# Warning AGAINST updating to Office 2007



## StanSz (Feb 19, 2007)

A respected friend and programmer of mine passed on the following info regarding Office 2007.   Apparently Names are deleted in your previous work when the upgrade is done.   Here's the complete text of his message for other's consideration.

"VERY IMPORTANT information about Office 2007:

I upgraded to Office 2007 a couple of weeks ago. 

Today I called to RETURN the blasted thing!

This is the worst piece of software upgrade I have ever seen.


#1 Big bad mistake: If you used “Names” in Excel they all get deleted when you convert the workbook! For me, this would be MONTHS of work to rebuild them. Further, if you used Macros that referred to these names I think they are worthless too (this may not be the case, but I am not going to spend time on it to figure it out). I verified the above with MS Technical Support today.



#2 Big mistake. The file format changed. Old versions cannot read Office 2007 files. So, to communicate with the vast majority of users who have not upgraded you must save your work twice, once in the new format and once in the old format. If you don’t save in the new format, you lose new features and you don’t know WHAT THE HELL you are losing when you save in the old format…it just says you will lose “something”.



#3 Big mistake. They COMPLETELY CHANGED all the menus. It is VERY DIFFICULT to navigate around unless you use just basic function. There is a new tool bar at the top that is VERY FAT (takes up a lot of space). All the old file menus are hidden under a little circular Icon with the MS 2007 logo. When you click this you do see the File, etc. menus. HOWEVER, the functions in them are mostly GONE. Just the basics are there.



#4 You can now save a file as a webpage (you could before), but the new format is called “single file” web page. Guess what…no browser except IE7 can read these files. The old version is there, but now mandates a companion folder that previously was not required unless you had embedded pictures.



There are more issues, but I am RETURNING THIS PIECE OF CRAP TO Microsoft and I suggest none of you waste money upgrading.



Am I pissed, you betcha!"


Also apparently PowerPoint files done with Office 2007 cannot be viewed correctly with the PowerPoint Viewer.

Stan Sztaba



--


----------



## starl (Feb 19, 2007)

I have to disagree.
I've been converting many workbooks to 2007 and the Names are just fine.
Yes, the file format changed, but you can save in the older version file format.
The menus are very different, but after less than a week, you get the hang of it. And MrExcel has a great free tip card. I'm actually starting to agree with the new layout
don't know anything about the webpage.

I suggest people try it for a week and get their own opinion.
Now Word.. that's another story.


----------



## SydneyGeek (Feb 19, 2007)

> Now Word.. that's another story



Tracy, care to share the joys of Word 2007? I'm just about to install 2007 alongside 2003, so I get the choice, but I haven't been near any of the apps in real detail yet. 

Denis


----------



## starl (Feb 19, 2007)

Well, i'm working on updating my book for 2007.. and the other day I tried to do the text in Word, but i found it frustrating...
I like to see my styles.. I like to be able to have my cursor in text and easily see the style in the toolbar. I can't find as simple an option in Word. There IS a taskbar thingy, but it's huge..... so i'm working on the book in 2003 because I don't have the time to figure out if there's a better way.

that's my only grief. oh.. i did notice that it looks like MS is trying to get people away from print layout and to using the other layouts... small thing, but it just felt that way.

I suggest getting bills tip card. and his new book.. that book is fantastic! makes it a lot easier to dive into 2007. 

sorry, haven't done much in word....


----------



## SydneyGeek (Feb 19, 2007)

Thanks Tracy, 

Sounds like MS is hiding more stuff in the interests of usability. I got frustrated with XP -- mail merges and styles were easier to work with in 2000, IMO. 

I will get my hands on Bill's book though. 

Denis


----------



## starl (Feb 19, 2007)

There's explanations about the menu change - and once you read it, it does make sense... i mean, with the way the programs have been expanding, trying to find all the menu options....
but with these context sensitive ones, it's supposed to be easier. All i know is that it's 'not as bad as the first glance makes it appear.

except word. course, if i met someone who new the menu, maybe i'd change my tune... but the concept just doesn't seem to work as well to me..... to me, hiding the active style is like hiding the Name field!!!


----------



## SydneyGeek (Feb 20, 2007)

> to me, hiding the active style is like hiding the Name field!!!



Yep. Frustrating when you rely on them like I do. But maybe MS don't expect users to use styles. Mostly, when I show styles to people who have used Word for years, it's news to them. So maybe Marketing said "People don't use them much, let's hide them..."

Denis


----------



## starl (Feb 20, 2007)

From what I've learned about Word, they expect people to use styles...too much doesn't work right if you dont' set them up right. They do show styles on the ribbon, but I have yet to see something that shows the *active* style.


----------



## StanSz (Feb 20, 2007)

A further update..."the problem is when you convert an old workbook, it deletes all your named ranges. This is due to a “new” organization method. The same “new” organization method is also there for “Conditional Format” on cells. It’s hard to get used to. 

ANYHOW, the real problem is the deleting of all named cells. You must go through and rename and/or reassign everything. For a workbook with 5 names on 1 or 2 sheets, no big deal,  But, for a workbook like xxxx.xls with hundreds of names and lines of macro code it is nearly impossible. 

 I use names in nearly all my workbooks and don’t see ANYTHING NEW in Excel to give me a reason to upgrade. I only see problems."


----------



## starl (Feb 20, 2007)

I still don't know what you're talking about. I've opened several 2002/2003 workbooks in 2007, saved as 2007 and my named ranges were still there! Both workbook and worksheet level.


----------



## StanSz (Feb 19, 2007)

A respected friend and programmer of mine passed on the following info regarding Office 2007.   Apparently Names are deleted in your previous work when the upgrade is done.   Here's the complete text of his message for other's consideration.

"VERY IMPORTANT information about Office 2007:

I upgraded to Office 2007 a couple of weeks ago. 

Today I called to RETURN the blasted thing!

This is the worst piece of software upgrade I have ever seen.


#1 Big bad mistake: If you used “Names” in Excel they all get deleted when you convert the workbook! For me, this would be MONTHS of work to rebuild them. Further, if you used Macros that referred to these names I think they are worthless too (this may not be the case, but I am not going to spend time on it to figure it out). I verified the above with MS Technical Support today.



#2 Big mistake. The file format changed. Old versions cannot read Office 2007 files. So, to communicate with the vast majority of users who have not upgraded you must save your work twice, once in the new format and once in the old format. If you don’t save in the new format, you lose new features and you don’t know WHAT THE HELL you are losing when you save in the old format…it just says you will lose “something”.



#3 Big mistake. They COMPLETELY CHANGED all the menus. It is VERY DIFFICULT to navigate around unless you use just basic function. There is a new tool bar at the top that is VERY FAT (takes up a lot of space). All the old file menus are hidden under a little circular Icon with the MS 2007 logo. When you click this you do see the File, etc. menus. HOWEVER, the functions in them are mostly GONE. Just the basics are there.



#4 You can now save a file as a webpage (you could before), but the new format is called “single file” web page. Guess what…no browser except IE7 can read these files. The old version is there, but now mandates a companion folder that previously was not required unless you had embedded pictures.



There are more issues, but I am RETURNING THIS PIECE OF CRAP TO Microsoft and I suggest none of you waste money upgrading.



Am I pissed, you betcha!"


Also apparently PowerPoint files done with Office 2007 cannot be viewed correctly with the PowerPoint Viewer.

Stan Sztaba



--


----------



## mr_crowley (Feb 24, 2007)

I must admit, when I first switched i thought the front end GUI was just making it look pretty and much prefered Excel 2003.  I made the mistake of upgrading and not running side by side so had to make do but the more I use it the more I love it.

Interaction with the user is much more fiendly, formatting using the "ribbon" function has never been so simple.  Since the shortcut keystrokes are still there I was soon whizzing around, and really appreciate all the additional functions.

Converting my sheets has been a breeze however I dont like the convert backwards function.  I needed to use my sheet on a colleagues PC (running 2003) so I had to convert.  There was lots of "minor" display issues where I had to re-format fonts in buttons etc which was a bit annoying but all in all I say stick with it and you will love it (eventually)

After all, who can be happy with only 3 options for conditional formatting????

Thats just my opinion


----------



## starl (Feb 24, 2007)

converting backwards does seem rather ugly - had a client with a 4mb Excel file that, when saved as 97-2003, ballooned to 120mb.
I think it's because the save as covers so many versions - especially 97. Course, he had over 365 sheets in the first place - so it would have made a large file normally. I think MS should drop 97 ... or make people who insist on remaining there jump through a few more hoops. It's time to upgrade, at least to 2000.


----------



## Err (Feb 28, 2007)

Tracy,

What about the second statement:



> #2 Big mistake. The file format changed. Old versions cannot read Office 2007 files. So, to communicate with the vast majority of users who have not upgraded you must save your work twice, once in the new format and once in the old format. If you don’t save in the new format, you lose new features and you don’t know WHAT THE HELL you are losing when you save in the old format…it just says you will lose “something”.



This is what is delaying my upgrade. When I send an excel file -I need other users to be able to read my spreadsheets.

Say I am in Excel 2007 and I save a 'normal' worksheet of 2 pages with 20,000 rows and 4 columns each. Would someone running Excel 2000 be able to read it?


----------



## starl (Feb 28, 2007)

just to make this clear - I'm not an *expert* on the new version or its issues. I can only go off my experiences (updating the VBA book, so I've been jumping all over the place in the program).

now - if you create a 20,000 row 4 column workbook in Excel 2007 and don't use any of the new abilities (like the expanded conditional formatting) and save it as 97-2003, yes, a 97-2003 person should be able to open it. As long as you don't exceed the limitations of the older versions, I don't see a problem.

my thought: if you're in Excel 2007 and you know you have to create something for 97-2003 users.. why bother creating a 2007 version of the workbook? I don't see the new features as being worth the extra work of maintaining two versions.
but that's my opinion. to each her own


----------



## SydneyGeek (Mar 3, 2007)

> except word. course, if i met someone who new the menu, maybe i'd change my tune... but the concept just doesn't seem to work as well to me..... to me, hiding the active style is like hiding the Name field!!!


Tracy, I just went for a dig in Word 2007. The Home ribbon shows the currently active style in the Styles section, just not in a Name box like before. 
One thing that I found though... Word XP refuses to open any files, now that I have also installed 2007. I installed in a different folder but the Normal.Dot template gets put in the same folder and it seems to have corrupted it 
Not a problem with Access or Excel, just Word.

Denis


----------



## starl (Mar 3, 2007)

I see the Styles section, but it never seems to show the active style to me...

I have 2000 installed on the same system, but I can still open Word 2000..
My main system runs 97 - 2003 and never had a problem. I know you have to install the versions correctly.. oldest first, and in completely different folders...


----------



## bem (Mar 3, 2007)

Not to say I am glad this program has caused other people misery, but I am glad to see it isn't only me. I am running into problems here also - http://www.mrexcel.com/board2/viewtopic.php?p=1254429#1254429
any solutions would be welcome, but I suspect the wisest thing for me to do is to keep saving in 2003 format for the reason that most of the mainstream does not yet run this thing, once trying it they will not run this thing, and I still run into many that are not yet up to 2003. Oh, and, Tracy... when was that photo of you taken???


----------



## starl (Mar 3, 2007)

my, my, rather forward for a rare poster!
not a pic. Heads mine, but the artwork was done my another talented member.
Tho who knows... 

as to your post.. see my reply there.


----------



## SydneyGeek (Mar 3, 2007)

> I see the Styles section, but it never seems to show the active style to me...



on my system, the active style gets a highlighted boundary -- at least with Normal and the 3 main Heading styles. 



> I have 2000 installed on the same system, but I can still open Word 2000..
> My main system runs 97 - 2003 and never had a problem. I know you have to install the versions correctly.. oldest first, and in completely different folders...



That's what bugs me. I had XP on the system already and installed 2007 to a different folder. But I am getting messages that whateverthedocname.doc could not be found. Opens fine in 2007 but XP Word is unusable. Adn every time I close a file I am prompted to create another Normal .dot

Grrrrr...

Denis


----------



## starl (Mar 3, 2007)

Denis.... not sure. Have you tried a repair on 2003? i know Bill is running both side by side, so it's possible. What if you open word 2003 then the doc?
also.. doubt 2007 is touching your dot.. it would use dotx


----------

