Microsoft Office 2013 Not Compatible With Windows XP, Vista 711
hypnosec writes "The newly unveiled productivity suite from Microsoft, Office 2013, won't be running on older operating systems like Windows XP and Vista it has been revealed. Office 2013 is said to be only compatible with PCs, laptops or tablets that are running on the latest version of Windows i.e. either Windows 7 or not yet released Windows 8. According to a systems requirements page for Microsoft for Office 2013 customer preview, the Office 2010 successor is only compatible with Windows 7, Windows 8, Windows Server 2008 R2 or Windows Server 2012. This was confirmed by a Microsoft spokesperson. Further the minimum requirements states that systems need to be equipped with at least a 1 GHz processor and should have 1 GB of RAM for 32-bit systems or 2 GB for 64-bit hardware. The minimum storage space that should be available is 3 GB along with a DirectX 10-compatible graphics card for users wanting hardware acceleration."
LibreOffice will work on older Windows installs (Score:5, Informative)
I'd suggest that people run a more modern operating system than Win XP, but LibreOffice will even run on Windows 2000!
LibreOffice system requirements [libreoffice.org]:
Re:DirectX? (Score:1, Informative)
For the embedded flight simulator
Re:Ho hum (Score:2, Informative)
I am a little bit surprised that Vista will not be supported. I expect Vista just never had the market penetration to be worth the aggravation.
I haven't looked into it much, but my understanding is that Windows 7 is just Vista SP2 (or 3). I have 2 computers here that came with Vista (now running only Ubuntu), and Win 7 in a Virtual Box, and I cannot see a difference, especially in the network connectivity area where I'm sometimes condemned to fiddle settings. That's an area that is atrocious and needs rework, IMHO.
So it's likely for the same reason as not supporting XP - force an OS upgrade on suckers^W customers.
But really, who cares? Open Office (actually I prefer Libre Office since 3.5 came out) does everything I need, and everything everyone else I know needs. The only reason for Microsoft Office is cross compatibility with other MS Office users but it has been a few years since Open Office failed me in that regard. And even then, the sender did not actually need anything that Open Office didn't do. They used MS Office "just because."
100% in agreement there.
Although, come to think of it, I recently send a 1-page ODT file with 3 images in it (and nothing else) to someone with MS Office 2007 (I think) and it coughed and sputtered opening the document (in a completely open format), and when it "fixed" the thing, it got the z-order wrong so the print-out was 1/3 useless. But I fully blame MS for that, though I probably should've sent a PDF instead, I wanted it to be editable if necessary.
Re:Piracy? (Score:3, Informative)
Vista not being compatible is suprising to me, but XP support being dropped is acceptable. Who still running XP would actually be paying for Office 2013?
Oh please. XP is going to turn 11 when that thing comes out. It is time to move on and it is rediculous to keep supporting it. It is not a simple matter of a recompile either. Businesses will stop using it if no one writes software just like we still would be using IE 6 if Google didn't refuse to support it for docs and youtube. Then afterwards facebook and others chimed in and poof the users went away kicking and screaming but upgraded to Firefox or IE 7 or later.
Same is true with XP. XP can't do HTML 5 in IE9 because it can't do the hardware acceleration.Also it can't support h.264 due to the lack of DRM and hidef in the driver level. Because of that the office365 features will not work fully for remote features. The GPU graphics can't be done. The malware protection and group and document management DRM can not be done for the cloud integration etc.
Exchange 2003 is not as cloud friendly nor as flexible as later versions to support the groupware integration of Outlook 2013 either.
Besides making XP Vista-lite and enabling users to keep from upgrading and ruining the stability and maturity of the OS it is time to let it go. There are more modern implementaitons already called Windows 7 and 8.
Re:Lol (Score:5, Informative)
LaTex or something that allows you to separate the content from the presentation. It's something that tends to make things a lot easier if you decide later that you want different formatting or if you need a copy for two different audiences, but where the audiences can't for one reason or another use the same formatting. Like say if you're sending one copy to somebody that always uses a mobile phone.
Re:Lol (Score:5, Informative)
It's not that bad. Word 2010 uses ~95 MB of memory for an 11,461 page document [dropbox.com]. I sincerely doubt Word 2013 is much worse.
Re:Lol (Score:5, Informative)
The question though in this case isn't "what does it take to run office" so much as "what does it take to run any application in Windows 7 or Windows 8?"
Those system specs are nearly identical to Windows 7's system recommendations.
Essentially all the recommended system specs are saying is. "Your computer needs to run Windows 7, after that Office will be fine with whatever." If your OS is crapping out without any apps running (min OS specs) then you won't be running office smoothly either.
Re:Lol (Score:4, Informative)
Yea, the minimum requirements listed include the RAM consumed by the OS.
Re:Lol (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Lol (Score:3, Informative)
Use Lyx. I did for my thesis in an area of theoretical physics and never once needed to type arcane commands in. Other people even remarked on how my equations looked 10 times better than for anyone else.
Re:Lol (Score:5, Informative)
LaTeX is one of those things that has clung to life long past its expiry date.
No.
We still see it in academia a lot,
Almost everyone in academia has a mcahine capable or running Office. The rest have machines capable of running openoffice. Many universities are site-licensed with Office. Yet LaTeX persists because people in academia find that it fits their needs better.
and at this point the advice I give people is write your document in some sort of 'office' suite with a half assed effort at formatting, and then put it into LaTeX at the end (or paragraph by paragraph if you need things like equations for the content to make sense).
Then you're a total lunatic.
The office suites are poor editors, and they don't support version control in any meaningful manner. Yes, I have struggled through change tracking and document merging. Compared to writing a document with several co-authors at different locations and using something sane, like git, the tools you advocate are essentially non-functional.
It's much easier to check spelling/grammar,
Now I know you're making shit up. Even vim has spell checking built in these days. And I've never met a grammar checker which didn't suck.
have revisions made by other people (with comments and suggested corrections and so on), in one of the office suits than it is with LaTeX.
LaTeX doesn't do revisions. Those are much better served by a revision control system. I've used CVS, git, SVN, Darcs, Mercurial and possibly others. I've also worked with the versioning features of a word processor. Once you have more than 2 authors and/or the authors are working at the same time, you need a proper VCS. The half-asses word processor ones suck.
Anfd you know you can write comments in LaTeX, right?
office suites are so much better.
You have actually failed to give any coherent argument as to how.
And good luck getting something like ArXiv to work with a word processor.
Re:Good (Score:4, Informative)
You MAY be able to use directory junctions / NTFS simlinks to get round this issue.
Re: But you should see Clippy (Score:5, Informative)
Word processor pages are rendered similar to a web browser. We now use graphics card acceleration for browsers. Why not for publishing software?