Stan Beer
Tuesday, 10 October 2006 20:47
Opinion and Analysis
Page 1 of 2
I have just taken another cook's tour of Office 2007, creating opening and closing documents. Since I'm far more proficient with Word than either Excel or PowerPoint, I spent most of my time playing with the word processor but I did peruse the other packages. It looks pretty good but it won't sell well.
There are a number of reasons. However, the
main one is that, unlike Windows Vista, Office 2007 is not a must have.
People do not need to part with $500 or so to upgrade to a new version
of Office. In fact, they will be reluctant to do so and, unlike the
case with Vista, there are now viable alternatives.
When users upgrade to a new computer, it will come pre-installed with
Vista so they have no choice there. However, new computers don't come
pre-loaded with Office 2007 and users will happily stick with Office
2003.
Microsoft may try to stop users from installing their copy of Office
2003 on a new machine regardless of whether they trashed their old
computer or not. If that happens, unlike the case with Vista, users
will have a choice.
After spending money on a new computer and almost as much again on
Vista, users will have a choice of spending hundreds more on a fancy
revamped version of the Office they already had, which has a
substantial learning curve attached to it. Or they can opt to install a
compatible free open source version such as Open Office.org 2.0.
There is no doubt that Office 2007 is a slicker product than Open
Office.org 2.0. However, for most users' needs at home or in the office
the open source product does the job. It's simple to install, there's
zero learning curve, it's virtually totally compatible with Office 2003
and it doesn't cost a penny.
