# Which version of Office should I buy.



## andrew69 (Mar 4, 2012)

Hi, can anyone help me as I want to buy a copy of Microsoft Office.  My  company use Office 2007 and windows 2003 operating system(which they are  likley to update first).  I have windows 7 and want to know if I should  buy Office 2007 as it matches work, or should I buy Office 2010 and  suffer the differences in favour of the benefits of the newer interface  etc, as I want to learn Excel and intend to pass the Microsoft  exams(core and expert), and also want to study VBA for work/career.   Also Office pro 2007 is £225 at Amazon which is £100 cheaper than Office  pro 2010!

Thanks in advance


----------



## VoG (Mar 4, 2012)

I would go for 2010. There were bugs in 2007 which were largely fixed in 2010.


----------



## alansidman (Mar 4, 2012)

I agree with VOG, but before you purchase, check with the IT department at your company as Microsoft has entered into agreements with many companies to offer a special discount to their employees for Office 2007 and Office 2010.  In many cases you can purchase Office pro for as little as $15 US under this plan.


----------



## alansidman (Mar 4, 2012)

Found this link but was unable to add it to the post above

http://www.microsofthup.com/hupus/h...&culture=en-US&resID=T1O5CQoBAlgAADBRtDQAAAAA

Alan


----------



## andrew69 (Mar 4, 2012)

Wow, i didn't know that, I'll check that out tomorrow.

Thanks again


----------



## Smitty (Mar 4, 2012)

Welcome the Board!

Stay away from Office 2007 if you can, and go straight to 2010.  Aside from potential employer upgrades, if you don't need Access you can also look at the Student version, which is substantially less (provided you qualify).

Either way, you can download a fully functional trial from the Office website.

HTH,


----------



## SydneyGeek (Mar 4, 2012)

I agree with all of the above *unless* you need Access. I had issues with 2010 and use 2007 for development work. For the rest of the Office package 2010 is the way to go.

Denis


----------



## Smitty (Mar 4, 2012)

Denis,

I'm interested in hearing what issues you had with Access 2010 vs. 2007.


----------



## Aladin Akyurek (Mar 4, 2012)

Smitty said:


> Denis,
> 
> I'm interested in hearing what issues you had with Access 2010 vs. 2007.


 
I don't recall whether 2007 has this issue. Anyway, 2010 does not show the _1:n_ relations in the query grid as 2003 or earlier versions did. Also, from .mdb to .accdb conversion is not obvious...


----------



## SydneyGeek (Mar 5, 2012)

You have to be very careful about backwards compatibility between 2010 and 2007. 
I got bitten when I did some maintenance in 2010 on an .accdb from 2007. The file was then not readable in 2007 -- there is an MS article on it, to do with the new custom sorts (other issues listed as well) -- http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/office/cc907897

The fix was to create a new database in 2007 and re-import everything. 

Denis


----------



## Smitty (Mar 5, 2012)

Aladin Akyurek said:


> I don't recall whether 2007 has this issue. Anyway, 2010 does not show the _1:n_ relations in the query grid as 2003 or earlier versions did. Also, from .mdb to .accdb conversion is not obvious...


 
I've run into that too, and I think that it's based on actually setting up relationships, which oddly enough aren't supported in SQL Server migrations.  

But ashamedly, I know little about the finer points of Access, so I'd love to hear more.


----------



## Aladin Akyurek (Mar 5, 2012)

Smitty said:


> I've run into that too, and I think that it's based on actually setting up relationships, which oddly enough aren't supported in SQL Server migrations.
> 
> But ashamedly, I know little about the finer points of Access, so I'd love to hear more.


 
The point is that the one-to-many relationships are all established via Database Tools | Relationships. When the related tables are used in the query grid the usual display of pre-2007 (most of the time) is gone.


----------



## Norie (Mar 6, 2012)

I've seen no problems with relationships appearing in the query view grid (QBE?) in Access 2010.

You get the little 1 next to the field on the one side of the relationship and ∞ next to the field on the many side.

Am I looking at the wrong thing?


----------



## xenou (Mar 8, 2012)

I had Access 2010 crash on me (repeatedly) when using a query with a subquery that could not be displayed in the query-by-design grid -- the kind of query that should simply give you a message "Access cannot graphically display this query".  That was enough for me.  I re-installed Office 2007, which is my current "home base".

Edit: Note that if I didn't use Access, I *would* prefer Excel 2010.


----------



## hrlngrv (Mar 8, 2012)

It is possible to install both Office 2007 and 2010 on the same machine, isn't it? If so, you could use Excel 2010 and Access 2007.


----------



## Smitty (Mar 8, 2012)

> It is possible to install both Office 2007 and 2010 on the same machine, isn't it?


 
You can, but you have to install them sequentially, if you try to install an older version on top of a new version you can have problems.  Although the best method is to use a Virtual Machine.  Microsoft's Virtual PC is free, so there's no barrier to entry for that.  Just note that it doesn't support Windows 8 at this time.


----------



## shg (Mar 8, 2012)

I have Excel 2003, Office 2007, and Excel 2010 installed, and they all run fine.

No Access of any version installed. It is, to me, the monster that lurks under a child's bed, ready to drag them into a life of pain, shame, depravation, and perfidy.


----------



## Norie (Mar 8, 2012)

shg

You don't have Access installed at all?


----------



## shg (Mar 8, 2012)

OK! OK!  I have Access 2007 installed with Office.

But I swear I've never used it, except maybe once, and even then, I didn't inhale.


----------



## Norie (Mar 8, 2012)

You don't know what you're missing.


----------



## shg (Mar 8, 2012)

My daughter knows how to do basic SQL queries. They just baffle me -- my brain is full ...


----------



## Smitty (Mar 8, 2012)

shg said:


> My daughter knows how to do basic SQL queries. They just baffle me -- my brain is full ...


 
That's where the Access QBE (Query By Example) interface comes in really handy.  It's so much easier than trying to actually write the SQL yourself.


----------



## Atroxell (Mar 8, 2012)

Okay, I have been watching this thread for a few days now and it's now somewhere that I have a definitive opinion... (Remember, this is just my opinion. I'm sure there's going to be someone unhappy with it.)

First, let me admit that I have not used Access extensively in years. Mostly by choice.  So my observations my be outdated. I do run an occasional query in the 2010 version. And I have even written a macro in it to eliminate the tedium of one of my current processes. That's because the only database I have is Access. I wish it weren't.

IMHO, MS Access leaves a lot to be desired. I won't go into the fact that it's horrifically slow, or that you have to build another DB every 2 gigs of data. The most irritating thing about it to me is that there is nothing remotely intuitive about it. Query design is anything but understandable without some research. The reporting side is okay, but can be confusing for someone without experience.

A little background: In my last job I (along with another person) built a complete database and Web reporting system for a business that had 19K sales locations across the State.  That database updates itself and the Web data every morning by 7 AM, after the delivery of 19 separate source files. That identical system was then converted for slightly different data and rolled over into 4 other States for their use. It has now been 5 years since I worked with it, but it is still running. I occasionally talk with the one person left who maintains it and he tells me it is mostly self-sufficient and he does little more than check on it and build new reports for the web. Currently, it sits at about 70 GB of data and grows a little every day. And users have access to all of the historical data as well as the current stuff via the web interface.

It was so well built, I got to go look for another job.

And now the part that will probably irritate: I did it all with Corel Paradox, which I feel is the fastest, most user friendly, easy to build and code database system out there. Unfortunately, Corel is not really doing anything with it since they bought it from Borland and the rumors for years say it may be coming to an end. If I thought there were a solid future for it, I would recommend it over Access any day.


----------



## Norie (Mar 8, 2012)

shg

Try mixing Access and Excel, they kind of work well together.


----------



## hrlngrv (Mar 8, 2012)

QBE is fine for simple queries, not so good for anything moderately complex.

FWLIW, I started off with dBase then moved to Paradox back in the late 1980s. Paradox and QBE were wonderful after dBase, but then I moved on to R:Base in the early 1990s and learned SQL. QBE now seems crude.

Anyone who can understand Excel formulas with more than 2 IF calls should be able to learn SQL reasonably well. It's only HAVING clauses which take time & effort.


----------



## shg (Mar 8, 2012)

> Anyone who can understand Excel formulas with more than 2 IF calls ...


Well dang, that's the problem. Two is my limit.


----------



## Smitty (Mar 8, 2012)

I agree that one "should" know SQL, but I still suck at it.  I guess I never had a real need to learn it as most of the complicated things I generally do via code anyway.


----------



## xenou (Mar 8, 2012)

Having "learned" SQL I now typically use the QBE to create my queries but often view them in SQL view since I find them easier to read that way.  There are some situations where complex queries are better written out, but I can't really see any reason to avoid the QBE grid when it's faster and produces the same result.  Though FWIW, I did write out my SQL while I was learning it, and still do so in various situations.

One case where I would *always* use the QBE in Access - I have a table with 15 fields in it and I want to select 14 fields -- all but the arbitrary autonumber primary key.  I open the QBE, add the table, double click in the field list, drag, and delete the first ID field.  My query is written in 10 seconds instead of 2 minutes.  If I want it as text I can still copy it from SQL view.


----------



## SydneyGeek (Mar 9, 2012)

shg, you're good at maths. Relational databases (and therefore SQL) are based on set theory. The syntax isn't that tough. 

Maybe I'm biased... I like databases. But I use Excel for crunching a lot of that data, either for analysis or reports. And I like being able to use SQL to pull data into Excel.

As xenou said, Access 2010 has/had some stability issues. There are so many changes under the hood, I guess the bugs weren't all caught before release. Be interesting to see how Access runs in the next version.

Denis


----------



## Fazza (Mar 9, 2012)

Seeing the topic has moved onto SQL, I'd encourage a little learning.

SQL is simple & super-powerful. As easy as one IF in Excel. 

Simple example,

```
SELECT a_field, another_field, SUM(this_field) AS [Total]
FROM table
WHERE a_field Is Not Null and another_field > 10
GROUP BY a_field, another_field
HAVING SUM(this_field)>1000000
```
 
I'm a huge fan of SQL.


----------



## T. Valko (Mar 9, 2012)

shg said:


> No Access of any version installed. It is, to me, the monster that lurks under a child's bed, ready to drag them into a life of pain, shame, depravation, and perfidy.


That sounds more like what you go through with Word.


----------



## Smitty (Mar 9, 2012)

T. Valko said:


> That sounds more like what you go through with Word.


 
I hate Word with a passion...


----------



## T. Valko (Mar 9, 2012)

Smitty said:


> I hate Word with a passion...


Me 2!


----------



## Sandeep Warrier (Mar 12, 2012)

You'll will enjoy my workplace than.... Word is used extensively


----------



## diddi (Mar 12, 2012)

Take a word or publisher document to a printing business as artwork for a job and they'll be laughing at you not with you. they are both jokes of programs that should be sold to schoolkids who cant afford anything better.


----------



## RoryA (Mar 12, 2012)

Word is not designed for artwork or DTP so that's hardly fair or accurate. Might as well say Excel is a joke because it's not Illustrator.


----------

