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.

We have a total of three desktops, two laptops, and a tablet in the house, and they have ALL been switched to eith Open Office or Libre Office years ago. The OS varies from WIN XP to WIN 7 from one machine to another.

I see some 'wobble' in the defactco standard with surprisingly more people and companies in different facets but agree - it has been tough trying to use alternatives. I use Office at work and the kids are encouraged to use it at school - but at home including homework - only OpenOffice. I think MS should expand and license/charge Office down to the folders or drives where you save documents. Like this approach - including the rewording will drive more users to alternatives.

I'm still left wondering if I can install it on virtual machines installed on the same host. I use them to test various different configurations and there is no remote access. The license terms only seem to address remote access of a virtual machine.

Open Office seems more viable for a typical user, but I'm more interested in system automation for customers.

But I would rather be able to buy one copy of a product and put it on all the computers I use on a regular basis.

And I'd like to pay the cost of one new car yet be given one new car per member of my family. It doesn't work that way though.

A better analogy would be purchasing a new complete furnished boxes of tools for each car you had to work on.

I was very happy with the 3 User License in Microsoft Office 2010, but now I have no choice, but to allocate 3 times the amount I used to spend on this product. Way to go Microsoft. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't see this option in the 2013 Suite.

April Fools Day is still several weeks away and this is not at all funny.

Microsoft has done some draconian things lately, but this is just pouring gasoline on a bonfire.

I spend countless hours and lot of Gas looking for Office 2010, but Everywhere I went, retailers had removed all 2010 Versions of Office and Windows 7 from their Shelves. I asked, and they said that it was Microsoft latest attempt to sell Office 2013, It Figures, they have to force customers to buy a product that most are not ready to embrace, but I have news for Microsoft. Unless they introduce noticeable changes, and/or Enchantments to the 2013 Windows and Office Family of products, they will not sell it. Consumers will not buy something they Hate. For example, give customers the option to disable the start menu that takes over the whole screen, and let then decide if they want to keep it Windows 7 like. Some productivity issues arise with this new way that windows8 uses to display the desktop.
Oh, and the new nickname I heard some people calling Windows 8 = Windows Hate, but Windows is a whole different topic itself.

We can no longer have 1 copy for desktop, and 1 copy for mobile? Really... and everyone is OK with this? Everytime (literally) Microsoft comes out with a new license they screw the user base a little more. They take away one thing at a time till your left with a shadow of what you had 5 years ago. They won't win my friendship with this license.

Good thing Vista pushed me to Linux. Now if someone could just develop a good office suite and knock MS Office off their hill the switch could be complete. Honestly the only thing at all that keeps me with a dual boot is MS office.

Office didn't have 3 user licenses until 2007 or 2010 so not every licensing decision they make is bad.

Bill

In Canada, the terms have always been 2 installations, expected to be one user with a desktop and laptop. I note that sonicsteve is also in Canada, so have the terms been different in the US?

And yes, the Microsoft registration system does not prevent multiple installations (up to now). But that will not help if you're charged with illegal use of Licenses.

Microsoft have been exploiting a near monopoly every where they can for 25 years. Unless you are a the frightened CIO of some big corporation wanting to trade the same way as MS you would be foolish to buy Office under any circumstances. Libre/Open Office is as compatible as 99% of users will ever need. And free, no pathetic money grubbing restrictions.

MS just cannot resist any opportunity to exploit their customers. I just bought a laptop in France with Windows 7 - all the UK suppliers have no choice but to offer W8, and I will not touch that, so to speak. The machine comes with French language Windows, and the English language files are on the hard disk. But you cannot change the language: MS require an upgrade to Windows 7 professional at about $100. The language is set at factory install time. Thieves, as always. MS have never done an honest thing in their existence.

How about 1 license per person or user and that user can put it on as many devices as he wants so long as he owns them. I have desktops and tablets and I am not buy a license for each.

If I was the owner of a company that had 500 employees, and I own the company then all the computers are mine too. So, since I own 500 computers I only want to pay for one license - I know this sounds stupid, but people will try to do anything to rationalize not spending money on licensing. I have actually heard a business owner use this rationale before.

From one Dave the IT guy to another, good luck with that. What CEO would put his entire business at risk by deliberately breaking the law over a small amount of cash? Not if he has a Board of Directors or shareholders to answer to.

And would you put your own certifications and Microsoft privileges at risk over a few bucks of someone elses money? I hope not.

Sure, vote with your feet, or your money. Start a movement, mobilize the masses, even sue Microsoft if you like. But as soon as you break the law, you're just another criminal trying to justify his crimes. Not where you want to be.

Many small and medium sized companies are forever hedging on purchasing the appropriate licenses. If they could they would buy one and slap it on hundreds and thousands of computers. If it were up to me (and I know its not) I would mandate that client software (such as office) have 2 types of licensing. Personal & Business.

Personal: allows for you to install it on as many "personal" devices that you own (this includes your childrens devices & virtual machines)

Business: all would follow the volume license model.. One license per company owned device or virtual device or connected device (such as in the case of BYOD)

I generally get the feeling that companies that have complex licensing models are trying to get away with something. KISS method is best.

You'd think with all of the resources Microsoft has at their disposal, they would have done the market research to begin with and instead of throwing "it" up against the wall to see if it sticks, they would have done it right (this new way) to begin with. Sometimes these large firms all seem to have the "we're to big to fail" attitude and we have all to recently seen how that has gone. Personally, Office 2010 is my "XP". It works great for me, does everything I need it to do and 2013 with it's few extra features and glossed up interface still doesn't justify the un-discounted upgrade price even if they now bless me with the permission to put the software I own on the machine of my choosing. Too little - too late. I'm of the mindset to not upgrade just on the principle of things and do my part - little as it may be - to send a message to the Giant. I don't "need" 2013 or 365 for that matter and am now - even more than before - going to be going out of my way to introduce as many as I can to Open/Libre Office. Microsoft has dished out one too many straws for this camel's back.

If I own a copy, I should be able to do what I want with my machine(s); except sell copies of the software. This will all be moot soon enough as computing goes the way to the cloud of a virtual library checkout version of time sharing. Think telephones.

Not quite, Microsoft. Why in the world should I pay exorbitant license fees for my desktop AND my laptop? It's not going to happen. They're going to lose more people - including BUSINESSES - to other options. My I.T. Manager is pushing towards Open Office and the like.

M$ licensing practices is the exact reason 'cloud apps' have become so popular. 1 application that you can use from anywhere (as long as you have an internet connection). Your settings are always the same, and no extra license fees to use it on multiple machines.

When you buy software on CD you are allowed, presumably, to install it on multiple machines. Why should Office 2013 be any different? Like stasys.lukaitis proposed above, if you have multiple machines you need a license for each?! Makes no sense at all and really disenfranchises the M$ userbase. I guess they've never heard of OpenOffice. No wonder the M$ stock price is so low. Their tactics are even lower.

You are allowed to do what ever the EULA you agree to says. Very few "CD's" allow you to install the software on multiple machines. Certain versions of MS Office 2007 or 2010 (not sure where this started) allow this and is one of the few that I am aware of.

Bill

How can the 2013 edition be so different? My 2007 is just fine.

I think MS is still being unreasonable here. They need a provision for multiple machines. Office is an expensive package to purchase to begin with. How many times are they expecting to make money off the same person?

The "licensed to a device" model is absolutely archaic. In a world where probably many people, and most of the us in the tech community, have multiple devices a "device" license is a moneymaker for the vendor and reason to find less expensive alternatives for us.

How about this model:
Every copy of Windows comes with MS Office Installed. To launch the application you need to prove you are licensed to use it. You can do this any number of ways: biometric, USB dongle, one-time-password, etc. Once authenticated you can use the features you're licensed for. Since you can't be on two places at once, the vendor is assured you are the only one running what you're licensed for. And since the license is to the user, you are no longer device bound.

This model can work for any software. You wouldn't need to install every piece of software ever written on every machine. Just as now, you download it to the machine you're working on. Maybe by a link, maybe by an app store (so you get pre-authorized even before downloading). Or you bring it with you on a USB drive.

As for fearing this will cut into profits for the megalith MS, the single price for single piece of software model is also archaic. And again it's an easy fix: Price it in stages: 1 price for the main product, plus add-on feature pricing, then percentage increments based on the TYPEs (not number of) devices you want to run it on. Better pricing is good for the consumer, good to battle piracy, and gets more people buying the product because they see good value for a good price.

in order to validate the license? This may not always be practical. I agree that another licensing strategy really needs to come into play here, but if I understand this model correctly, I'm just not sure it could work for everyone.

I agree with radleym. Why bother with Microsoft anymore. There are good office programs for free! These office programs allow you to save as a .doc or .xls document so you can open them up in office if need be. I successfully work on libre office at home and am still able to open a document at work if need be or visa versa. I don't know why any home user would bother with purchasing office anymore. Especially if the new license has to "contact home" like the O/S. Forget that mess, I will look for alternatives.
The business world is a different animal though and I can still see the need for office at work. Mostly for sharing with others outside the office as well as students in universities. However, if everyone got on the bandwagon it wouldn't be hard to have a new standard in another software vendor. The almighty dollar speaks loudly.

There are those of us who have 2 computers - one computer (off net) for production and a notebook (on net) for travel - modifying this configuration is not an option. Previously, I had the ability purchase one copy office professional and legally install it on both as long as I used only one at a time. Just like ice cream - half the product same price.

Unless my computer has suddenly developed the capability to obtain its own income and the wherewithal to use that income to download and install and use it's own software... all by itself (I have a nice machine, but it's not THAT good yet).
No. It is a ridiculous attitude to say that the machine owns the software.
I bought the software. I should be free to use it on any machine I choose, as long as I am only using it on one machine at a time, for my own purposes.
I use very high-end CAD software that permits me to install on any of my machines. Just so long as I only operate the software on one machine at a time. Even Adobe lets you transfer activation to the machine you are using. That is how it should be!
Your license to use a software that YOU purchased (unless it is an OS, which then makes some sense to be machine-specific) should follow you where ever YOU are. Whether it is machine-based or cloud-based.
This "new" licensing TOS is an obvious money-grubbing scheme by an increasingly out-of-touch corporation that will soon obfuscate itself into oblivion at this rate.

I'm going with OpenOffice.

With both OpenOffice and Libre Office available for free download and they can be installed on as many machines as one may like, who cares about microsoft's licence policy?

After being a user of Microsoft products since Windows 95 / 98, I have seen it all when it comes to the apparently insatiable greed of that company. And I only jumped ship after I lost THREE years worth of data, (long story...but it involved an exploit in Excel spreadsheets, it got past them and hit me...by the time there was a patch for it, it was too late!) After going through that I started looking for alternatives, I ended up at the door of Linux and I haven't looked back.
I'm sure that there are a lot of people who will have experimented with other office suites, and since leaving Windows World, I found and have used OpenOffice, which to me is incredible!...as it is easy to use and straightforward, no "fanciness" needed. After using that for quite a while I switched over to LibreOffice, and I can say without a doubt that it is one of the most amazing office suites I have ever used. I wouldn't go back to ANY version of Office from Microsoft if THEY paid ME! I see this move by MS as just a way to say to the masses.."We might not have been able to get you all THIS way....but we have OTHER ways & means to do it!". Which is a shame, because there are a LOT of people who use Microsoft products,...from the desktop OS...to the office suite...(not to mention the server software!) I cannot say who's decision it was to offer that crazy licensing scheme, but I'm guessing they either aren't running the project anymore because of being demoted...or else they're now on the unemployment line...

I am a network administrator and with the original policy, I was extremely hesitant to upgrade our company to Office 2013. We had to have the ability to transfer licenses when workstations fail or we upgrade workstations. The change of policy opens up the possibility of upgrading to Office 2013 now.

Absolutely ridiculous.
If I own more than a single machine I need a license for each? NOT!
If I own the software I should be able to use it on ANY machine I own as long as it is in use on only one machine at any given time!
If I were King, THAT would be the LAW - buy the software, use it ANYWHERE!!!

Microsoft did make a very small baby step in that direction. Regrettably, the rest of the "baggage" with Office 2013 and Windows-8 over the earlier versions just doesn't really justify upgrading. As for the "very favorable" licensing in the education environment...academia IS in its own world.

In previous editions, one could install the Retail version on their desktop and also on his or her's laptop. Did that option end with Office 2010?

I usually buy an Office License for a 3 install if I can get it, and then there is no problem. I have Office 2010 on 2 computers and will not likley update anything for the next several years. It is their software and they can set whatever rules they want, and as long as we undersand what they are, we can decide to buy or not. If push comes to shove for some users, they can go to a free Office Program. I have tried them before, but since I had been using MS Office for years decided to stick with that. If they make it too onorous, then I imagine that a lot of people might desert MS and go to the free programs especially if they are a home user.

When I first began using Microsoft Office components, such as Word, the license was for one desktop and one portable computer; now it's just for one computer, so it's not just the same as it once was. Then again, the price has dropped precipitously; my first copy of Word was priced at $450. That was Word 5.0 for DOS, and the dollar has lost about half of its value since then. Who, today, would buy office software for over a kilobuck a pop? Office XP was licensed to a user for one desktop and one notebook computer, and so were several subsequent versions, but they cost more than today's product. At today's price, I've no complaint about Microsoft's latest revised license.

If you just create the occasional document, you can use an open Office suite, but if you are developing you need MS Office and the users of what you have developed will also need Ms Office. Your old version of XP may work fine, but 2013 has lots of things that many people need (often hidden out of sight).
You don't need to purchase Office on a disc. Subscribe to 365; it installs on 5 machines and if you remove a copy from one computer, you can install it on another and you can login on someone else's computer that doesn't have 2013 installed and use it in the cloud. For individual users, Office 365 is much cheaper than buying a disc copy and my guess is that you won't have to wait three years for a new version: MS will push you the new features as they become ready. As for the users that won't adapt to the ribbon or some other change in the menus, I think your 30 year old selves would be embarrassed by your 50 y.o. selves. I've been using Office 2013 for the last eight months and it's fast, clean, and has lots of features that I need.

If a buy a copy of a program like this that can be used in a browser, I should be able to use it on any computer at any time; especially if only one copy at a time is running. I use MS office at work but will likely never buy it for home use, it's Libre Office for me.

This licensing change is more acceptable...

And win8 will never take the place of win7.....

I would be curious to see what people use as a replacement for outlook.
Keep in mind that Outlook is not "Just" an e-mail client. In fact, just like my smart phone, I use it for much more than the apparent main use.
Outlook is a personal information manager. Calendars, Contacts, Notes, Tasks, Reminders, For me are just as important as the e-mail and feeds and I sync it all with my encrypted android phone.
Cloud based is not an option. I will never allow my information to sit on a device not under my physical control.

Any suggestions?

Thunderbird + Lightning does everything you need. Syncing would be a possible drawback, but unless you have Microsoft OS' on all your machines, its pretty well a universal problem - though I believe there are inexpensive 3rd party apps available for syncing 'phons/tablets.

Doesn't seem to be much except another attempt by Microsoft to rip off its customers.

In response to Stasys' post, I am wondering whether you could share access to Office 2013 amongst all your devices by networking them?

Use Kingsoft Office Free - you can create and open files in various formats. MS Office can only work with MS formats, and of course it will cost you! Read the TechRepublic article on some of the alternatives to MS Office.

If you really want to move away, try one of the many Linux distros that you can install on all your PC's! Again, you choose what you want to have and it's absolutely free.

MS can do what they like now. Give it a try - I did.

I find this whole discussion amusing. My first exposure to desktop computing was when the company I worked for provided us with desktop terminals attached to the mainframe and a homegrown programming interface called "Simplex" which was a sort of combination of Basic and Lotus 1-2-3 macro language. I thought I was in heaven when the company provided us with IBM PCs (512k RAM, dual floppies), Lotus 1-2-3, and Wordstar 3.0!

Both Lotus and Wordstar dominated the marketplace much as MS does today. Both were as arrogant towards customers as MS appears to be today. Kind of a perceived "Customers don't tell us what they want. WE tell customers what they will get." attitude.

When MS introduced Excel and Word as competing products, the discussion about the merits of the programs and licensing versus the established products was almost identical to this thread. The arguments came from the same two types of people - power users and non-power users.

Seems to me that MS wants to sell everyone a lease for their top-of-the-line Hummer when a significant majority of users would rather buy a Kia. I suspect MS is heading down the Lotus/Wordstar road.

Appparently, you cannot share programs between computers simply by networking them. However, once they are networked, I believe it is possible to create a shortcut on computer B to the program executable on computer A and you may then be able to use that program?

Other methods of sharing programs may be (a) to use a VNC program like UltraVNC or (b) to use a Remote Desktop program, like Citrix or LogMeIn.....

corporate profits trumped customer experience, but only for a mo'. glad they saw the error of their ways. what they have changed to, seems like what they normally expect. you'd think with all the less expensive and even free alternatives out there, they would not have even considered tightening the reins, but there you go. hope someone got a stiff memo on that one.

I for one am relieved that Microsoft came to its senses (let's be honest - the original licensing plan was nuts), BUT - on the whole I am still annoyed with Microsoft's licensing practices in general. Their license manuals read like Tax law and I've actually had a high-level inside person (friend) who deals with this stuff day in and day out tell me "it depends" in answer to a focused license question about SQL Server. If Microsoft employees can't get it straight, what hope do we have?

C'mon, Microsoft.. keep up the momentum...

I will NOT be updating my Office 2010 any more. I am satisfied with it and can install on multiple PCs (of my own) - without uninstalling it! This is still a ONE copy license.

This is a step in the right direction, but it is still not acceptable. Why did they change from their one desktop/1 laptop policy? I own both and I use both. It is ridiculous to have to purchase $1000 in software when a single license used to take care of both.

There are many other members with similar posts, so I feel the need to preface this by saying that no, I am NOT an "old-school Microsoft basher" (not even sure exactly what that means). Anyone who has read the book, Accidental Empires, has to respect the fact that Bill Gates and the other Microsoft founders have sustained a company with "accidental" success in their early days to be the supplier of the dominant operating system (and arguably office suite) in use today. But anyone who knows the history of software development - how it was often provided for free with the hardware on which it ran - and the development of the Internet understands that those who participate, directly or indirectly, in the development of open source programs more often than not produce software that is as good as, and often superior to, any comparable commercial offering.

For those making the argument that open source programs are not robust enough to compete with commercial programs in a commercial/production environment, many of the more mature open source offerings have developed to the point where they are finding more acceptance within environments that had been reluctant previously. While it is true that it may take a little more time and energy to customize and/or support an open source program to fit the needs of a particular environment, it is well worth the effort, especially since it eliminates the concern (finanical and otherwise) of licensing and usage, especially with fluctuating computing environments and end-user needs. Anyone who has ever dealt with Microsoft licensing in the past will most likely agree with this assessment.

Is there a forum somewhere for discussing differences between MS Office and OpenOffice and LibreOffice?

To use software we license we should not have to REMOVE the software from one computer before reINSTALLING it on another. The license belongs to the payer. The solution is in the cloud.

I am an IT consultant for very small businesses, and have saved my clients tens of thousands of dollars by getting them off of MS Office. They use Open Office for most things, and some use old Lotus Approach (not Symphony) or Filemaker for a DB. Some, where macros are really important, use Lotus Word Pro and write their own. I make a living at providing education about, and alternatives to the ridiculous MS Greed Factor. When I showed some of them them the latest (unrevised) MS Office License, they laughed their heads off -- because they're off that hamster wheel now. I'm taking my campaign to the local schools next.

Yes, this licensing change makes it a lot less obnoxious. But I still prefer the 3 pack home licenses, though I do wish they had an Access option that was affordable.

As to Office 2013 itself, the more I read of it the less I want it. I actually like 2010; it is what 2007 should have been by the first SP release. It is far smoother then 2007, much easier to use then previous versions. So even if I liked Windoze 8 MUTRO I still would stick with Office 2010, or Office Libre.

Bit late, 'm afraid... In 10 years MS will be a niche, specialized market people will only mention in passing conversation.

If America is to survive the challenges of this century American Corporations have to come to grips with the fact that they don't own the world and can't dictate their policies to the rest of the world any more.

And think what you want... I'm NOT a MS basher, heck I've been an MS fan since DOS 3.3.

No, this does not significantly change their policy. They are still licensing the software to "the device" instead of to "the user." My PC did not pay for the software, I did!

It is too late for us we have already moved from Micrrosoft Office to Libra Office, and Office 2013 is/will not be purchased/installed/used on our business systems

I work in the IT industry and I agree with stasys.lukaitis that we use different machines for different situations. The computers I own are used one at a time depending on the requirement(s). One machine is a SOHO and stays in my HO; and my laptops (13" and a 17") are used on travels and depending on my requirement(s), I bring either one. I know MS wants to protect their cash cow but I think the license should be to an individual who paid for it and not to a machine which has the possibility of breaking down or can get infected.

A purchaser of the software for family needs (2 or more computers) should not be limited to the number of active computers it is on. As a father of 5, all have notebooks and I have a NAS and 3 Desktops with 3 Tablets and 2 additional notebooks. Microsoft will just have to go ahead without us paying 2 months salary for their new software. Friends, relatives and my company of 837 employees will not be purchasing this product either!

Why not license for a desktop and a portable/tablet all in one. Ok, a little more expensive but not double. Paying for another license for the tablet (surface Pro) is crazy. It makes me see apples! Wake up, Ballmer no more bummers! I was about to buy a Surface, but I will wait for IPAD5 instead. Lookout Windows, you'll be a thing of the past!

I currently use MS Office 2003 on my Windoze machine (Windows 7 Home Premium), and it does everything that I need it to do. I am currently writing using a dual-boot Windows 7 Home premium laptop with Ubuntu 12 on it. This comes with Libre Office which will read and write MS Office files. Really makes no difference to me.

However, what the concern is in my opinion, is the precedent that Microsoft would be setting by writing a licensing "agreement" that gives them all the advantages and is so restrictive to end-users. If I were starting today, I don't know that I would bother with a Microsoft product at all.

The solutions to this problem is OpenOffice. MS is pricing and licensing Office in order to force a migration to Office365. They promise included upgrades but to reduce our cost we did not upgrade every year. This way they can charge monthly like a utility company but are not regulated by the public utilities commission. They should have this type of regulation on them otherwise after migrartion they will just raise the monthly rate on office365 whenever they want.

Microsoft can still go suck an egg on 2013 if they think I am going to purchase a license for a home PC just so I can do work at home if 2013 is what is installed on my work PC. Again it is like the Apple Store wanting to charge for every device an app is running on....If Apple did that, it would be the end of Apple and most of these apps are 99 cents or less than $10.

Just plain stupid on the part of MS.

This licensing update does not specify that I can add the software to my machine and my wife's with one purchase--it's still "either/or". Thanks MS. And p.s., I'll go open source before I pay a subscription.

It is somewhat satisfying to hear Microsoft cry "uncle" at the bottom of the loyal customer pig-pile of negative reaction.

It's nice to see Microsoft listen to the people and change a bad decision to a good one.

I enjoy reading these sparring matches. Ford, Chevy, Dodge, Toyota, Nissan... they all have great pickup trucks, though I'm sure there are owners, former owners, and non-owners out there that could become engaged in a heated debated as to why one is better the others. Windows, Linux, MacOS, Chrome, UNIX, and so on - it's the same debate, they all have their pros and cons.

There are small segments of the business community that can use any computing platform effectively because their needs don't dictate use of business applications that require a specific OS, and maybe, just maybe, there happens to be a business app on the alternative OS that suits their needs, but the latter situation is rare occurrence among businesses. Home users for sure are more likely to be able to use any OS, and they're doing that now with their phones and tablets. My 7-yo has run multiple versions of Windows and Ubuntu on his laptop, and by and large besides the fact that Ubunutu randomly quits playing videos on him, he could care less which OS he uses...

I don't have any hard statistics, but based on my 25+ years in the business, I'm pretty confident in saying that, like it or not, MOST businesses use applications that run only on, or run best on Windows. The most common applications are probably Microsoft Office, and some sort of accounting app like QuickBooks, Peachtree, MAS90, BusinessWorks and so on. Then on top of that you often have industry-specific, line-of-business apps. My own customer base includes apps to run a sawmill, legal services, real estate management, customer & service management, medical office management, document management and so on. The availability of these apps on anything other than Windows is spotty at best and often non-existent. And even if one is available, it doesn't mean a business can just up and switch - they have to be able to run the entire business on one platform (phones and tablets aside) and even if they can it represents a major change to their business, employee training, etc. It's a business decision not a technical one. That doesn't mean Windows, Microsoft apps, or anybody else's apps are better, nor does it mean the apps that run on the other platforms are better, its just the way it is.

This is from the perspective of what the user sees, the 'front-end' if you will. Windows is what they want, need, and are willing to 'tolerate' (as with any OS there some things that just have to be 'tolerated' by users). We have more flexibility on the back-end, but that's because most users don't see the back-end nor do they care. However, even then we're still bound by application requirements and many back-end components will only run in Windows. I wish it wasn't that way - I'd like to see more practical choices on both the front and back ends.

The bottom line? We live in a mixed world of OS genres - love all the music and not just specific segments of it. Embrace and accept. You'll be less stressed, you'll sleep better, live longer (maybe) and you'll be a better IT consultant because business decision makers appreciate balanced viewpoints.

Microsoft's already sullied reputation with customers is again (and again) tarnished. Metaphorically speaking, at what point is an item corroded with rust no longer salvageable?

Licensing from MS is the worst thing to deal with, in the day-to-day ops...

So ...
Office pro is about $400.00
Office 365 Small Business Premium is $150.00 / year / person - no limit on devices as long as you are using one at a time.

If you upgrade every two years, seems like Office 365 is the way to go. I would say MS is trying to drive people to that model by inducing a pain factor into the stand alone package model.

Regarding free ... I haven't tried Open Office in about a year. Didn't do what I needed it to. Google Docs is simply incomplete but very good at a few things. Are there any other hopefuls?