Re: How can I upgrade Office 2002 SP 3 to Office 2007 and keep both versions?




"Chris Mitchell" <chris.a.mitchell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OZ4987AEKHA.4220@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Jeff.

I disagree with your opinion of Office 2007. In my limited experience it
is better in many ways. It is more intuitive for me, but the big ticket
as far as I'm concerned is that Excel 2007 is able to handle much larger
files than earlier versions, in some instances doing away with the need
for MS Access which is not part of our standard build. As far as I'm
concerned that makes it a winner. So I will not be sending you $150 :-)


CRAP!
I've been hanging on the mail box too ...

I guess I don't have the large files that you have, so I've not run into
that particular brick wall yet. I have found that the new arrangement of the
features is confusing and takes up space that I'd rather use as my
workspace.

To each his own, I suppose.

This begs the question though, you said that you have users that will be
confused -- which is a position I echo because I found the confusion factor
to be high -- and you wanted to avoid this problem. Seems to me that YOU
like the suite, but are concerned that others where you work are apt to
share my feelings on the product.

Looks like a cost-benefit-analysis is due. I'd have to come down on your
side, the benefit of handling large files outweighs the cost of the learning
curve. Frankly, I understand Excel already -- and the other Office apps as
well -- and my issue is that the arrangement of the features gives me grief
that I could learn to overcome in a matter of a few hours.

I suppose that I've learned that Word and Excel might not have the same
feature in the same place (in earlier versions) and have never considered it
a problem. I just learn where stuff is and missed the fact that it might be
moved around. I understand that Office '07 fixes this. Even if the stuff is
moved around, once I find it, it's in the same place for all of the Office
apps, and there's benefit to that that I do not appreciate today.

I've only used Office '07 a few times, and found it to be a struggle purely
because I have not picked up on the pattern yet. This is a learning curve
issue, and very well couild be a personal issue for me that does not affect
you.







"Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:h4ktad$nbr$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Chris Mitchell" <chris.a.mitchell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e6LGekrDKHA.3556@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I want to upgrade my existing Office 2002 SP 3 installation to Office
2007 and have downloaded the necessary .exe. from the Home Users
Programme which I qualify for. This allows either upgrade or full
installation.

I want to have both O2002 and O2007 on the same PC. It's a family PC
and some users won't want to change, so I need both.


You cannot have both, and your existing Office Suite is better than the
new one.

I hate to rag on Office '07, but I've found no good reason to migrate to
it. If you have a new machine that comes with it, AND you do not have a
copy of the older version to load instead, then it is a good program to
go with. But, if you have an existing machine that has Office <any
earlier version> already loaded and running, there is absolutely no good
reason to replace it.

MSoft seems to realize this, and they offer a patch that lets the earlier
versions open, edit, and save the files that Office '07 creates. In the
past, people using the latest version had to Save As to the earlier
version if the needed to share files with people using the earlier
versions -- or people with the earlier version found that some formatting
options might be stripped out when they opened the newer file.

Whatever. I have used several versions of the Office Suite, and with
Office 2007, I see no good reason to migrate away from the earlier
version. Keep what you have and send me the $150 for the upgrade that you
don't need to install.














.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRANs future
    ... reason was used clear back in the late 70's - when almost no ... trashing the lot and adopting even *worse* features instead ... what are your *specific* recommendations about what ... "dirty features" doesn't address the question. ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)
  • Re: public comment on fortran 2008
    ... The f2003 standard is a failure. ... the features depend on f2003 ones or not. ... The biggest reason was that I had been doing it long ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)
  • Re: Relative merits of Lisp-1 vs. Lisp-2?
    ... many things in CL are already confusing. ... overhead in understanding the exact semantics. ... But the gain is not purely aesthetic. ... It is not the only reason. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: A Brief Note on Notation
    ... >>> I think that one worthy goal of logic lists like this would be to agree ... > reason not to so long as it's strictly defined (I assume, ... > confusing as well. ... horseshoe operator the analogy to set inclusion is obvious. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Leopard and Resolution Independence
    ... we have *no* reason to think this is not working just fine. ... this feature on the Leopard part of www.apple.com. ... It just seems odd that should be so hard up for sexy features, ... ZFS usage likely was planned and then cut - though *never* officially listed ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)

Quantcast