Talk:Microsoft Office 2007

Does anyone have any news on a release date for Service Pack 3 for Office 2007? 81.131.149.102 (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK! Yes! Kiel Yan da Silva Alves (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I feel it would be a good idea to give more attention to the ability to customise the ribbon, primarily the 'classic' menus of Office 2003 option. Many long term users of Office both power and occasional are upset with the ribbon interface and would welcome the ability to continue using an interface they're already familiar with. The section briefly mentions that third party add-ons to do this are available for office 2007, but goes no further in explaining how these can be obtained or how well they work.

I'm suggesting this as a seasoned Office user (or newcomer who simply does not like the interface) may visit this article in hopes of finding this solution, and as the article currently stands it is not immediately apparent that said solution is available.

I personally am a fan of the ribbon interface, though more customisation would be nice.

Mike (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I added a link to a product that allows replacement of the Ribbon with the old menu interface because this seems like something a lot of people would want. I'm not affiliated with the company that makes the product. -FoxMajik (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

This section on "Page Renaming", which referred to the renaming of the Wikipedia page from Microsoft Office 12 to Microsoft Office 2007, has been deleted, because it is now apparent that the software suite has been named Microsoft Office 2007.

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)Reply

Should be in the paragraphs dialog box. --soum^সৌমোyasch 05:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

What you can do is in Word 2007 click on the home tab, then click on "select", "select all", then still remaining under the home tab section click on the little arrow that is even with and directly to the right of the word "Paragraph". This will bring up a pop-up menu where you can select your line spacing, and more importantly check the box next to "Don't add space between paragraphs of the same style". It is important that this box is checked off and not just filled in. If it is filled in solid that means the rule will only be applied to some of the sections you selected, however if it is checked off the rule will apply to everything you selected.

This simple "feature", has caused me and many of my co-workers frustration, and there does not appear to be an option to have the box checked off by default, which means you will have to repeat this process with every new document you create.

I hope someone moves this to the controversy section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.71.117.34 (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

Wasn't it going to be released concurrently with Windows Vista? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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.

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Meanwhile, I am starting work on the text. But as I am on a vacation (till 23^rd), I cannot be swift.--soUmyaSch 03:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

It's looking really good now, congrats and good luck for getting good article status! --H2g2bob

Thanks. --soUmyaSch 15:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

Apparently there was some sort of Office 2007 Starter/Limited edition because it was installed on a PC here? Trying to find info about it and there's not much around. (Australia) 203.214.68.5 (talk) 03:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

According to this page: http://office.microsoft.com/en-gb/suites/FX101678741033.aspx Office 2007 Standard is not available as OEM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.113.30 (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why is Visio included on the list? I don't think visio 2007 is included in the software in any edition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.206.28 (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's not. Visio and Project are classed as part of the Office family but are purchased as separate products and not included as part of any available edition of Office.

81.131.149.102 (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC) In that case, why is there a big green yes for Project & Visio against the Ultimate edition? Is this an error, or am I missing the point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.235.51.126 (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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

Aleksei 10:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

"Microsoft Office Excel 2007.png" actually shows a screenshot of Excel 2010 (28 April 2010).

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Does that really matter? Its takes, what, around 5 clicks to switch. --soUmyaSch 07:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Nah, a much better color scheme would be thistle. --soum ^সyasch 17:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

By the way, I thought of taking offence on your sarcasm, but later decided against. :-) --soum ^সyasch 17:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please don't take offense at my words. Sorry if they sound offending. They are not meant to be so. --soum^সৌমোyasch 19:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be sarcastic. Sorry if I came across that way. rdude 01:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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. --soum^সৌমোyasch 05:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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. --soum^সৌমোyasch 13:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

I don't think even 2003 ran under Win 9x (though the largely similar 2000 was perfectly happy with it, of course)... but I'll echo that concern about there still being quite a well-established Win2k user base. It's probably a considerable thorn in microsoft's side that their operating systems have a good 10-year or more lifespan "in the wild", but it's something that they really shouldn't ignore. 2k is still a perfectly good OS (worlds apart from 98... though i appreciated its lean-ness and immediacy, particularly with Task Manager halting all other processes by default, I don't much miss the rest of it), apart from being a bit graphically stark I haven't found anything significant it can't do on the machines I've found it running on, compared to XP and Vista which basically just add fluff. I doubt anyone still on 9x, particularly 95, will be buying a new copy of Office any more, or too bothered whether they can edit equations imported from 2007 via a converter :) 77.102.101.220 (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The last version of Office to support Windows 95/98 was Office 2000. 98SE/ME was Office XP (2002). Windows 2000 was Office 2003.

Office 2007's minimum requirement is Windows XP with Service Pack 2. Office 2010 will require Windows XP with Service Pack 3.

81.131.149.102 (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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. --soum^সৌমোyasch 14:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)Reply

I think the icon should use the Office 2007 icon and the text shouldn't say contributes using, but uses. --soum^সৌমোyasch 10:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

You can't use fair use images in userspace (Wikipedia:User page). Harryboyles 08:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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. --soum^সৌমোyasch 10:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

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.

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)Reply

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. --soum^সৌমোyasch 14:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

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).Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Criticism section is a list of off topic criticisms which violates the NPOV criticism guidelines. Please, integrate them throughout the article on the topic that they belong to or in other articles than the article about the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.155.128 (talk) 03:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Want to thank you in fact for mentioning that, as I never knew about it, and it's a good warning. For one thing I like to use full screen mode, and this requires setting up a floating toolbar or two for the "exit full screen" button and a few functions that it's otherwise slow to get to through the keyboard menus. It's a sad thing that in their continuing and now rather megalomaniacal drive to have a "computer on every desk and in every home", MS are slowly abandoning their long-time and once devoted power users in favour of pandering to the lowest common denominator who wouldn't be able to put their goddamn shoes on properly if they didn't have L and R stamped on them and an arrow showing which end their toes should go. I thought that's what MS Works was for?! (Vista's about as bad ... look at the shiny 3D interface! Never mind it's raping your CPU and RAM and offers no real benefit other than putting more money in their coffers...). Gah. Times like these make me want to switch to Linux and Open Office... it's only because those are STILL pretty nasty (I've tried them, and given up on getting anything worthwhile done) that MS continue to get away with it. That and I refuse to buy an Apple on principle, until Jobs gives up on the same "oooh, shiny jangly keys, lookit, surely that makes this stuff worth 50% more than a less flashy competitor that has 50% more real world usable features" schtick. So... for now... 'm just sticking to XP & MSO'03 and waiting for one or the other to be rendered terminally obsolete by something or other, and hoping I'll be in a position where I don't much need to use them any more.77.102.101.220 (talk) 01:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

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 ).

Makes the features 'more' discoverable? Are you having a laugh? On my first tryout with it (thrown in at the deep end) I found all sorts of things I hardly knew existed and would have trouble finding a use for, but had terrible difficulty finding certain otherwise simple adjustments that I needed to make (line spacing and margins i think it was)... stuff that previously was a couple of clicks or an "Alt-O, P, tab tab 1.3 enter" away. Keyboard shortcuts only work if there's something there for them to shortcut to - and how's a newbie supposed to learn them now anyway, without the menus & their underlined-letter headings/entries being there? 77.102.101.220 (talk) 01:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Agreed, even now, 5 years down the line, it reads like some kind of promotional tool - do we honestly need every little nuance of data regarding what this does? If an MMO had this sort of "detail" regarding it's mechanisms then it'd be rightly ripped apart. Compared to the Openoffice page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openoffice), it's unnecessarily long and quite clearly a case of bulk information hiding the fact that it is in fact a real dog of a piece of software that has none of the functionality of it's predecessors. But that's just my opinion as a 15+ years user of office, not worth a jot really. A — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.37.248 (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

With no objections, I went ahead and made the change --Crocodile Punter 06:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why have you deleted the pics?. I will be restoring the old article back. --SkyWalker 18:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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)Reply

DOCS plugin for older Office versions has been made available. --soum (0_o) 03:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

See Office Open XML -- simxp (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Until the file is damaged in some way, that is - whereupon you're TOTALLY stuffed, compared to the old .DOC format where the formatting marks were binary, but the actual content was plaintext, so you could extract it, drop it into a new document, reapply the formats and be back on track. Saving it all as human-readable XML is fine and dandy, and lets you edit it in notepad if you want to (really, what the hell is the point? you're going to be opening it in word. this isn't 1992, we're not using ProText any more, FFS), but then adding the Zip compression on top is just asking for trouble. Word files never were particularly huge, save for some poorly conceived local council job applications I've previously downloaded (with huge images in - which Zip wouldn't help with anyway), and you could Zip them yourself if you wanted. Problem is, a damaged Zip file is not recoverable in any way, and the entire contents are now binary garbage that you have no chance of reconstructing - far more so, actually, than the old format. 77.102.101.220 (talk) 01:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Not really. ZIP is a long-established format and I would say all available archive software applications (WinZip, WinRAR, PowerArchiver, IZArc, 7-Zip, etc.) can repair them (look on the Actions or Tools menu). The Office 2007 formats, .docx, .xlsx and .pptx, are just ZIP files with an internal structure. Simply rename the extension on any file to ZIP and open it with your installed ZIP-handling software to see the internal contents -- and to repair the file. Once repaired just rename back to the original extension.

81.131.149.102 (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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.

It's not a sudden thing - MS have been offering a cut-down "student edition" at around $99 or an equivalent amount of the local currency (in my case, £99, as electronics and software classically demand a $1=£1 exchange rate for some unfair reason) for years and years, and it reflects some of their - or at least Gates' - altruistic and education-supportive leanings. Plus it's a loss-leader hook, which they're also well known for, in true drug dealer style. Get them using your software, operating system, etc at a young age/early stage in their computing career by any means, and chances are they'll stick with - and pay for - your products, which they have become familiar with, in future. Plus I don't really consider it a cut down price, more a realistic one, and the cost of the other packages somewhat inflated. With the volume in which they sell, and the rather limited development the programs seem to be undergoing (with even "change for change's sake" in the case of the ribbon, etc), the dev costs can't possibly be anywhere close to what's charged - they'll be making a HUGE profit on most sales. Whereas £25 each for a Word Processor, Spreadsheet, Presentation Manager and Email/PIM application plus some sundry utilities thrown in on top seems absolutely fair for to me. £20-40 is a reasonable price for a piece of good quality software... even as the prices seem to be climbing somewhat above inflation. So £25 doesn't become much of a discount, but the £80 or whatever it is MS usually charges for each individual Office element (or £300-400 ish for a well supplied package to a single customer) looks a bit steep. Mind you the site licenses are probably a lot cheaper per-user, so swings and roundabouts...

(I agree its not an excuse for linking to a promo or sales website however, as the liklihood is that whoever did the linking either owns the site or gets some small cut of the profits, which violates impartiality guidelines and is just profiteering really. Mention that the thing is available and a typical price for it in two or three of the most major markets, or even just its american RSP, and leave it at that)77.102.101.220 (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

 

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

It's a bit of an odd thing to remove, but it was somewhat anachronistic, unless you were wanting to use it for some certain effect... more a hang-over from when most PCs were VGA 16- or 256-colour, and the office apps themselves only supported 16 (or in some cases, a limited 'extended' palette of about 40) colours, with this being your only way of producing a multi-colour effect. A lot of them actually reminded me of patterns available in a paint package on my late-80s Atari ST, so they've probably been 'inspired' by some even earlier program. Still, why bother to remove them if they may still be usable, or allow back-compatibility?77.102.101.220 (talk) 01:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

I have serious doubts about its authenticity. I am AFDing it.--soum ^talk 17:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

I'm reverting the removal. The "Blue Edition" is neither spam nor speculation. It's popped up on numerous blogs, MSDN and Microsoft forums, not to mention countless torrent sites. I came across it in my search for info on the Enterprise Edition. And the Blue Edition is ubiquitous enough that looking for Enterprise lead quickly to its discovery. The Blue Edition is not a speculation, because it does exist. What is in doubt is its legitimacy. I think it deserves a mention here and I hope someone would provide better sources later. o (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

- As Microsoft has responded to this being sold, I have updated the article to include a microsoft press release. 16 December 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.87.11 (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

The image Image:GrooveSShot.PNG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Sharepoint Designer.png
• Image:Office Publisher 2007.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Wording in Criticism:

"...Consequently, Word 2007 cannot be used for any publishing, file-sharing and collaborative endeavour in any mathematics-based fields, including science and technology, in which users may have earlier versions of Word. Many publishers do not accept submissions in Word 2007; for example, academic publishers have informed Microsoft that this severely impairs Word 2007's usability for scholarly publishing.[39]"

I dont like this wording, "Consequently, Word 2007 cannot be used for any publishing...." because it is, well, not true. Im a chemist and I use Word 2007. There is no law saying you can not, and not all academic publishers are banning Word 2007 entries, as I know from first hand experience. Its a choice, and yes I have had to go back and make some changes for previous versions on Word in certain circumstances, sometimes even using older versions of Word, but again there is no law in the mathmatic or scientific community about not using Word 2007. 216.99.65.63 (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

You're right, it is quite badly worded. Be Bold and fix it yourself! -- simxp (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I know this isn't mention elsewhere but the interface is strikingly similar to that of Creative Writer 2. — Dispenser 18:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I suggest Chapter 4 (...Specific Changes) be removed or placed into a new page, as the page is too long already220.255.7.231 (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'd say it's borderline. See WP:SIZE. As I recall, that section was merged into the article a while ago, from a separate article on Changes in Microsoft Office 2007. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 21:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

This article is still ridiculously long. --V2Blast (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Whoever wrote "In Microsoft Office 2007, the Office Assistants have been eliminated because of the much-improved help system." is being overly considerate. It was eliminated because practically no one liked or used that worthless piece of annoying, useless software, period. --AVM (talk) 03:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

The original phrasing is a bad way of putting it. The OA has been removed and the help system is greatly improved - the events may not be related. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't believe that the Office Assistant is regarded as . . . worthless piece of annoying, uselss software. . where's the stats for "practically no one" ? MS Office is used in nearly all UK schools and kids regard the assistant as fun. So do I, but then that's my opinion. Educationally any device that encourages people, children or grown-ups to make an effort to seek help other than by asking "Sir" is surely worthwhile? GGeoff (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Microsoft FrontPage has been removed from the Office suite entirely. It has been replaced by Microsoft Office SharePoint Designer, which is aimed towards development of SharePoint portals. Its designer-oriented counterpart Microsoft Expression Web is targeted for general web development. However, neither application is included in any of the Office suites.

Speech recognition and handwriting recognition are now part of Windows Vista. Speech and ink components have been removed from Office 2007 Handwriting and speech recognition work with Office 2007 only on Windows Vista or Windows XP Tablet PC Edition. However, XP users can use an earlier version of Office to use speech recognition.

Shouldn't this be moved into another section or in the Features area? I don't believe this qualifies for being in the top paragraph describing the application. They may be notable changes, but so are alot of other changes to Office 2007. --TylerM89 (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Has Microsoft published and news of a new version, like Office 7? 78.86.128.37 (talk) 11:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Office 2010 Earthsound (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Quote from the blog entry source - "Gunderloy, an Evansville, Ind.-based freelance developer for the past quarter century, goes way back with Microsoft. I was never a full-time employee, but have several times been a contractor with a badge and [Redmond] campus access, he says." Removing misleading references to this contractor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.155.128 (talk) 04:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Good. Please sign your message next time. Fleet Command (talk) 10:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Isn't much of the criticism section out of date, and in the wrong tense (though can be left for historical purposes)? Especially about file corruption and format acceptance. AOffice 2007 has been out for a long time.. many organizations have finally embraced it. Service packs have fixed most errors.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.98.14.252 (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you think there are issue that are now mitigated, please provide source. And please do not forget to sign your comments with ~~~~. Fleet Command (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

hi there, while that "Mike Gunderloy on Access Perfection - The Daily WTF" reference is a nice read, I guess it has nothing to do with either Office 2007 or the issue of the Ribbon patent, so I would remove that reference —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.212.109.174 (talk) 09:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

  Done Fleet Command (talk) 10:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

TorrentFreak's September 27 2013 article "Microsoft Wants Google to Censor Its Wikipedia Page" notes that a Microsoft vendor, LeakID sent a remove request[4] to Google on behalf of Microsoft to request that Google "takedown" Wikipedia's Microsoft Office 2007 page due to copyright issues. From Microsoft's perspective, this appears to have been a mistake by vendor LeakID. In any event, please give the article a once over to ensure that no copyright or other significant issues exist. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

clerical error seems to be the likely explanation. The report used undue focus to point out 1-2 items of about 600. As usual of course, there may still be cut/paste problems as you've noted TEDickey (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I agree with this assessment, given the fact that there is an msdn.microsoft.com link in the takedown notice. Definitely WP:UNDUE. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I see nothing in the main article that defines what the academic version is for and if any qualifiers exist and how they are tested

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.129.167.122 (talk) 05:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Microsoft Office 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071204023654/http://www.tabletquestions.com:80/microsoft-office/34696-no-speech-recognition-office-2007-a.html to http://www.tabletquestions.com/microsoft-office/34696-no-speech-recognition-office-2007-a.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100824161716/http://www.doe.in.gov/octe/bme/curriculum/docs/SpeechRemovedFromOffice2007.pdf to http://www.doe.in.gov/octe/bme/curriculum/docs/SpeechRemovedFromOffice2007.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Microsoft Office 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc179219.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/products/ha101679411033.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/suites/FX101674061033.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/products/FX101635841033.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/help/use-the-ribbon-instead-of-toolbars-and-menus-HA010089895.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080305033418/http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/help/HA100898951033.aspx to http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/help/HA100898951033.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100604010028/http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/training/HA102295841033.aspx to http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/training/HA102295841033.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.afreshcup.com/2006/12/9/what-s-going-on-here

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Microsoft Office 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060703181937/http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/office2007_beta2.asp to http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/office2007_beta2.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130119084027/http://www.odfalliance.org/blog/index.php/site/microsofts_odf_support_falls_short/ to http://www.odfalliance.org/blog/index.php/site/microsofts_odf_support_falls_short/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090611181719/http://www.odfalliance.org/resources/fact-sheet-Microsoft-ODF-support.pdf to http://www.odfalliance.org/resources/fact-sheet-Microsoft-ODF-support.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090509084924/http://homembit.com/2009/05/microsoft-now-attempt-to-fragment-odf.html to http://homembit.com/2009/05/microsoft-now-attempt-to-fragment-odf.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071212110659/http://redmondmag.com/features/article.asp?EditorialsID=2346 to http://redmondmag.com/features/article.asp?editorialsid=2346
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130311110700/http://www.inera.com/word2007docx.shtml to http://www.inera.com/word2007docx.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

You motherfucking 🐶🐕 🤬😡🤬😡🤬😡🤬

Make a tabular comparision Kkshksh (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

<html Aniljain786 (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply