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."
Lol (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lol (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet, it doesn't seem to do all that much more than the old WYSIWYG office apps that ran on DOS and used 2 megabytes of RAM.
MS Office is like the Madden games -- every couple years we fork over money for an updated version, but football itself didn't change in the interim.
Re:Let me get this straight (Score:5, Insightful)
No, that is incorrect. They are perfectly capable.
They have no business reason to support people who do not purchase the new operating system.
Piracy? (Score:3, Insightful)
I can see why they'd drop support for XP, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let me get this straight (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lol (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lol (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're writing a document that complex, you probably shouldn't be using MS-office or libreoffice or any other WYSIWYG editor.
Re:Let me get this straight (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
A home user running xp doesn't care about office 2013, and a business user on XP would reasonably move to 7 before getting office 2013 anyway.
XP is approaching the end of life where you can say it 'works'. It has compatibility and security issues that will no longer get fixed, and as time goes on new software will rely on libraries and so on that just don't exist on XP (see the hardware acceleration on DX10 class hardware mentioned).
With linux these sorts of problems are simply solved by a free upgrade (which, like windows, comes with features you may not want and so on), but with MS they charge you money for it, but the core problem would still be there, you just don't get an excuse of 'oh but I can't afford Ubuntu 12 when I still have 10' the way you do with XP and 7.
That something 'works' is a moving target in the IT sector. Does it support flash? How about the latest version? Will it support HTML5 and whatever video encoding scheme your browser wants? Will anyone even want a browser without hardware acceleration in a year or two? Is there a new UI API that just doesn't exist on an old version? Etc. The world plods along, and eventually it's not practical to make your software for an old operating system, as relatively important companies start making that transition your computer will 'work' less and less, in the same way IE6 works but doesn't.
I'm not sure it's there yet, but XP clinging to life could start to cause issues as security and compatibility move past what is reasonably possible on XP.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
IMO its not the users, its the developers. Because of a retarded default setup, XP allowed developers to ship code assuming the user will always run as root and Vista broke that. Developers are now forced to reduce the number of - Add Admin priveledges to this process token - UAC prompts which can be jarring to the end user experience. For that alone I think novice users should be moved away from XP as soon as possible. In the enterprise I think its not so bad since the software used can be carefully chosen and you can run XP as non-admin.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
> (see the hardware acceleration on DX10 class hardware mentioned).
Nope, that is entirely a ploy by Microsoft to mov people off WinXP. There is no technical reason why you can't get DX11 effects on WinXP provided your video hardware supports it. How do I know this? well OpenGL will give you DX11 effects no matter what the operating system. But Microsoft had to find ways to move users clinging on to XP (and bring in more revenue even though users won't be doing much different with Win7 that they aren't doing with WinXP) and holding back newer versions of DirectX/Direct3D was one way of milking the cow. Unfortunately the vast bulk of Windows users don't know about that and have been played (again) by Microsoft (although, most won't care I suppose, but that is up to them - the point is that Microsoft gave them no choice for their own cashflow reasons, not technical ones as you allude to).
Once MS decided to abandon support for XP with newer DirectX versions I'm sure I gave them more technical flexibility in what they could do - but it was not technical limitations in XP that stop you having 'DirectX 11' style effects - like I said, OpenGL can do the same effects on Windows XP and many more operating systems - since OpenGL is no longer subject to the whims of any single company (unlike Microsoft and DirectX). Hence, I'm developing my modern jet combat simulator in OpenGL with GLSL shaders - just as the X-Plane developer famously did too: http://techhaze.com/2010/03/interview-with-x-plane-creator-austin-meyer/ [techhaze.com] read how chosing OpenGL over DirectX resulted in business opportunities that personally made him $US 3.5 million dollars in a few months when his OpenGL code was very easily ported to the iPad/iPhone unlike DirectX apps that are stuck on the Windows desktop [which is the whole reason Microsoft tricked developers into building workflows using DirectX, since MS knew this would make it hard for game developers to leave, which makes it hard for gamers to leave - it is all about the 'lock-in'].
Re:Lol (Score:2, Insightful)
I can write HTML and CSS by hand entirely too, but for most people that's really not a good plan.
Wow, could you have possibly chosen a WORSE example for your comparison? WYSIWYG html editors might be fine... no, they're still not... might be passable for making your dog's tumblr page or something, but woe betide the poor bastard who has to deal with it if you're dumb enough to use it for anything "serious."
And that's how specs should be done (Score:5, Insightful)
It is stupid to relate just what the program needs. That doesn't tell an average user anything. If a program said "Requires 10MB of RAM, 50MB optimal," people would be confused, and might try it on ultra low spec systems. It should spec in terms of what the whole system, with OS and all, should have to run well.
For example a number of modern games recommend 4GB of RAM. Now they are all 32-bit apps and anyone who knows about the Windows memory model knows this means they won't be designed to use more than 2GB of RAM themselves under normal circumstances. So why the recommendation then? Well they are counting on using most of that 2GB, so they want to make sure there's plenty left over for the OS, virus scanner, IM, Steam, and other things people might have running. The program itself may only need 2GB allocated to it to run ideally, but it won't get 2GB of memory unless the system has a good bit more.
So makes sense to me you do things like Office in the same way. Also it makes sense to not be stingy on recommendations. Something I always hated back in the day was games that were under on their recommendations. They'd say something like "386 20MHz 1MB minimum, 486 25MHz 2MB recommended, 486 33MHz 2MB optimal." Now to me "optimal" means "runs really well cranked up" and "minimum" means "minimum to run reasonable." However what they really mean was "minimum to run the program at all, you can't really play at this level," and optimal meant "Runs reasonably well with this but you'll need a good bit more to crank it up. Said game would need like a 486 50MHz and 4MB to really run properly.
Well we shouldn't do that. It should be spec'd in terms of a reasonable usable minimum, and a recommended that is actually good performance. Well, for 64-bit 7 I'd say 2GB is a realistic minimum. With that, you can run the OS and an app or two reasonably well.
It's also not very demanding. 16GB of RAM is all of $90 these days. I have 16GB in my laptop just because why not? It bumped the cost hardly at all over 8GB.
I dunno (Score:4, Insightful)
I can see two sides.
On the one hand it does sound marketing based on account of the fact that 7 and Vista are similar so you are right, little technical difference.
On the other hand it still requires support. If you officially support it you have to go and test everything on another two platforms (32-bit and 64-bit). This means regression testing on all the patches and all that jazz with it. It adds a non-trivial cost. Given that Vista never achieved much market penetration and most Vista users went to 7 when it came out, I can see just thinking it isn't worth the money and hassle to support it.
Remember that for MS support can't mean "Will probably run but might have problems or break shit we haven't tested it." Support has to mean full support and testing.
So I can't say what it was and it may have been purely marketing, but I can see a valid reason as well.
Upgrades? What are those? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
I run Office Libre on Linux.
LibreOffice !
And for a lot of us who are power users or make a living using word-processors and spreadsheets, $200 every 3-5 years is a solid investment in quality 'tools'.
And, no, just because you open/save the format doesn't mean it has the same functionality ...
Re:Computers (Score:2, Insightful)
Your analogy is incorrect. The correct analogy would be if your 'USB' device was no longer able to work on your machine because your software vendor decided not to support it anymore and supported only Thunderbolt. Now there is no technical reason for this change (since MS Offiice can have effects accelerated using a 2D accelerator and advanced 3D effects to DirectX11 level are completely unnecessary for office productivity type work) but the software vender was experiencing a bit of a cash crunch so they throught they'd drop support for your perfectly capable platform just cause they wanted to get you to cough up.
Is this the position you are trying to defend?
Re:Let me get this straight (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody complains that the new Chevy Volt isn't compatible with their set of tools they bought just last year to work on cars.
Actually they would complain bitterly and use plenty of expletives. I haven't heard of any incompatibilities.
Nobody complains that the HE dishwasher they bought wont except regular dishwashing crystals.
Probably because HS detergents cost the same as regular and it's an expendable resource. If it cost them a few hundred extra dollars, they'd complain loudly.
Nobody complains that the new bike they bought can't use all the old tires they have from the last bike.
Probably because the new bike came with tires. Of course, they usually CAN use the same ones if it's the same type of bike. Nobody wants to use 10 speed racing tires off road.
Nobody complains that the HD TV they bought doesn't have RCA cable inputs.
Mine has RCA inputs. It added HDMI and VGA. What's to complain about?
Luckily there is eBay and Craigslist where you can sell your old stuff to someone who can't afford the new shiny yet. Give them a break and sell it to them.
MS claims that Windows is non-transferable. You guessed it, people have complained.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
I have adored UAC since it's release, because of exactly that reason - it forces developers to develop properly.
The amount of times I was on the phone to software companies who were flabbergasted that I wasn't running their software (and didn't see it as an acceptable solution to their software failures) as administrator.
It was just discraseful.
Thank you Microsoft for releasing vista. - Now mod me to hell for saying that!
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lol (Score:5, Insightful)
I have met people who've written their PhD thesis using MS Word. They've all agreed, after the fact, that it wasn't a good plan.
Re:You poor sap (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Lol (Score:5, Insightful)
I have met people who've written their PhD thesis using MS Word. They've all agreed, after the fact, that it wasn't a good plan.
Ohh, dear people please listen to this man! Please listen and give an end to the madness of the 2GB .doc file!
Re:Lol (Score:4, Insightful)
I just submitted my PhD thesis which I wrote using LaTeX. Two of my friends just submitted their thesis as well, written in MS Word. They probably spent half their time fixing incorrect figure numbers, footnotes and problems in the table of contents. And forget about adding an MS Word file to a versioning system in any meaningful way, or easily breaking up the document into smaller files.
What is more, I submitted my examination copy of the thesis in single-spaced format (to save paper). For the final copy one-half or double-spaced is required. In LaTeX this is as difficult as changing one line in the pre-amble of the document. In MS Word this is likely going to be a week of getting all the figures positioned "just right" again.
I can understand that people outside of comp sci aren't particularly taken to LaTeX, but I'd rather shoot myself than having to write my thesis in MS Word.
LaTeX is anything but past its expiry date, especially in academia. Properly used LaTeX will always produce superior typesetting than any office suite.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you just call Excel a "quality tool"?
It's a good spreadsheet. It's not a full blown database, it's not capable of processing TB of data from the LHC in real time, it's not a scientific textbook publishing package. It's a spreadsheet.
I would be interested in what other spreadsheets have to offer that Excel doesn't. The one in LibreOffice is very similar to Excel. I've used GnuCalc and others which are basically lite versions of Excel and perfectly adequate, but if Excel is not a "quality tool" what is?
... and they want to compete in tablets ? (Score:3, Insightful)
And ... a DirectX 10 graphics card. I think that's even more implausible than the 1GB RAM. Did they port Office to WPF or something?
Yeahyeah I know, Direct 2D, fancy hardware accelerated text, etc. It's still kind of funny needing a GPU for documents.
Everything Microsoft produce this days are bloatwares which are bloated to the max
With bloatware like these how the hell they can survive in the tablet / smartphone platforms, where the CPU/GPU/RAM specs are much MUCH lower than that of the desktop ?
Re:Lol (Score:5, Insightful)
So, to recap the thread:
1 openoffice (i'd say libreoffice) does office work well
2 but not for complex documents
3 but for complex document office is not good either, you would be better off with latex
4 latex? we need simpler stuff
right, so GOTO 1
bloat (Score:2, Insightful)
So office now needs at least 2GB or ram, 3GB of HD, a DX-10 comptible video card, yet it still has pretty much exactly the same functionality as office 95.
Microsoft Office 95 required a 386DX or higher CPU, and either Windows 95, Windows NT 4.0, or Windows NT 3.51. 8 MB of RAM & 55 MB of hard disk space for the 'typical' install.
Re:still using Office 2000... no point in newer... (Score:4, Insightful)
only those with no clue are saving Word files as .DOCX.
I thought the new docx/xlsx files were quite a bit smaller than the old doc/cls formats? So it would be entirely reasonable to use the new default format for saving files.
Re: But you should see Clippy (Score:4, Insightful)
The funniest thing is "DirectX 10-compatible graphics card for users wanting hardware acceleration." Say what?
You need hardware acceleration to write a memo? Or enter numbers into a spreadsheet?
Is that for Clippy?
I don't know if we can really complain. I mean, with Gnome/Ubuntu requiring 3D for the basic desktop environment anymore.
But still.