Anyone tried Office 2013?

[alkemyst]

Excel is the standard whether one thinks it's better or not. If one doesn't need Access and the other advanced programs, a Word/Excel/Outlook package is reasonable.

I have LO on my children's computers right now. The 11 year old doesn't use it. The 15 year old hasn't really done much as they do most of the PC work in school as not all kids have them at home.

My fiancee and I run Office (2013 for me and 2010 for her).

 

[Asphodelus]

I haven't really noticed any difference in speed between Office 2010 and Office 2013, but I don't use any of the cloud stuff either.

That said, it's true that there's no point in upgrading from 2010 to 2013, but there was no point in upgrading from 2007 to 2010 either, and the only reason to upgrade from 2003 to 2007 was if you loved the Ribbon Interface.

Just like Windows, Office has been "good enough" for a really, really long time now.

 

[Morbus]

Morbus - what do you do that Calc does better than Excel?

Copy paste.

Enough said*.
*granted I haven't used Excel after the 2007 version.

I've heard that claim before but never gotten specifics. I'm a moderate user - some of the datasheets I work with are f'in huge, but I don't do anything overly complex with them. However, we've got an office and client base full of MS Office users, and any risk of compatibility issues is too much risk. Until LO has 100% guaranteed compatibility, I can't even consider switching. Even then, I probably wouldn't.

Well, LO has 100% guaranteed compatibility with LO, but that's it. Cross platform stuff is never a good idea. If your peers work with MS Office, you need to work with MS Office. That's like using Flash where everyone else uses Powerpoint... It's (power)pointless.

I'd love to support FOSS and migrate the office away from Office. If nothing else, it'd be a feather in my cap to save our upgrade costs on new Office versions. 🙂

All you have to do is want to do it. There will be trouble, but it's not deadly trouble. It's very much like not using Internet Explorer and using Firefox or Chrome instead. If you're expected a completely trouble-free transition for ANYTHING, you'll never change from any software at all.

 

[mikeymikec]

What's the use case for LO anyway? If you need power and compatibility, LO is still gimpy and not rock solid compatible so you still need Office. If you don't need power and compatibility, Google Docs can do pretty much everything LO can with less bulk and nice Google integration.

So LO is better for... users who need more power than Docs but less than Office who don't care about Excel compatibility, and people who don't have internet connections? That seems like a pretty small market.

1. Free, and more importantly, free updates.
2. What features are you missing?
3. Define "gimpy"

I've been using Open/LibreOffice for about eight years. It works for me. I have seen compatibility issues with it, though they haven't happened for me personally. A customer had some Works documents and LO's support for that wasn't good to begin with, but it seems pretty solid now. I remember when OO/LO's support for MSO2007 document formats was very shaky, but it has much improved. I can't remember the last time I saw an MSO document compatibility issue, but I'm not going to claim that they don't exist.

I would say my use of WP and spreadsheets uses maybe 10% more of the features available in an office package than say the average user does. I've used every MSO version on and off over the years since mainly using LO. Each has its foibles from what I've seen.

I find it funny how every time MSO compatibility or feature set is mentioned, some vague reference is made to say how LO is lacking, like 'copy paste' earlier... the last multitude of times I used copy and paste in LO, it worked.

PS - I'm not saying that LO is for everyone, I'm sure that people use features that aren't in LO or not properly supported by LO, but if you're going to criticise it at least come up with a case where it didn't work for you instead of making sweeping generalisations in the hope that no-one challenges it.

Regarding MSO2k13 - Apart from a UI change in 2k7, I couldn't name a single real improvement since probably MSO2k, except for OS version compatibility improvements which is pretty much a given if we're talking about Windows. MSO could basically do what I needed it to do since say Office 4.3 or 97. I really wonder how many people here can honestly say that last statement doesn't apply to them as well.

I hate MSO2k13's attempt at making text appear "smoothly" though.

 

[vbuggy]

I haven't really noticed any difference in speed between Office 2010 and Office 2013, but I don't use any of the cloud stuff either.

That said, it's true that there's no point in upgrading from 2010 to 2013, but there was no point in upgrading from 2007 to 2010 either, and the only reason to upgrade from 2003 to 2007 was if you loved the Ribbon Interface.

Just like Windows, Office has been "good enough" for a really, really long time now.

I dunno. They may be minor but I'm really digging the tweaks in Outlook and Onenote - which I pretty much live in. Excel/Word - yeah, I've had to stick with 2007 or 2010 for some of my heaviest use due to 3rd-party compatibility issues so I haven't thrown 2013 truly in the fire as of yet. But the improvements to Outlook and Onenote for me alone was worth the move.

EDIT: Excel speed - I just threw on 2007 out of curiosity on the PC I'm typing on (which is a relatively crappy system by my standards, only a single E5-1650 v2 and a single 512Gb SSD) there's no speed difference opening a fairly complex xlsx file in 2013 vs opening it in 2007. It's basically fractions of a second either way, be it from the LAN or from local storage. So whoever posted that, it's either placebo or you're doing it wrong.

 

[Asphodelus]

Your "relatively crappy system" is comparable to a brand new top-of-the-line gaming system (the E5-1650 v2 is essentially an i7-4930K...), and lightyears ahead of the typical office computers that MS Office is usually run on 😛

 

[vbuggy]

Well even at the office, now that I've retired all the more vintage stuff it's pretty much the baseline, along with the 3770/4770 Optiplexes used for the truly everyday basic Office stuff.

And since we are comparing Office 2013 I don't see why I need to do it with clapped-out hardware.

Also given that the test sheet is one I open on many machines, I know that the experience of opening these sheets isn't that different even on a 3770 / smaller-older SSD. As I said, either placebo or config error.

One problem with throwing 2007 on this machine however has been that it's thrown Outlook 2013 out of kilter once I uninstalled '07. Curses

 

[Cerb]

Outlook 2013 is definitely inferior to Outlook 2010. IMAP folders not updating, CtoR patches that broke IMAP/Exchange07 and couldn't be rolled back, then needed profile rebuilding once patched, not detecting IMAP root, sent/trash folders, and not allowing them to set, either...it's a regression in every conceivable way, while 2010 was an overall improvement from both 2003 and 2007, and tends to just work. Since I use my phone for my calendar, I cut my losses and moved to Thunderbird. I'd ditch Excel, if I could, but non-macro xlsx compatibility leaves a lot to be desired from OO and LO, and I need to read and write those.

Other than that, it's about the same, aside from the horrid too-flat UI.

 

[vbuggy]

Never quite got on with the ribbon presentation of 2010. It feels antique in comparison to 2013. Another reason why I like it better - and the touch mode which while it's a compromise means I can totally realistically run it on a 10" tablet. Many Apple-addled reviewers complain about small targets then go back to the iPhone where many targets there are smaller than the ones they're complaining about in Windows... what can you say, eh

 

[Cerb]

Many Apple-addled reviewers complain about small targets then go back to the iPhone where many targets there are smaller than the ones they're complaining about in Windows... what can you say, eh

Not Apple = BAD. 'Nuff said. TBH, I found Windows 8 with office 2013 and the desktop UI to quite easy to use via touch, just using my fingers--much preferable to Modern w/ touch, IME (I gave Modern/Metro the benefit of the doubt until I actually had to use Win 8 w/ touch...and no, Modern just plain sucks, though Windows' touch input is quite good, even w/ a plain capacitive touch screen). The only trick was having to go into Control Panel to enable the QWERTY keyboard layout, which is disabled by default (WTF, MS? Really, WTF?).

If by antique, you mean textured and readable, though, then I'll take antique any day over modern, because that kind of modernness sucks the big ones.

 

[vbuggy]

Not going to argue with you there, as I know how to use the brightness controls on my calibrated screens.

Aside from my kitchen computers and convertibles/tablets, I actually have Metro/Modern/Mod/Whateverthehellitis joy on my multimonitor touch systems. It's surprisingly productive. And it even comes into its own on Surround non-touch desktops when you pin multiple apps.

I guess without my kind of curiosity and ability to commit funds to said curiosity, it's hard for Microsoft to sell a decent concept to those who're too underresourced, entrenched, unimaginative or all of them to really get it right now, even if it was fully fleshed out - which of course it isn't.

 

[Kaido]

2013 seems ok.. outlook is a bit better but i would like it if the interface/look was a bit more customizable. In the end, I don't think I'd upgrade if I couldn't get it for a low price. I like 2010 just fine.

Changing the interface to Dark Gray is the first thing I do.

I also disable the template choice in Word and have it launch straight into a blank document.

 

[Cerb]

Not going to argue with you there, as I know how to use the brightness controls on my calibrated screens.

What does that even mean? Everyone knows, or should know how to use brightness controls. Though, I find the "text" preset on mine to be ideal, so no need to fiddling with sliders, except to sharpen up the VGA input (I don't have a DVI KVM).

Still, it makes no sense regarding Office. Office is not too bright or too dim. 2007 had gradients, bevels, and borders around appropriate controls, making for a convenient UI to look at. 2010 and 2013 don't, and 2013 went even further towards complete flatness, which is simply a bad thing.

 

[crashtestdummy]

I'm fond of it, but I wouldn't pay full price for it if you have any copy of office from the last decade. There just isn't enough added functionality to justify the upgrade.

I've had too many compatibility issues for LibreOffice to be my dominant suite. It's not their fault, and it sucks that the rest of the world is locked into a closed format, but it's not an option for me professionally.

 

[Virgorising]

Nice cough, Morbus. 🙂 I looked at 2013 and decided to stay with 2010. 2013 has too much cloud and pie in the sky.

I did the same when recently here, I learned I needed to upgrade from Office 2007 to stay safe. No way would I put myself thru Office 2013.

 

[IamDavid]

I was very skeptical of the "cloud" part of 2013 but quickly fell in love. I Use a desktop(home), laptop(work), tablet(travel), and phone(Windows Phone) all the time and the ability to ALWAYS have access to my work is priceless. Totally worth every penny of the upgrade.


I do HATE what they did with Excels UI. Excel is supposed to be plain and boring. No need for pretty, BS interface. Its a spreadsheet!!

Outlook is great.