecting to the 'Test-drive' page on the new look Office site. Apparently, on the UK page [2]:

Announcement: We are thrilled with the incredible excitement around the upcoming 2007 Microsoft Office system as evident by nearly 3 million people using the beta 2 since its release at the end of May. Having exceeded our beta 2 participation quota we have had to make the business decision to implement a cost recovery measure for future downloads of Beta 2. We continue to offer the 2007 Office System Beta 2 orderable by mail or you may Take the Test Drive.

Now the 'mail' option also redirects to the test-drive feature. It seems that Microsoft have stopped distributing the Beta version. If anyone else is going through the same thing, change the article! --TheTallOne 16:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably because it's RTMed? 09:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I tried it two days before it reached RTM build. Also the direct download link that I got when downloading the first time now asks for authentication. It seems most likely that it has been taken down as it is being RTMed. I read somewhere yesterday that MS will release a thirty day trial version in December. Can't find that again. --soumসৌমোyasch 10:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "New" UI Construct

I have removed the word "new" from the description of the Gallery; previews like this are commonly used in photo editing applications, so the construct isn't new.

Incidentally, except for the specific visual style, ribbons are not a "new" construct either.

[edit] BETA

Has Office 2007 been taken out of BETA? The reason I ask is that the template has been removed. 82.47.147.66 13:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It has reached RTM status, i.e., it has been released to manufacturing. MS is currently manufacturing and packing them, while OEM vendors have gotten their copies to test compatibility etc. But it is still not yet available in retail. --soumসৌমোyasch 14:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image wrong

The image does not show the correct loading banner for Word. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.235.24.170 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Office 2007 Screenshot Project

I've been trying to update all the Microsoft Office articles. Quite a lot of them still refer to 2003 as being the latest release. In addition, the screenshots are all wrong. Some don't use office 2007 screenshots and those that do are using shots of the apps when they were in beta. To help all my fellow editors out, I have compiled a bunch of screenshots of various office apps with more on the way. Access the project page here: User:Wiki_fanatic/Office_2007_Screenshots_Project. Please feel free to leave comments or suggestion or request for a screenshot of an app not yet posted.--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 10:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing Microsoft Office Suite Comparison.

I have removed Microsoft Office Suite Comparison. I dont feel it is contributing anything to article. I have also added the link to http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/suites/FX101635841033.aspx page. Please dont add it again. If you feel it is contributing anything to the page. Please add it here. Thank You. --SkyWalker 15:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

About 2-3 days ago, I used this chart to figure out the differences in the different office suite editions but now that chart has been replaced with one that contains box-shots, instead of the list of applications included in each of the editions, in effect, removing a very vital piece of information about the differences among these editions. Don't you agree? 124.43.224.175 02:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms

I think that many criticisms are missing from the article, removing alot of the context around its release. These would be mainly due to the drastic changes in the user interface compared to previous releases (eg the ribbon and the inconsistency in performing simple tasks compared to the previous version means that alot of people will need retraining). This article seems too much like a press release, and it would be a better article if criticisms were listed as they are in the windows vista article. 121.44.231.185 08:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

There are some issues with the speed of the start up for word and excel, some times taking over 1min (independent of hardware specs). There could be a possible software conflict. It might be worth looking into.

Would you please sign your contributions to talk page? Slow starting is usually an issue of settings in virus scanning software (especially Office Add-in of Norton Antivirus). Nothing to be discussed in an encyclopedi article, but in a user forum. --Ute-s 19:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually very surprised there's no Critisism section right now, considering some of the changes done, mainly around the crappy UI. ~Entegy 23:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

What you or I dont like does not count as criticism. If you can provide reliable secondary sources that claim something, then sure, it can be added. --soum (0_o) 10:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Does it only run on windows vista? if so thats crap.

No, XP is supported as well. --soum talk 16:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
All 2007 applications are supposed to work in XP. Outlook wouldn't work on my XP drive due to compatibility issues, though. If you already have an earlier version of Outlook, there'll likely be problems, even if you uninstall the earlier version. I even had problems re-installing Outlook 2003 because of 2007.--Gnfgb2 16:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I just read in PC Mag that many users of Office 2007 (I haven't used it yet, so I didn't know) are upset about the fact that it can no longer be customized. And I have to believe that there are other criticisms. Yet no criticism section? Seems like a shortcoming of the article, to me. Unschool 19:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It ticks me off how MS redesigns their products for no reason. How many times do I have to retrain myself to use their software? At least with Vista, there were appreciable improvements. With Office 2007, the UI is horrible. In Outlook, I don't see any improvements and the calendar appointments are harder to see. In Word and Excel, I see more font colors and Excel charts look better, but they redesigned the chart wizard. I took a class three years ago just to learn how to use Office! What a rip-off!--Gnfgb2 16:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Have to agree. I'm a typical user of mostly word and excel but also at times ouitlook and access. I am not a comoputer buff but over the years have taught myself to be reasonably handy with these as a productivity tool. I made the mistake of buying a new computer a couple of months ago with Vista and MSO 2007; and now the simple things I have learned take ten times as long. Just now I tried to put autofilter on a spreadsheet -- I have done it a thousand times and I know what I want it to do. Ten minutes later and I still don't have the autofilter in place. Prior updates were all relatively painless and required no retraining. It's a total PITA. This may be specific POV but it's widespread among people I know who have tried 2007. But I have only anecdotal evidence so I can't add it to the article.74.130.52.177 22:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is none of you are reliable sources. As such, ranting here is not going to have it included in the article. Plus your impression is very subjective. To me, the new UI is a great time saver and productivity enhancer. True, it felt disorienting for the first few hours but now I cannot go back to the older UI. "I don't like it" is not a valid criticism. --soum talk 05:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I certainly did not use that phrase. Regardless, I would have appreciated a "classic" option like what you see in the Start Menu and Control Panel. You say it saves you time, but I doubt it would for me, since I blaze through Office pretty fast right now by using keyboard shortcuts. The change in the interface strikes me as a change for change's sake (i.e., planned obsolescence). No more of my ranting, though, because per your request, I have added criticism to the article.--Gnfgb2 09:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.52.177 (talk) 05:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Note Gnfgb2 (talk · contribs) is a sock of hard-banned user Primetime (talk · contribs). Any edits he makes to the project can and should be reverted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the Criticism section must mention the loss of customizable toolbars. In my opinion this change has gutted some of the programs, particularly Word. However, I have tried to be objective by including opinions from other reviewers. I also listed some add-in programs. I don't use any of them; my purpose was to show that there are at least a few users who wanted some of these features to be restored. Constructive criticism of those edits is very welcome. Marzolian (talk) 00:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this must be mentioned certainly. Good thing you mentioned it, however we need to find a reliable source and cite it properly (not as an external link). There's no need to mention names of add-in vendors because that would be advertising, and that list can become unmaintainable, and because everyone will add his favorite add-in. - xpclient Talk 11:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Secn break for easier editing

I never said the phrase was used, I used it as an exaggerated metaphor, to get my point through. Anyways, back to the criticism added, for every (well, almost) source claiming the new UI is a mess, another reliable source can be provided which praises the same things. So, it is extremely subjective. For neutrality, either this subjective nature and refutes should be mentioned in the article or we should not tread the muddy waters here. Also, "The change in the interface strikes me as a change for change's sake" cannot be used as a ground for adding criticisms, because MS has made the reasons for making the change clear: to make the features more discoverable. (Hang on, where has the quote gone from the article?). For features you know about, this doesn't make much difference, as almost anyone but newbies uses keyboadrd accelerators. But for which you don't know, it does help as the new organization is more intuitive (the intuition is the subjective part :-P ).
Btw, there is an add-in that recreates the menu bar and the formatting and the other toolbar in a separate ribbon tab.--soum talk 12:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too much advertising

If you would delete all the advertising from this article, it would be shortened to two paragraphs. Wikipedia sure is a nice marketing platform for the big companies... Guest Account 09:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


This is also why I came to the 'Comments' area... I'm a big fan of Office 2007 but I was surprized not to see any "Smacks of Advertisment" flags on this article. -kunkel321

A list style (rather than summary style) listing of new features is hardly advertising. But, yes, it lacks a section or two on critical and mass reception. Please help adding them if you can. --soum (0_o) 16:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editions and pricing

Do we really need pictures of the box for each edition? The boxes are almost identical, with just one word and the color of a small band changing. It makes the table long and makes scrolling necessary.

It would be far better to replace these pictures with the most important information: what programs are in each package. That is by far the #1 thing to know about the editions.

Any objections to me removing the box pictures and replacing them with lists of the programs included?

--Crocodile Punter 16:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

With no objections, I went ahead and made the change --Crocodile Punter 06:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Why have you deleted the pics?. I will be restoring the old article back. --SkyWalker 18:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Volume License only

what does that mean.--24.109.218.172 21:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added a link to Volume license key. Hopefully that should explain it. Harryboyles 10:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mac Version

Where did the section about the mac version of office 2007 go? It is still being linked to from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Office#Versions_for_Apple_Macintosh_OS

[edit] Compatibility issue

I have been using office 07 for a few days now, I think that the intro to the topic in the article should contain the information that office 07 in normal mode is not backward compatible, ie, documents saved in .docx format (which is the default save mode) cannot be opened by office 03 or other office suites. --LegalEagle 02:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

DOCS plugin for older Office versions has been made available. --soum (0_o) 03:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is true that the plugin allows earlier versions of office to be .docx compatible, but I still feel that the issue of backward incompatibility in default mode should be highlighted in the intro. Personally I faced a lot of problems in the first couple of days when documents prepared in office 07 couldn't be opened by other suites, I visited wiki just to checkup and I had to scroll to the 'file format' to find that microsoft has brought this new type of formatting. It would be a lot of help if this info could be compressed to a line and put at the top. --LegalEagle 08:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mac version

I think the Mac version should be moved out into its own article. Sure it might be a descendant of the same code base (in a lot of parts) but it is not Office 2007. It has many things different from the Windows version, and for things that are common, we can anytime link to this as the main article. --soum (0_o) 08:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need to show System Requirements, also any Criticism to list on the Article?

Hello everybody

I just wanted to let you know if this article will show the system requirements. Also if there are any criticism about the product, I heard that this product haves bloatware problem and also that its speech recognition is a rip-off, saw this on YOUTUBE :P

Please correct me if I’m wrong.

--SGTEdwards ~~ Tuesday, July 10 2007, 4:40 pm, GMT -8~~

If you can attribute the claims to reliable sources (not blogs, forums or other user generated sources; YouTube is not a reliable source), feel free to add them. As for speech recognition, its in there since Office XP. It only enhanced what it inherited from its predecessor. So, if they were not rip-offs, how can this be? --soum talk 06:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name of user interface

While commonly known unofficially as the ribbon, it is actually called the Microsoft Office Fluent User Interface.[3] I recommend changing all references of "ribbon" to "Fluent User Interface" at least, while mentioning somewhere that the it is unofficially referred to as the ribbon. Danj205 13:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Differences between files

I can see that the ’97–03 program is different from the ’07 program, but how do the actual files differ aside from the file extensions? For example, I have been saving Word documents as ’97–03 files instead of ’07 files because the compatibility mode looks exactly the same as the regular mode, and the files can thus be compatible with most other computers (’97–03 is much more common than ’07). Is there a difference between the two besides ’07 documents lacking backwards compatibility, or am I missing something? If not, then what's the point of saving as an ’07 document? — Quin 04:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed that when saving in the 2007 .docx format, the file size is considerably smaller.Dvferret (talk) 01:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
See Office Open XML -- simxp (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The old .doc files stores information in a binary format. A binary format is advantageous when you want to save and load files quickly on old slow computers, but the downsides is that it's very difficult to work with and error prone. Docx is basically an ordinary Zip file with a human readable version of the document stored in it. Binary formats are generally smaller than a human readable format, but the Zip compression gives docx the file size advantage.--Anss123 (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Office07homestu.png

Image:Office07homestu.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 22:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Linking to promotional website

I feel, especially because many are still unaware of, due in part mainly to the lack of active advertising of it, that the mention of www.theultimatesteal.com should be included in this article. I decided to bring this up here before I got into an edit war with anyone (as the situation was in danger of, atleast on my part, becoming. I am a college student.Money is TIGHT, and I would say I am one of the more fortunate students out there. I'm not poor, but I am NOT rich either. One of the reverters of my edit to include mention of the promotion in the article gave as his reason for removing my edit a snide little comment about how "purchases are best made at 'my' campus store". Umm, this is an online-only deal, and yes, they do sell, at my school store, Microsoft Office 2007...Home & Student, which retails around $150. This is the FULL version of Office WHICH IS offered by Microsoft, for $60. Why would I pay more than double for a limited product, when I could get the comprehensive edition for less than half? For many college students, every dollar counts, and if they can be made aware of a legit and legal official deal from Microsoft, then I say, why not post it here? I think that is most certainly valuable information. Maybe a prospective student's parents are looking to buy their student a computer, and because they found out about www.theulimatesteal.com, they can help their student purchase Office 2006 at a serious discount, and give them the full product instead of just the basics.

Yes, the site is registered to Mr. Youth, but the promotion is being run by Microsoft. (see http://www.microsoft.com/education/ultimatesteal.mspx for their official rules and regulations.) And though it's promoted via bloggers and I did first hear about it through Digg, not everyone has time to be sifting through Digg or blogs, and how can you look for something you aren't aware exists? Many college students do come to wikipedia, and even more people may know someone who could get some use from the information. I believe this is no mere issue of advertising, as this information is very relevant to the struggle that is so familar to many of our college students. And also, yes, the website may be transient, implying concern that the website is too temporal to include in the article, but so what? I can't tell you how many dead links I've come across on Wikipedia. Don't worry, the office 2007 and the microsoft office main articles are "policed" pretty diligently. I'm sure there would be someone watching the countdown timer to midnight of the date when the promotion was to end so they could remove the mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingno (talk • contribs) 06:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Then why didn't you link to the Microsoft site you just mentioned? Although I got Office 2007 for free at my college, students in other colleges at my university can buy the DVD for $65 at our student center. That's a lot better than downloading the package, in my opinion. And either option is better than going through some obscure web site. Further, the way you phrased that passage was clearly advertising. We don't allow advertisements due to issues of neutrality. Still, if I were you, I would leave the article alone to avoid getting blocked.--Gnfgb2 09:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

What care I of getting blocked? Every day, people come on here and blatantly alter articles that long go unnoticed. Thanks to wikiscanner, we now know that agents, representativies, or sympathizers of many entities have egregiously altered information on their own pages to cast them in a rosier light, and alter the pages of others that they perceive as damaging to their interests, or they alter them to "paint them with a tar brush"; to damage their image. I feel that this in the greater scheme of things, where Microsoft will spend millions of dollars in legal fees fighting in courts around the world, holding on to the very end, tooth & nail, and to suddenly make an incredibly generous concession like this, is noteworthy in the annals of wikipedia history. So what if you happen to mention it while it is currently ongoing? Wikipedia is about information. Many of us spend long periods of time browsing this resource, and just as many contributing in an effort to make things better for all.

Like I said in my given description of the edit, "If you must change, fix; don't delete." Ok, it "smacks of advertising". Then change it. Many articles on companies mention that, in the past, they have run notable promotions. Is it only allowable to mention these things "after the fact"? That is, in a year or so, it will be jolly-good to note that Microsoft once held a generous promotion to benefit college students, but wikipedia policy forbid it should be temporally relevant?

Also, I understand, every school is different. It's well and good your school offered it for $65 and that you were fortunate enough to receive it for free. Unfortunately, my school doesn't, and I was not so lucky, nor were, I am confident in stating, many others. Are we to assume, because your school happens to have a generous pricing model, that all institutions of higher learning that currently offer this product for sale offer such a bargain to their students?

I'm not saying saving ones' self $90.00 us dollars is going to make or break one's chances at achieving matriculation. However, I feel there is a general lack of sympathy for the pressure that most college students are under. Unfortunately, not everyone on this earth is so fortunate as to have a friend or relative who is willing and able to just write a check or co-sign a loan. Not everyone on this planet who is fortunate enough to attend college was smart enough to qualify for a full ride, financial obligation-free. Some work, and many others drop out. For some, the difference between passing and failing could be that $90 they save which can now go towards the textbook they need to take that one last class to graduate. Every day the spectre of financial reality looms, for parents, for students. Where one dollar can be saved, so can that dollar be diverted to another resource. Savvy financial decisions every day are a part of a college student's life: Should I do laundry, or can these pants go for another day? Do I want that frozen dinner or the easy mac/ramen noodles? Books: Used or new? That $150 Army surplus coat, or the $10 Salvation Army coat?

This is not a matter of advertising. Fine, take out how much the suite is available for and just provide the mention of the promotion itself, that which is certainly viable and noteworthy information. A corporation known for controlling its financial interests so keenly that Lincoln is given a black eye from being pinched so tight suddenly practically giving away an office suite (whose price always struck me as onerous), discounting the cost to 90% of its original, making it cost more than half-off the lowest-priced of its offerings? Up until not too long ago, the pricing for the other versions of the Office suite used to be listed on this page. I understand why it was removed, but I feel this is not on the same level as that. If pricing absolutely cannot be mentioned, then at least leave the mention. Once again, people cannot search for information on something they are unaware of, but many people do come to wikipedia for information; to learn. You know that information can be useful to some. I come to wikipedia for information. A pricing model of a product is information (and just for those people who would come up with the predictable rebuttal: "By your argument, should we offer pricing info on the article page for wine? Apples? shoes? cars? etc?" To those of you, I say, if someone wants to post that information, go for it. If you want to keep it up to date, that's your ballgame all to yourself.)that I find useful but I do understand why it was removed.

I can keep going, but it's 2:44 am and I have a class in five hours. Strom Thurmond filibustered for 24 hours straight on a subject he felt strongly about. I think I'll be blocked before I achieve or surpass that record, but I'll certainly try my best. Your move. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingno (talk • contribs) 07:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I kept your footnote without the external link, but was reverted. I would be willing to re-insert it without the link or promotional language if no one objects. Anyone?--Gnfgb2 13:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Note Gnfgb2 (talk · contribs) is a sock of hard-banned user Primetime (talk · contribs). Any edits he makes to the project can and should be reverted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editions

Maybe I'm missing something, but shouldn't the different editions list what they contain, ie Basic-Word, Excel; Home and Student-Word, Excel, powerPoint? (These are not correct, just examples) It seems as if we are going to list them the table should show what apps each contains. --tennisman 16:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. They do need to be added. Providing an external link to comparisons should not and does not count. Is anyone willing to update the table? Dvferret (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2003?

The top of the infobox says 2003. Any particular reasons? Kushalt 15:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It was vandalism, and has been fixed. Now, feel free to speculate as to how this particular piece of vandalism could have originated from a Microsoft-owned IP address..... utterly baffling. -/- Warren 22:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Databar.PNG

Image:Databar.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PowerPoint without hatching

PowerPoint 2007 no longer supports "hatching patterns" (I'm not sure about the correct word, how is it called in the previous versions?). Should that be mentioned? --Abe Lincoln (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The list of application-specific changes at the moment is at the moment couched in quite general, compact terms (e.g. "Improvements to text rendering") rather than being a list of every small change, in order to keep the size manageable. There certainly isn't room to mention every single thing added or removed, and hatching does seem a rather trivial one. On the other hand, if you can find a reliable source or two which claim that the removal is significant, by all means go ahead and add it. -- simxp (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How many computers per licence?

One of the most interesting information I have not found in internet is how many computers one can install office 2007 for each version . Any of you know it?

Home and Student edition allows for installation on up to three computers (presumably in one household). All other retail editions allow for installation on one main computer and one portable/laptop. OEM editions allow for installation on one computer only. -- simxp (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this information would be quite useful to reveal. Hopefully there can be a source found that provides what is needed.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 10:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've put it in as an additional column in the Product Editions section. -- simxp (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] merge Structured data interchange

I'd like to propose merging Structured data interchange here. Structured data interchange doesn't seem notable enough for a standalone article, so hopefully someone can add a sentence or two about it here to explain its importance withing Office 2007. --Rividian (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have serious doubts about its authenticity. I am AFDing it.--soum talk 17:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
That'll work too... I'm just trying to deal with stuff that's had maintenence tags for ages. --Rividian (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)