Office 2007 Sucks

[tatteredpotato]

Personally I love the new interface. Everything is MUCH easier to find IMO. Sure you have to take a little bit of time to figure out where things are now, but finding stuff I wasn't familiar with is much easier in 07. The docx can be annoying for compatibility reasons, but I just have to remember to keep a .doc version with me as well.

 

[SunnyD]

Get over yourselves people. You do realize one of the design goals of Windows 7 is going to be integrating the Ribbon UI right?

Personally, I find the new interface FAR easier than the old "toolbars with groups of buttons that spill off the edge of their toolstrip so you have to find and click the little down-arrow thing to find things that are commonly used" interface. For a typical user, the new interface is FAR easier and more manageable.

In my opinion to the OP, the new interface looks far more professional than the old clutter of boxes with teeny little icons in them.

 

[Scooby Doo]

Except you can customize those little icons. Guess MS doesn't want you to think for yourselves.

Actually... it wouldn't be too bad IF they gave you the option for a menu bar.

 

[kevinthenerd]

It'd be cool in my opinion if Word worked like AutoCAD. It has menus but also has a command line for the seasoned vet.

 

[tdawg]

I've been using Office 2007 since the beta and am currently using Vista and Office 2007 at home and Office 2007 at work and I really like using both pieces of software. Excel alone has been improved--the two things I've noticed so far is that MS has bumped up the limited number of rows allowed in a worksheet, and they've included a host of new filtering and sorting options that were unavaible in previous versions.

As with anything else that's new, those of us that don't mind when things change will learn the new interface and enjoy using it.

 

[KentState]

The one downside that I've found is that a compressed xls document is smaller than an xlsx document (which is compressed). Everyone fails to realize that the documents are only smaller because they are compressed when being saved. If you had a drive or storage device that is compressed, you will see a negative benefit to switching to the new format.

For example, I have a 135MB xls document and 22MB under normal compression. The xlsx document however is 38MB and the same when compressed.

 

[Markbnj]

Originally posted by: KentState
The one downside that I've found is that a compressed xls document is smaller than an xlsx document (which is compressed). Everyone fails to realize that the documents are only smaller because they are compressed when being saved. If you had a drive or storage device that is compressed, you will see a negative benefit to switching to the new format.

For example, I have a 135MB xls document and 22MB under normal compression. The xlsx document however is 38MB and the same when compressed.

That's the benefit of supposedly human-readable and self-descriptive XML for you. Everything will someday be described by gobs of horribly verbose text tags.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: KentState
The one downside that I've found is that a compressed xls document is smaller than an xlsx document (which is compressed). Everyone fails to realize that the documents are only smaller because they are compressed when being saved. If you had a drive or storage device that is compressed, you will see a negative benefit to switching to the new format.

For example, I have a 135MB xls document and 22MB under normal compression. The xlsx document however is 38MB and the same when compressed.

True. The new Office formats are really just renamed zip archives of XML documents. You can rename the file to a .zip and look inside to see how its saved. While you get the benefit of smaller file sizes, you can't really compress it much further.