Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 16th Jul 2012 22:24 UTC
Features, Office Microsoft has released a consumer preview for Office 2013. Highlighting the age-old internal tug-of-war between the Office and Windows divisions within Microsoft, it's just a desktop application, no Metro, and the only nod to that whole touch/tablet-thing is a special mode that does very little. So, Windows 8 is just around the corner, and still not a single serious Metro application. Not even Microsoft's own flagship suite - heck, not even a single application within that suite - could be adapted to Metro in time. Serious vote of confidence from the Office division there.
Thread beginning with comment 527059
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
MollyC
Member since:
2006-07-04

I confess that I don't use OneNote enough to know how powerful the metro version is versus the desktop one. I'll take your word for it that the metro one is less powerful, but I'll say that I watched Microsoft's today's live demo of the metro version today and it's a very good app with some new features and innovative UI like the "radial menu". Consumers will like the metro version a lot; they'll like it more than the desktop version, IMO.

And its exsitence still disproves your comment saying that there are no metro Office apps.

P.S.
I'm glad that I watched the live demo because the writings that I've seen totally miss the mark regarding Office 2013. Office 2013 looks great to me, but today's tech writers are so jaded and/or know nothing about Office except on a very cursory level, that they don't do it justice.

Back in MY day (I'm 153 years old :p), whenever a new version of a productivity app was released (by Microsoft, WordPerfect, Lotus, Borland, Ashton Tate, IBM, Harvard Graphics, Ventura, Adobe, Quark, etc), there would be reviews that appeared in publications like PC World, Mac World, Mac User, PC Magazine, etc, which would go into great detail about all the new features, and how they stacked up to competing products. Those reviews were written by people that actually knew something about the product. Today it seems that reviews/previews are written by "gadget" enthusiasts and "Web 2.0" (remember that lame term? lol) enthusiasts, and they are not qualified to review such products in any way, shape, or form. And it's shown in their writings, which miss entire areas of new functionality, miss entire areas of scenarios of usage.

Reply Parent Score: 7

Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

Back in MY day (I'm 153 years old :p), whenever a new version of a productivity app was released (by Microsoft, WordPerfect, Lotus, Borland, Ashton Tate, IBM, Harvard Graphics, Ventura, Adobe, Quark, etc), there would be reviews that appeared in publications like PC World, Mac World, Mac User, PC Magazine, etc, which would go into great detail about all the new features, and how they stacked up to competing products. Those reviews were written by people that actually knew something about the product. Today it seems that reviews/previews are written by "gadget" enthusiasts and "Web 2.0" (remember that lame term? lol) enthusiasts, and they are not qualified to review such products in any way, shape, or form. And it's shown in their writings, which miss entire areas of new functionality, miss entire areas of scenarios of usage.

Why bother? Almost everybody uses Office or Adobe, and you usually do not have a say, it is your company's IT department decision (and sometimes even the accounting department decision).

Reply Parent Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

but today's tech writers are so jaded and/or know nothing about Office except on a very cursory level, that they don't do it justice.


Uh, my income depends on Office. I use it 8-12 hours a day.

Reply Parent Score: 3

ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

" but today's tech writers are so jaded and/or know nothing about Office except on a very cursory level, that they don't do it justice.


Uh, my income depends on Office. I use it 8-12 hours a day.
"
And what do you do exactly with Office? I know plenty of people who use it as much as your claim, and most are not what I would call an `Office expert`. They probably don't even know what half the capabilities are, much less have any real knowledge or experience with them.

Your needs, like theirs, may be minimal thus making you ill-suited to do any revealing or in-depth reviews of the software.

Reply Parent Score: 3

tanzam75 Member since:
2011-05-19

Uh, my income depends on Office. I use it 8-12 hours a day.


I don't know about you, Thom, but the other Tom (Warren) doesn't seem to know that much about Office.

The streamed install of Office is not new -- Office 2010 was also available that way. The reading view is not new -- it was introduced about 10 years ago with the Tablet PC. The PowerPoint presenter view is also not new -- perhaps it got some enhancements, but the review gushes over features that have existed for years.

And the other Tom is certainly not much of an Excel user. He didn't mention that Excel and PowerPoint are no longer MDI applications!!! Hallelujah!!! You can now put two Excel windows side-by-side, and copy-paste cells between them!!! This is a feature that serious Excel users have been waiting 12 years for!!!

Edited 2012-07-17 21:17 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

" but today's tech writers are so jaded and/or know nothing about Office except on a very cursory level, that they don't do it justice.


Uh, my income depends on Office. I use it 8-12 hours a day.
"

You remind me of a Carly Simon song. ;)
I wasn't talking about you. I'm talking about some kid at gizmodo TheVerge or some such that doesn't even know what a pivot table is, yet is assigned the task of "reviewing" a spreadshet app.

I wasn't talking about you, as I don't consider you a "reviewer" or consider your opinion pieces to be official "reviews". I guess some of them are "reviews", but I view your opinion pieces more like blog entries; I don't hold those to the same standard that I hold the official reviews of the big sites. So I wouldn't expect your opinion pieces to display the same depth of knowledge of features as I would expect of the big sites. The fact that sometimes your pieces are more detailed than the reviews of the big sites is just a further indictment of those sites.

Edited 2012-07-18 08:04 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

Question: What features do you think is worth the $200 or whatever the cost is there to upgrade? What can this Office do that is worth the amount of cash it will cost you?

The reason I ask is that I've stayed with office 2K on my netbook and 2K7 on my desktop simply because those MSFT liceneses are a sunk cost and I've seen nothing in the newer versions that would be worth the upgrade cost for me. Heck if I wouldn't have won that copy of Office 2K7 at a technet awhile back I'd probably still be using 2K3 at home!

So for myself and talking with my business customers most see nothing there that would be worth the upgrade costs. Most of my business customers are on 2K3 or 2K7 and are quite happy with what they have and in a dead economy an expensive piece of software has to show clear advantages over previous versions and I just don't see anything that would qualify as the "killer app" over say 2K7. Heck with the conversion pack I can open the newer formats just fine in Office 2K so even with a version that old I haven't seen a truly compelling reason, at least for me, to switch and I'd like to hear what you'd think is worth it in this release.

Reply Parent Score: 2