Discussion on:

Microsoft capitulates and some angst over Office 2013 is relieved

This is and has always been the way it worked up until the got greedy. Glad to see MS doing what is right. Now if we could get them to build an OS that works instead of this crap Windows 8 they might get me to come back. This new policy did make me check out Open Office and I have to say I am wondering why I have been paying MS all these years when a free tool that does everything I need exists?

I haven't encountered Windows 8 yet but I have yet to hear from somebody who uses it that they like it. I have been using various versions of Linux for most of my work and have an iMac for media editing. Every time I offer support to a Windows user I feel like cursing at the machine, and can't understand why people put up with it. I just want to get work done, without all the messing about that Windows causes. Most people could easily use Linux and never look back, they just don't realise it. I have been changing my friends and family over to Linux the past few years and not one has asked to have Windows put back on their computers. That has nothing to do with licensing, just the ease of use. If Windows were a car you would be stopping all the time to reattach doors, put the wheels back on, all the while trying to fight off outside invaders!

I assume all your family does is some web browsing, some emails and a few other "minor" applications. If you do anything that requires REAL applications, then you need Windows or Mac.

That thought process is off base! There are free applications for Linux available that rival or surpass Microsoft & Apple. In addition the OS is also FREE and much faster. When I replaced Win XP on my ancient Dell laptop the speed truly amazed me. The hardware did not support upgrades to Win XP. Now I have an OS that is totally up to date!

So does Linux support Visual Studio, SQL Server, and Excel, as well as browse the web? If it can't support those then for me it would be a useless OS because that is all I do on the computer. As far as the MS licensing policy changing? I bought Office 97 in 1998, and was allowed to install in on all of our machines and including the new ones purchased since then. Now the policy is one license per machine. So it does not look like I will be updating anytime soon.

You don't need visual studio if you aren't using IISx, SQLServer and .net. A lot of the free office suites do just fine with excel programs, but my thinking is that you should use the right tool for the job. I also think that Excel is clearly the best surviving spread sheet program. Some people still prefer lotus notes. If excel starts to be 100k rows you should really be doing a database instead. It's been proven, databases correctly done get your information much faster than macros.

The big picture, like it or not, is how bad Microsoft does with customer relations. Seriously, can you think of another company that treats their customers so poorly? Have they not heard of focus groups? With all that cash, can they not hire someone who is at least a little slick at feeding people sub-optimal ideas? Even Jim Jones had happy people up until the Kool Aid thing. Does no one at MS have a clue?

I have to give them very low mark as a company for being so functionally stupid. That is not a referendem on their products, just their managment.

All of my DoD customers use .Net, IIS, and SQL Server. My DoT customer uses .Net, IIS and Oracle. So I DO need Visual Studio to 1. design applications for my customers, and 2. advance the skills needed to support my customers (which must be done on my time on my machine). So again, if Linux can't support VS2010 and SS2008R2 then it is of no value to me at all.

Seriously, can you think of another company that treats their customers so poorly?

Lets see: The phone company, the cable company, the cell phone industry, Google, Facebook, Automobile manufacturers, car dealerships, production-line style home builders, Federal State and Local governments, many (but not all) police departments, Auto Insurance companies, medical insurance companies, the banking industry, apparently every vendor we deal with , ...

Somebody, please, name a good comapny! I am getting depressed.

Just because there is software that you use that is exclusive to Windows does not mean that any computer that does not have that software is not any good.

That would be like me saying that Windows machines are all junk because they don't have Soundtrack Pro, or Final Cut Pro.

I've used the Open Office Suite ever since Microsoft forced the Ribbon on people. It handles all my excel needs just fine - some even better than the new excel, as I'm taking excel files back and forth between Filemaker and the spreadsheet application all the time, and the older file format works better than the new one.

And it's pretty nice not to have to worry about 90 day restrictions, or hardware failure for loading a program. I wonder how Redmond determines that you've had a valid hardware failure anyhow.

Anyhow our personal situation is not everyone's.

I have said for years that MSoft really brought computing to the masses, which was its initial goal. In the same breath, however, Lincoln said (paraphrased) "If you try to please everybody, you're guaranteed to piss most of them off." That's the crux of the whole Windows/Mac thing. For millions of people, Windows does the job day in day out.

Most users bitch about Windows because it's the accepted thing to do. The majority of them, from what I've seen over 15 years, can't tell the difference between an optimized system and one that's just chugging and plodding along. The average user doesn't measure time in milliseconds. Case in point, I just installed a new Color LaserJet printer on a small municipality's network. I was appalled at how slowly it prints but all the users are thrilled to death at the print speed in comparison to the old one.

Despite MSoft's effort to make a "one-size-fits-all" product, such a goal is impossible. No matter what you make, it's not going to work for every.single.customer. Someone's going to hate it and they're going to yap and yap till they find someone else who hates it and so on and so on.

If Linux and free productivity suites, etc., will work for you, all the better. If you've built your livelihood around MicroSoft's products, don't blame them for trying to protect them however they can with piracy now so rampant and "cracked" software so easily accessible.

I did not say Linux is junk I said it is useless to me because it does not support my only reasons for using a computer. However, a number of people are saying that windows is junk when in fact it is theonly thing that supports what I do on a computer. Until all operating systems can run all applications that people need then you can't condemn anyone of them. Operating Systems like computers are tools. It doesn't matter if you have the best ball peen hammer in the world if I need it to pull out nails, it's useless to me.

I remember my old boss buying one license and then requiring it to be installed on all the company's PCs. Ummm that is what is called piracy. Back then there was not a way that the license terms could be easily enforced. But rest assured that if you only purchased one license and then installed it on many computers you were pirating the software. Not legal, not moral not good for those who actually pay for what they use. Perhaps you just did not understand the terms of the license. After all, who can really read all that legal mumble jumble.

You must be talking about a home environment. I'm talking about a Windows Enterprise environment. Would you risk your job by recommending free Linux applications over industry-standard Microsoft applications? (NO!) Companies share/send documents with each other all the time and the Microsoft Office suite is the biggest example of course. All that it would take would be one major incompatibility problem between you and another company and they'd be asking you, "Why did YOU convert us to Linux applications?" There's so many more examples involving other enterprise-wide applications and if you don't understand that then you have no idea what I am talking about.

Because I've had a lot of them. And they are between Microsoft products and Microsoft products.

Daya after patch rollouts, I spend the next couple days fixing what the patches broke.

Point is, Using strictly Microsoft means noting in the world of uptime and compatibility.

"Would you risk your job by recommending free Linux applications over industry-standard Microsoft applications?"

I make a living doing just that. And once companies see that "industry standard" MS products aren't the real standards of the industry (with the exception of email), giving them greater stability and an improved ROI, they are happy they've done so.

No one was ever fired for recommend IBM.

Now it's Microsoft when it's blatantly obvious just how poor Microsoft products actually are. You want compatibility Issues try a different version of Office and see exactly what happens. There is very little in the way of maintaining the set standard between different versions of the same product. So by your own admission there is no reason to update any Microsoft product and many reasons to resist the change.

Remember if you want to get ahead Don't rock the Boat.

Col

I do server managment, data bases, web development and other programming to include graphics, all on my Linux machines. If you go to a site I've done, you would not know the difference.

You are aware that MySQL and Apache are the worlds most popular and used database and webserver on the planet right, which have traditionally been included with most Linux distros practically since there was Linux.

The reality is that all you need is a compatiable set of apps, web server, web scripting language, and client side language and you can do almost anything on the web. For MS that works out to MSSQL Server, IIS what ever, .net and asp. MySQL, PHP and Apache with Javascript work equally as well and are free to use. The which is better is a brain dead arguement as clearly they both work. I will say that my experience is that on top of saving literally thousands of dollars, the open source alternatives have been easier to work with and far less prone to malware attacks.

The down side is I do have to maintain wilndows machines to test with and to convert formats for client issues. I don't think win8 is horrid. I just don't think it does anything special. If win8 or win7 was all I had, it would not bother me.

I work at a company where security is of the utmost importance. Our servers are constantly scanned for security vulnerabilities. MySQL and Apache are nothing but headaches for me...MySQL especially. See what it's like to have your company on your back because the servers which you are responsible for are security risks.

.

HAL, MySQL and Apache run on Windows servers! Windows 2008 servers are now MUCH more secure than their 2003 counterparts. When I say that I of course mean the OS and not any applications that run on these servers because they are beyond the control of Microsoft. However, MySQL and Apache have dozens and dozens of security vulnerabilities! Get with it dude.

.

"Microsoft-free", and by your own admission you have an "iMac for video editing? So you're willing to use the most over-protected, closed-system, price-inflated, restrictively-controlled hardware/software around, yet you prooclaim your MS-freedom because you think Microsoft is the enemy?

Obviously just an old-school MS basher, and your car analogy illustrates it well...the old joke, still in use despite being a relic of the past (and even then had nothing to do with MS, because all computer OSes needed constant attention and repair, including Apple and Linux.

Comment on a Linux article not a Microsoft. It's become a cliche... It's an article regarding Microsoft not Linux. If you have a Chevy do you comment on Ford articles. I haven't seen one article RE: a Microsoft product with out a "I use Linux" comment. Great! Good for you! However this article is not about Linux. Regarding Microsoft.. I do not like the direction they are moving in. I will keep my folks on W7 and Office 2010 for the next few years.

The old license agreement for Home & Business allowed office to be installed on two devices simultaneously. A primary computer and a mobile device. From what I've read here that is no longer the case. You can only have it on a single device at any given time.

Would be nice to be able to install on a backup machine. I hope this is possible without violating the license.

not possible

So the way I see it the only change is that if you want to install it on a second device you can now do it on your own instead of having to call microsoft. Seems they are getting particular on people installing office on several machines. They must need money due to Windows 8 going down the drain.

Not when you keep a loaded laptop at home and travel with a lighter laptop.

It is not the best but certainly more realistic. Now I will consider to purchase, before I just would plainly have refused to be boldly diverted to a lease contract with an almost blanco cheque. For all every 2 or 3 years again they would like me to sign that draft.

I use a desktop at work, have a home machine, a laptop for trips and the tablet for on the run stuff. So does this mean 4 licences? I use only one machine at a time, and does seem absurd to licence the box rather than the user. What happens when I start up a trial virtual machine? Do all VMs need licencing too?
(BTW - don't knock Win8 - you're sounding like the old Win95 knockers)

Agreed. There is such a thing as telework and traveling. Who would fork out the purchase price for the same SW multiple times just for different machines, I can't imagine. Real professionals have occasion to work from different machines. Real professionals don't share/bootleg licenses, either. Seems MS is merely pushing customers away ... but at least they're attempting to maximize revenue by requiring multiple licenses for those that can afford or agree with buying it several times to use it for their individual need. Translated, that means less users will be willing to purchase in the first place and professionals will find cost-effective alternatives (i.e., free office apps).

Open License is and has been the solution you are seeking. It provides you with the use rights for your second machine -- even a home machine which is very difficult for an IT department to control. Open License has some methods for addressing VM issues. And of course, the best part is DOWNGRADE RIGHTS! You can downgrade to Office 2010 which, in my humble opinion, is much better anyway.

You have to buy 5 licenses to have an Open license agreement last time I checked.

Bill

This is essentially true, but is not as limiting as it seems. You need to buy 5 'points' worth of Microsoft software to open a volume license (once you've got a volume agreement you can add one thing at a time).

Microsoft Office counts as one point, so if you were to only buy Office yes - you'd have to buy 5 copies. But there are much cheaper Microsoft programs that also count as one point. The cheapest item from our supplier that counts as a point costs $6 (ID: 66J-05385). I've got two or three small clients that need Microsoft Office on a terminal server for just 2 people, so I buy two copies of Office and 3 copies of the $6 item and open a volume agreement.

I have never heard of that before. Thanks for the tip!

Bill

I agree, the user should be licensed, not the machine.

(BTW Windows 8 needs to be knocked - I`ve lost track of the explorer freezing and seeing "Not Responding" in the title bar.-Not my hardware, Win 7 worked flawlessly on it as does Linux. I`ve no problem with the new design -I just want it to WORK).

Really the only way to do a user vs computer license is to have a cloud based system (which MS has).

I second the freezing issue. I often times have to wait 10 to 15 seconds for my mouse to unlock amongst the other issues. I was trying to install Libre office and it just wouldn't show the GUI (process was running. I killed it several times and tried again). I ran out of time and then came back and tried it again and it worked fine. This is a Lenovo core i7, 6 GB RAM with a factory built install. It was a black Friday deal or I wouldn't have even purchased Win 8.

The windows 7 machine provided by the Navy, has the same problem with IE locking up and the mouse pointer disappearing as the machine freezes up. I have lost count of the number times in the last 8 months that I've been required to do a hard boot to bring the system. It is reported that this is due to the Navy's encrypted hard drives. But if that's so why do we not have this problem on the Windows XP machines?

This is not a change from the past. Regardless of what version of office you are running, you cannot use the same retail license on more than one computer. This has been true for a very long time. If you currently have 4 machines and you currently have office on them - you will have had 4 licenses - either that or some of your PCs are running pirated copies. Your work PC should be licensed by your company. Your home machine is your responsibility. If you also have a laptop, if it is work-related, your company should be paying for the license, and unless your tablet is a Surface Pro - you can't get Office for it.

Some boxed retail software specifically said it could be installed on more than one machine. I bought a copy of Office 2010 and it said it could be installed 3 times.

Bill

or Small Business Premium is for. You get 5 installs that can be shared (in the home version) or are limited to one user (the small Business version).

I purchased a 3 licence Office 2010 for $165 on Amazon during a gold box deal.. So thi argues both sides. One purchase - 3 licenses, but 3 licenses - 3 PCs.

I do recall when I good buy a single license copy of MS Streets and Trips though which allowed me to install it on my home PC and laptop.

is not three machines simultaneously. Adobe does the same thing - you can install twice but have to "deactivate" one to install it again. I agree that this is not a change from the past, but another symptom of this whiny, give-me-everything-for-free mentality that has taken over as of late.

I have purchased the MS Office 2010 "Home & Student" which allows installation on three different machines simultaneously, one of which I then upgraded to Home & Business to get Outlook 2010, but I don't believe there is a pro version that does. BTW, Office 365 may allow 5 installs, but it's a lease you have to pay each year. Adobe allows you to install onto two machines as long as they are not both in use at the same time (read home PC or laptop as well as work PC) - you deactivate the first install while installing on the 2nd machine, then reactivate the first one.

I don't understand - are you criticizing the responders here for complaining about new MS license terms? In which case you are the ideal consumer.

By the way - no such thing as "as of late". Its either "as of now (or some other specific time) or "of late". Pet peeve - you can call me whiney if you like

I have Acrobat XI. The EUL>A says you can install on two systems as long as they aren't used at the same time.
Haven't seen the Office 2013 EULA but for a retail copy it should be the same now.

We have two laptops, and an old disposed of desktop that were at one time running Office 97 from the same install disk and the same product ID. All three were registered with MS. No problem.

Doesn't mean it's legal.

Bill

Seems to me that if it were not legal then MS would have not permitted it when it was registered. That in fact did happen when I was given the wrong product ID for an install of MS Project. It had already been used the maximum number of times for that license so we I attempted to register it MS refused to permit it. I had to ask my employer for the correct product ID.

Office 97 comes from the days before product activation. MS had no way back then of knowing how many pcs were running its software product off of 1 license. However, using the same software license multiple times is not legal. (They started using product activation with Office 2000).

MSO 2000 = no activation required and registration is optional

Office XP = MSO 2002 activation required and registration is optional
MSO 2003 activation required and registration is optional

never had a problem with moving MSO 2000 to a new system

same for the OS
win2K = COA only & no activation and registration is optional

win XP = COA + activation required and registration is optional

Microsoft didn't really keep track of licenses then.

Or if work has Open License with SA, then you can get a home use program which gives one install.

O365 Enterprise allows you to install it on 5 different devices used by you. It is licensed to you not a machine. For example my work uses O365 Plan E3 which is an Enterprise plan and is licensed to a user in the company. That user has it installed on their work desktop, their work laptop, their home desktop and their home laptop which leaves another copy for another device. Perfectly legal. When the user leaves the company they lose the license and it is assigned to someone else. 30 days after their license was terminated the copy they have on their home computers will not function. Simple.

If the VMs you are talking about are used by unlicensed users then yes they need to be licensed too but if the user has an O365 license assigned to them then the VM license could be considered another device, out of a total of 5 they are licensed to use.

Get on your iMac and purchase an application from the app store. You now have it on your iMac, your Macbook Air and, if its compatible, your iPad. No wonder MS continues to lose market share.

It will take time, but Miscrosoft will be the new Sybase.

You have two choices:
2 retail copies. Microsoft licenses [unless changed for 2013] states you can install a license on a laptop [or other device] and a desktop. As long as you don't use both at the same time, you are legal.
Alternative is buying a TechNet Plus subscription every year.

Unless you have a large investment in macros, or you use particularly complex docs that have to be xfered among many others outside your organization, why bother with Office when there are so many other excellent free solutions out there? Operation of office suites is similar enough that, despite the "experts", training is not a big deal.

If you're a mouse kid, maybe; if you're invested in using a keyboard, operation of office suites is NOT similar at all. In fact, operation between versions of Office is often not that similar--another problem. I hate Word in many ways, but I'm used to it and very productive. Using OpenOffice or another suite slows me down by an order of magnitude, because things *don't* work the same.

Differences are so great that casual users can't adapt to small differences in GUI?
This bugaboo is way overblown - basically just FUD.

If you are going to down-vote, at least try to think up at least one logical reason.
Are you saying you can't manage to use another GUI for casual office suite use?
In you cases, I'm not surprised.

If the shortcut keys are different, it's a major learning curve because many who us kb shortcuts don't even know where the options are in the GUI, they don't need to. Having to find them and learn a new set of up to 100 shortcuts is a big jump.

Problem is, not even MICROSOFT is fully compatible with microsoft. As you point out yourself, Phsiii, every time they force an "upgrade" on us, all the menus and shortcuts get shifted around for no apparent reason (other than to confound us), so if I am going to have to go through the whole learning curve all over again, it may as well be the learning curve to a new office suite this time.

what Mr. Jack Wallen has to say about this... I'm LMAO already.

After Uninstalling there are always traces of Office left behind in the registry. My licence checking software tells me all versions of Office that has ever been installed on every PC at work, even though all but the most recent has been uninstalled. BTW these are all legitimate licenses.
When will M$ clean up their so called uninstall!!!

That's pretty standard practice for most software. They leave traces (mostly your settings) behind so if you need to do an uninstall/reinstall to fix a problem you don't lose all of your customizations.

I have been a MS user from the very start. Over the years they have made some almighty cockups BUT in every case I can think of they have listened to feedback and backpedalled where necessary.

They will now keep my business

Well done MS!! Now we can start buying Office 2013...:)

I work in the Education industry and our MS licensing is very lenient apparently compared to what I am hearing here. I don't know why things would differ so much for other industries.

Really the only discussion here is about retail licensing. I don't think MS has changed their business licensing at all which is what you would be dealing with in the Education industry.

Bill

Why doesn't MS make it obvious that Office 2013 is a service that you subscribe to and that you don't have ownership of anything in their adverts?

This is a concept that has always eluded Microsoft. This is why as things stand now, company's like Google will do away with Microsoft and Apple, along with any other proprietary company's who attempt to force customer loyalty....

Google gets rich by selling your info. MS gets rich by selling you products. Which one is the bad guy?

Bill

They are pretty well exactly the same as Google's - not in exact wording, but as far as access/use of your data are concerned.
I'd like for once to hear/see an example of Google "selling your info", instead of the FUD.
And they are both equally bad, if you are willing to do a fair evaluation.

LibreOffice, OpenOffice... why all this noise about MS Office? Change! Be free!

If all I had to do was write a document and be done then I wouldn't have an issue with Libre/Open office. The fact of the matter is that I have applications that automate document creation which requires MS Office. I get Excel documents from other agencies that are basically applications written in VBA that I am required to use. I have hundreds of man hours invested in custom database queries saved in MS documents that would have to be recreated. I would guess that it would cost close to a hundred thousand dollars just to switch my small organization over to Libre/Open office (hire/contract 3rd party to build replacement apps, modifying 1200 documents, rebuild 30 custom database exports, training users, migration, conversion issues, lost productivity during initial deployment, ongoing support because this would be a deviation away from 3rd party vendor supported processes). Compared that to $15 thousand about ever 10 years (ROI of about 60 years). I don't upgrade office every time a new version comes out so that reduces our costs. We piggy back on a volume licensing agreement so that makes license management easy. It's just a lot more complicated than just individual document creation which I don't think most people realize.

Bill

I agree with both of you. For simple use / home use most other office programs are just fine. In fact, I suspect if Microsoft put a shortcut to Wordpad on the desktop by default and registered it for .doc files they would have sold far fewer copies of Office over the years.

But yes, in a business environment things are totally different. I always laugh when I see people say "just change, it's simple, free, and does everything Microsoft Office does". For a business that couldn't be further from the truth. You've done a good job of explaining most of the reasons (deployment through GPO and updating documentation are other big issues). Just because bold, italic and underline are in the same spots in the free alternatives doesn't mean they are as good as the same.

As you've mentioned you're only a small shop and you pay around $15k each time you upgrade Office. If it was as simple as many suggest it was to move away from MS Office to a free product then I think organisations would have done it by now.

I love to see all these people who act like open source is exactly the same as MS products. I like opensource, and I encourage open source use, but not for critical or complex tasks, particularly when an existing code base exists.
Lots of business do not upgrade with every new version, in fact I work with a fortune 100 that still has Office XP and Office 2003 running on over 50000 machines. For those who complain about compatiblity, even Office 2003 can be updated to open the new Office formats, but open office can't automatically integrate with existing business processes as you have clearly shared!

If you have a store of complex programs/macros, or you need to send complex documents to customers who insist on Office, then of course you should use Office.
As far as critical or complex tasks are concerned, I've found that open source programs are generally of higher quality - probably because the coders are actually interested in the product, and partly because of the high degree of control over the code and the project, which often puts software developed in cubicle farms to shame.

It doesn't ring true though. I remember reading an article a few years ago about how few developers there are actually working on the major open source projects. They did state how many contributers there were for Open Office - from memory I think there were only a handful of regular contributors. This explains the lack of advancement the software has had over the years.

The other problems with Open Source development are:
* Lack of cohesion. If you want to take a different direction than another developer you don't need to sit down together and work out the best idea - you just fork off the project
* 'Fun' code taking precedence over important code. When no-one's paying you, there's not much incentive to fix that illusive bug that you can't reproduce on your own hardware, or to update the documentation.
* Lack of time - developers generally have day jobs and do their Open Source coding when they get a chance

I don't think your jab about cubicle farms is on the money either. It's certainly not the case at Microsoft - all the developers have doors that close (among other perks).

Open source products superior to Microsoft!!! I call ********!! If they were, Microsoft would have to drop the price of their products to dirt cheap. That goes for Red hat, iOS and everything else. If you have the best mousetrap, people will buy it. But why change to 2013 when 2010 and even 2007 are perfect!! And are dirt cheap in comparison to 365 or 2013 cost's or licenses!!

- Windows is installed on almost every computer - try to get one without paying the "windows tax"
- Microsoft spends hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising. Open source spends zero.
- Part of MS advertising budget goes to shooting down open source. Nobody pays open source anything to shoot down MS (its all volunteers).
- Every windows machine ships with a trial of Office. None ship with a trial of open source.
- MS spends loads of money buying out or killing alternatives by any means at their disposal - less now than they did when they were convicted, we hope.

I'm glad to hear that MIcrosoft gives its programmers offices - they are one of the few mega-corps that do. Unfortunately, cubicle farms are still the norm in those businesses that are less well-heeled. I stand by my statement about the quality of open-source projects, and the greater enthusiasm exhibited by programmers doing something that they love, instead of doing what they need to do to earn a paycheck. There are also fewer pressures on open-source developers to take shortcuts, to meet deadlines, and to "brute-force" solutions instead of pursuing the more elegant alternatives. Look at the huge bloat of Windows over the years, with little commensurate increase in capabilities.
I've been in IT since the mid-seventies, and been a system-level and applications programmer for many of those years. I've seen both sides. And I see every year more open-source projects being adopted by business. That's not solely because they are cheaper - businesses don't trust their precious data to cheap alternatives.
Finally, I'll point to the plethora of security problems with Microsoft products. I know (from the inside) that all OS's are vulnerable to a degree - but nobody comes near Microsoft.
Rant over.

OK, this is a significant change, BUT, here's the fifty million $ question:
If you still have to go to the MS website to download the application, they still control what version you get (in other words when they come out with 2016 you WILL NOT be able to get 2013, because all you download initially is an installer that goes to a web site THEY control) and without the CD/DVD with the application on it, you're up the creek without a paddle, because everyone knows that whenever MS comes out with a new version, if you don't have a hard copy of the installation media, hang it up, you CAN NOT get it from them anymore!!!

Now let's see them address THAT before I even think of upgrading from 2007!

That's easy. You either buy the retail package, with DVD media included, or you simply backup your downloaded copy with your normal backup routine. Done! And when they (MS) come out with a newer version down the road, just buy the older version from another online store if you need another older copy of the software. I can still find copies of Office 97, 2000 & XP if I search hard enough.

My customers still find Office 2013 extremely annoying for a wide variety of other reasons:

• Eye Strain -- Numerous complaints about physical pain associated with prolonged use of the UI
  
• ADA issues -- Similar to eyestrain, I have received numerous complaints about unreadability of the UI for some visually challenged people.
  
• Slow -- Even on brand new computers, put head to head against Office 2010, the performance of the application on many normal operations is measurably slower. Over a typical day, it costs more to operate. Not good when there are cheap and free alternatives which are closing the gap on compatibility.
  
• Inefficient -- There are some cool new features in Office 2013, but for many typical functions which employees use day in and day out, Office 2013 requires more keystrokes, mouse movements or, screen touches (eeeewe). They add up quickly and make Office 2013 dramatically more expensive to operate.
  
• 3P Compatibility -- Numerous complaints about compatibility issues with Third Party Applications. Did nobody even receive a RC prior to publication? Or is this another Vista debacle where there was too much development between the final RC and RTM? (Oh, I forgot... Vista never happened... and these are not the droids we're looking for...)
  
• Change Management Issues -- Apparently MS never even heard of Change Management... I'll just leave it there.

Microsoft is bound and determined to force everyone to their new toy, but people are stil very, very frustrated. Long time partners (who are catching the heat from the customers) are complaining to each other as well as to Microsoft. For the moment, we have found legal ways to provide them with Office 2010, but eventually the only option (staying with MS) will be Open License. Microsoft, heed the warnings from Vista. Even small users need downgrade rights.

As a consulting design professional, I have explored and used the gamut, but always return to MS Office, despite the two steps forward and three back of ,curses under breath> Tool Ribbons. Alternatives, such as, OpenOffice, have serious limitations for serious professionals, particularly when it comes to deep compatibility. If you never do anything interesting in your presentations or don't need rich documents or sophisticated spreadsheets, fine. But do anything "interesting" in anything outside MS Office, and it will break for some of your audience. MS Office is the de facto standard in much of business and industry. If you want the widest compatibility with clients, you go with MS.

I started work with Linux lately and I'm pretty sure that with the latest distribution, that they are "user friendly" a lot of people are going to do so... there is a saying in Greece "The one that want a lot, loses also that what he has"... no further comment!

We used to be like ProfessorLarry, exploiting Office to the full.
Also used to licence on desktop, laptop, home PCs.
Suddenly realised we haven't had any reason to upgrade from 2007.
Some of our clients demand we share on Google docs, or other other collaboration platforms, quicker faster, get the content "good enough" with less polish on the formatting.
Proposals for work, that used to be big complex Word docs, are often typed directly into procurement web apps.
Google docs are pretty primitive, and frustrating to someone who has ruthlessly exploited the Office feature set, but you can learn to work within the constraints.
I wonder if most people will need Office. Sure, some will still need to produce high standard work in Word or PowerPoint, and build complex multi dimensional spreadsheets.
Documents just ain't what they used to be.