Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Office 2013 Not Compatible With Windows XP, Vista

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the does-not-work-well-with-others dept.

Microsoft 711

hypnosec writes "The newly unveiled productivity suite from Microsoft, Office 2013, won't be running on older operating systems like Windows XP and Vista it has been revealed. Office 2013 is said to be only compatible with PCs, laptops or tablets that are running on the latest version of Windows i.e. either Windows 7 or not yet released Windows 8. According to a systems requirements page for Microsoft for Office 2013 customer preview, the Office 2010 successor is only compatible with Windows 7, Windows 8, Windows Server 2008 R2 or Windows Server 2012. This was confirmed by a Microsoft spokesperson. Further the minimum requirements states that systems need to be equipped with at least a 1 GHz processor and should have 1 GB of RAM for 32-bit systems or 2 GB for 64-bit hardware. The minimum storage space that should be available is 3 GB along with a DirectX 10-compatible graphics card for users wanting hardware acceleration."

cancel ×

711 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Good (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40694129)

Good. XP needs to be wiped out.

Re:Good (1, Troll)

InspectorGadget1964 (2439148) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694191)

It does not bother me, I will not be spending my money on M$ products. I run Office Libre on Linux. Everything for free and I can read / save in M$ format if I need to send or receive anything in those ugly expensive formats

Re:Good (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40694359)

Bart Simpson pussy pussy

Communists are propagandaists

Re:Better (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40694459)

I, on the other hand, will be using only spotted owl feather quills and writing with ink made from the blood of baby pandas. It is more expensive, but the medium is, as you know, the message.

Re:Good (5, Funny)

HappyEngineer (888000) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694331)

Good. XP needs to be wiped out.

Why? Do you just hate old software that works or did it run over your dog?

Re:Good (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40694373)

I'm pretty sure it's the laws of physics and the periodic table of elements that's responsible for the paradox. It's not an "attitude" that propels you through space while obeying F=ma, it's materials and energy sources. So unless you can point me to a new periodic table with magical elements with sci-fi properties, and new kinds of Star Trek energy sources, what we have now is *it*. There won't be unreasonably strong materials, there are no fantasy Bob Lazar propulsion technologies. The Fermi Paradox is dead simple. There is simply no way to realize any of the Space Age delusions. That's it, that's all. Petroleum has already reached its global production peak as depletion rates shoot past the rate at which new fields can be found and brought on line; natural gas and coal are not far behind—the current bubble in shale gas will be over in five or, just possibly, ten years—and despite decades of animated handwaving, no other energy source has proven to yield anything close to the same abundance and concentration of energy at anything like the same cost. That means, as I’ve shown in detail in past posts here, that industrial civilization will be a short-lived and self-terminating phenomenon.

good (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40694135)

heh one way to cut the cord

Lol (5, Insightful)

sentientbeing (688713) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694141)

2 gig of RAM to type a letter

Re:Lol (5, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694157)

I wonder what the requirements for Notepad will be.

Re:Lol (5, Funny)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694325)

Somewhere between 640k and hell.

Wait a second! (1)

masternerdguy (2468142) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694165)

Isn't that the amount of RAM that comes with their new tablet? If so, I wonder why they picked that number......

Re:Wait a second! (0)

Tough Love (215404) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694225)

I saw a Windows tablet at Staples the other day when I was picking up my Nexus 7. It's about twice as thick as any other tablet on display. I wonder why that is.

Re:Wait a second! (4, Funny)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694435)

I saw a Windows tablet at Staples the other day when I was picking up my Nexus 7. It's about twice as thick as any other tablet on display. I wonder why that is.

My guess: thermal insulation... you see, it's bad when the components overheat because of the strain Office 2013 put on them, but is worse when the customers suffer burns because of it.

Re:Lol (5, Interesting)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694169)

Yeah, I just had to make sure here on that one. Open office... 27.3MB of ram in use with my largest technical letter open, which is 173 pages long. Okay there MS, you guys are insane.

Re:Lol (4, Interesting)

Dadoo (899435) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694259)

Okay there MS, you guys are insane.

Yeah, my wife has been using OpenOffice every day, now, for about six years, and she's convinced anyone who pays money for office software is crazy. She's a grant writer for non-profit organizations, so she has to exchange documents with people all the time, and she has no issues at all. OpenOffice does everything she needs.

The thing that really amazes her is that OpenOffice is actually better at reading old Microsoft Office formats than more recent versions of Microsoft Office.

Re:Lol (5, Insightful)

multiben (1916126) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694315)

For simple documents, it's good. But for serious stuff it is slow, flaky and unreliable. It has excellent integration between other MS stuff like excel, project etc. I have seriously tried to use OpenOffice as a replacement and I'm sorry to say that it just doesn't quite cut it yet.

Re:Lol (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40694457)

If you're writing a document that complex, you probably shouldn't be using MS-office or libreoffice or any other WYSIWYG editor.

Re:Lol (4, Interesting)

multiben (1916126) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694467)

I'm sorry, I can only see half of your reply. I can't see the bit where you suggest an alternative?

Re:Lol (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40694491)

LaTex or something that allows you to separate the content from the presentation. It's something that tends to make things a lot easier if you decide later that you want different formatting or if you need a copy for two different audiences, but where the audiences can't for one reason or another use the same formatting. Like say if you're sending one copy to somebody that always uses a mobile phone.

Re:Lol (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40694519)

Neckbear status confirmed. Only the truest of the losers will use LaTeX when easier options exist. Mod me down trolls.

Re:Lol (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40694509)

LaTeX.

Re:Lol (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40694271)

Too bad open office needs about 10 minutes to open a 1500 page document, while office does it instantly.

Re:Lol (2)

OttoErotic (934909) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694277)

I think they use the same method our company does to set requirements: the specs of whatever desktop our dev director happens to have on his desk the day he signs off on the final build. "Seems to work fine for me on this one guys"

Re:Lol (4, Informative)

Z34107 (925136) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694507)

It's not that bad. Word 2010 uses ~95 MB of memory for an 11,461 page document [dropbox.com] . I sincerely doubt Word 2013 is much worse.

Re:Lol (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40694177)

256k to write a letter, 1.99gb to display that letter with the Metro interface.

Re:Lol (4, Funny)

GigaplexNZ (1233886) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694361)

Except it doesn't work with the Metro interface.

Re:Lol (4, Insightful)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694187)

And yet, it doesn't seem to do all that much more than the old WYSIWYG office apps that ran on DOS and used 2 megabytes of RAM.

MS Office is like the Madden games -- every couple years we fork over money for an updated version, but football itself didn't change in the interim.

Re:Lol (1)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694305)

Agreed. I still use 2003, that was the last one with a sane UI (I never could stomach the ribbon interface of 2010), and AFAIK, it actually has more features than 2010. And now that 2013 will be Metro-compatible, there will be no reason to upgrade there either. I view Metro as something that is kick-ass on a tablet (seriously, the best tablet UI I have ever seen), but on a PC, it is utterly and irrevocably broken.

Re:Lol (1)

GigaplexNZ (1233886) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694371)

Other than some specific OneNote and Lync ports, I'm pretty sure that it is not compatible with Metro.

Re:Lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40694273)

That’s OK. Just like the compatibility thing.
Nobody is using it anyway.

Re:Lol (0, Troll)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694387)

2 gig of RAM to type a letter

This.

Came here to say the same thing. Seriously M$? Need the latest OS and 2gb RAM? What, no Nvidia AMD Radeon 1200 pixel shaders? How many cores do I need?

And what exactly does this do that the old Office 2010 doesn't do? Oh I can create a doc on my PC and edit it on my phone? [theverge.com] I can do that now. Edit PDFs? [theverge.com] Um.... great? Why is Windows 7 required for that? Embed videos? In a Word DOCUMENT? [theverge.com] Check the weather in Outlook? [theverge.com] Ok now you're just getting ridiculous.

Re:Lol (2)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694429)

Maybe now people will stop giving me heat about the memory footprint I have from using EMACS as my mail client.

Re:Lol (-1, Troll)

hairyfish (1653411) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694513)

Here we go again.. I'm sure I heard these same lame arguments when Windows 95 came out. Here we are 17 years on and MS is still winning and open source alternatives are still in the toilet. For those that missed it the first 37 times, Joe Average doesn't mind paying for the latest toy with the latest shiny on it. No amount of gloating about your crappy 1% market share will change this. And I thought Slashdot is supposed to be where the smart people hang out....

Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40694145)

I don't see a problem with this. If they made it only for Windows 8, then I'd be pissed, but this is fine.

Wow (0)

masternerdguy (2468142) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694147)

Damn M$, you're really trying to make people love Windows 8.

MS: Money Suckers (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40694149)

Reminds me of the Weird Al video with the surgeon carefully extracting money from his patient on the operating room table.

Let me get this straight (1, Troll)

Tough Love (215404) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694171)

Let me get this straight. Microsoft, with 93 thousand employees can't manage to make their main software product compatible with previous versions of its operating system, while the Document Foundation with, um, zero employees can? Did I get that straight?

Re:Let me get this straight (5, Insightful)

statusbar (314703) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694193)

No, that is incorrect. They are perfectly capable.

They have no business reason to support people who do not purchase the new operating system.

Re:Let me get this straight (-1)

Tough Love (215404) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694251)

No, that is incorrect. They are perfectly capable. They have no business reason to support people who do not purchase the new operating system.

Who said anything about support? (You did.) I would think that Microsoft's business is to sell their word processor to whoever they can. But that doesn't seem to be the case. I'm mystified.

Re:Let me get this straight (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40694341)

Who said anything about support? (You did.) I would think that Microsoft's business is to sell their word processor to whoever they can. But that doesn't seem to be the case. I'm mystified.

Then you don't know much about business. Believe it or not, not every customer is worth the time or trouble.

In this case, somebody in Microsoft's Cost Accounting or whatever they call it section worked out how much it would cost to support older OSes. Then calculated how many sales they'd expect to get.

It might have been profitable, but was it profitable enough? Perhaps not.

Re:Let me get this straight (0)

Tough Love (215404) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694461)

Who said anything about support? (You did.) I would think that Microsoft's business is to sell their word processor to whoever they can. But that doesn't seem to be the case. I'm mystified.

Then you don't know much about business. Believe it or not, not every customer is worth the time or trouble.

At 95% gross profit (sale price less cost to manufacture) how can that be? I remain mystified, but of course I bow to your self professed vastly superior knowledge of business principles.

Re:Let me get this straight (4, Interesting)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694261)

Nobody complains that the new Chevy Volt isn't compatible with their set of tools they bought just last year to work on cars.

Nobody complains that the HE dishwasher they bought wont except regular dishwashing crystals.

Nobody complains that the new bike they bought can't use all the old tires they have from the last bike.

Nobody complains that the HD TV they bought doesn't have RCA cable inputs.

Why is that? Face it people, progress happens and sometimes you've got to let go of the old and invest in the new.

Luckily there is eBay and Craigslist where you can sell your old stuff to someone who can't afford the new shiny yet. Give them a break and sell it to them.

Re:Let me get this straight (4, Insightful)

Garble Snarky (715674) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694307)

Exactly what progress have they made in the office application field that justifies this argument?

Re:Let me get this straight (3, Funny)

masternerdguy (2468142) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694323)

But but but TEH RIBBON!

Re:Let me get this straight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40694339)

Nobody complains that the HD TV they bought doesn't have RCA cable inputs.

Um, yes. Yes they do.

Re:Let me get this straight (0)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694395)

> Nobody complains that the new Chevy Volt isn't compatible with their set of tools they bought just last year to work on cars.

Are you kidding? EVERY ONE would complain about this.

Most of your other attempts at counterargument aren't any better.

Your post would work better if it were intended as sarcasm.

Re:Let me get this straight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40694409)

Nobody complains that the HE dishwasher they bought wont except* regular dishwashing crystals.

*won't accept

Re:Let me get this straight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40694393)

And we have no business reasons to "purchase"* their new "operating system"**

LibreOffice does everything you need for simple text editing. And TeX is there for everything complex. None of them take 2GB ram and all of them run pretty much everywhere.

Basically, Office 2013 is dead on arrival. And so is Windows 8.

* Actually "license", making them part of organized crime (content Mafia).
** More like "bad joke for tablets and toys".

Re:Let me get this straight (3, Interesting)

Tough Love (215404) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694501)

They have no business reason to support people who do not purchase the new operating system.

Actually, they do. Microsoft might wish to avoid being prosecuted for a Clayton Act Violation [thefreedictionary.com] . (Tying.)

You have to let go of the past eventually (1)

Quila (201335) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694243)

Newer applications are going to want to leverage features found in the newer operating systems.

Most OS X programs require Tiger from 2005, or at least Jaguar from 2002. Quite a few already require at least Leopard from 2007.

Re:You have to let go of the past eventually (1)

Tough Love (215404) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694329)

Newer applications are going to want to leverage features found in the newer operating systems.

Oh right. Like keyboards, screens, mice, monitors. Innovative features like that.

MS finds another way to lose their monopoly. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40694175)

You think they might have learned from the last few times they ruined their own monopolistic position, but no, apparently not.

stupid people will be stupid. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40694179)

/me waits for more people to cry when 8gb of memory is $30. Go figure.

Big deal. (1)

macbeth66 (204889) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694195)

I moved to Open Office a while ago and never looked back. Bloody stupid Office ribbons and xxxX files types. Only use it for job and they pay for it, so no skin off my nose.

Re:Big deal. (1)

countach74 (2484150) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694317)

This is probably true for a lot of us. I know it is me. :)

Looks like a version to skip anyway. (2)

mister2au (1707664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694199)

Seems most corporates skip every alternate version and I'd suggest for the most part this is will be bypassed as well

Mainly cosmestic upgrades although a few things like better PDF handling and better BI integration are nice even if not must haves - they just ease the input not the actual operations.

Smartest thing Microsft could do is open up the file formats a little more and throw some improved compression algorithms at the file format - currently it is a fairly poor (speed oriented) ZIP implementation ... Smaller, easier to distribute files would at least be a compelling reason to upgrade for me (and other I presume) and a new file format will force upgrades.

My 2 cents worth ...

Re:Looks like a version to skip anyway. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40694215)

I love the cognitive dissonance that occurs with people whenever a product doesn't turn out well. "Didn't want that version anyway!"

Re:Looks like a version to skip anyway. (1)

quadrox (1174915) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694275)

Well, if you start out wanting a product without knowing how good it is, you are an idiot indeed. But if you read about the product before purchase and then figure out that it's not something you want to spend money on, then what are you complaining about? Seriously?

Re:Looks like a version to skip anyway. (4, Interesting)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694285)

Makes you wonder if there isn't a strategy in there somewhere.

Windows 7: Corporate
Windows 8: Beta testing new stuff on Home users
Windows 9: Corporate

OfficeMetro and WinMetro can DIAF (2)

BenJeremy (181303) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694207)

From all indications, Office 2013 is just more metro UI devolution insanity from Microsoft.

Corporate IT will not have a problem skipping this upgrade cycle, and will be richer for it. No upgraded licenses to pay for to Microsoft, no new training required for users, and everybody is happier (except for the Microsoft people, of course).

Re:OfficeMetro and WinMetro can DIAF (1)

Tough Love (215404) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694283)

Corporate IT will not have a problem skipping this upgrade cycle, and will be richer for it.

Especially if they install LibreOffice on their existing machines. Get a few more years out of the hardware too.

Re:OfficeMetro and WinMetro can DIAF (1)

yuhong (1378501) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694311)

Office just uses the Metro visual style. The ribbon hasn't changed in basic operation since 2007 unless you ask for the touch mode.

What's the problem? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40694211)

It's going to come out very near the EOL for XP, nobody uses Vista (especially nobody who's going to actually upgrade Office from whatever came on their PC), and you can't find a PC with Windows 7 that has less than 1-2 GB of RAM.

Plus, it's not like you can't get your hands on the last, what, five versions of Office or so? I'm still running Office 2003 on Windows 7 because I haven't felt like buying the upgrade. I could still run that on Windows 2000 if I wanted to.

DirectX? (2)

Globe199 (442245) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694213)

Precisely why would Microsoft Office need DirectX? a 3D spreadsheet maybe? Maybe a really awesome animated book report?

Re:DirectX? (3, Interesting)

Jeeeb (1141117) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694287)

From the linked page:

A graphics processor helps increase the performance of certain features, such as drawing tables in Excel 2013 Preview or transitions, animations, and video integration in PowerPoint 2013 Preview. Use of a graphics processor with Office 2013 Preview requires a Microsoft DirectX 10-compliant graphics processor that has 64 MB of video memory. These processors were widely available in 2007. Most computers that are available today include a graphics processor that meets or exceeds this standard. However, if you or your users do not have a graphics processor, you can still run Office 2013 Preview.

Also it would seem the requirements are rounded to the nearest 0.5gb and probably are for extremely heavy usage cases.

Re:DirectX? (1)

yuhong (1378501) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694289)

Yea, PowerPoint for example uses a lot of animations that can be hardware accelerated. Note that these can fallback to software emulation if necessary but it does require the API functions be available to simplify the code.

Re:DirectX? (5, Funny)

Tough Love (215404) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694291)

Precisely why would Microsoft Office need DirectX? a 3D spreadsheet maybe? Maybe a really awesome animated book report?

Clippy3D.

Re:DirectX? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40694363)

For the embedded flight simulator

Re:DirectX? (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694449)

Excel 2013 uses ghosting and transperancies. Fonts are hardware accelerated too with DirectX10 and 11 which is not supported in XP. It gives an experience like your andriod or iPhone where you move the text on the screen and it is smooth like butter.

Office doesn't do that now because not all of it is accelerated. Office 2013 will make it like an Andriod or IOS device. Nice too for presentations in groups

Re:DirectX? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40694527)

There's an easter egg of Balmer rolling in the funds from his expense account.

Re:DirectX? (1)

jader3rd (2222716) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694531)

Precisely why would Microsoft Office need DirectX?

Offload certain calculations to the GPU. Office applications are used to crunch big numbers.

Not Compatible With Windows XP, Vista (2)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694223)

Fine, have neither XP nor Vista. No mention of Ubuntu 12.04... meaning that's compatible probably?

Re:Not Compatible With Windows XP, Vista (5, Funny)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694321)

The box says "Windows 7 or better", so it should run in Ubuntu and MacOSX

Re:Not Compatible With Windows XP, Vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40694399)

No one has ever heard that joke before.

Piracy? (3, Insightful)

xyzzyman (811669) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694231)

Vista not being compatible is suprising to me, but XP support being dropped is acceptable. Who still running XP would actually be paying for Office 2013?

Re:Piracy? (1)

Doctor_Jest (688315) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694281)

I wonder why Vista (which is Windows 7 with more annoying prompts) is excluded? Not being awake enough to check google, when was the last time Microsoft went only 1 version back for an Office Suite?

Anyone willing to spend money on Office 2013 and try to run it on XP is a masochist... :) Keep them away from credit cards... or they'll try.

Re:Piracy? (1)

yuhong (1378501) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694391)

Office 2003 and 2007 both support only the current version of Windows and only one version back (for 2007 this is XP and Vista, for 2003 this is 2000 and XP).

Re:Piracy? (1)

armanox (826486) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694475)

Adding to your list - Office XP was the last version to run on Windows ME.

Re:Piracy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40694295)

"Who still running XP would actually be paying for Office 2013?"

Businesses

Windows 7 has only just finished testing now and is ok'd for deployment on new machines in my place of work. XP wont be out of our work place for at least another 18 months to two years as hardware is replaced. Win 8 and Metro will be skipped.

Re:Piracy? (3, Informative)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694425)

Vista not being compatible is suprising to me, but XP support being dropped is acceptable. Who still running XP would actually be paying for Office 2013?

Oh please. XP is going to turn 11 when that thing comes out. It is time to move on and it is rediculous to keep supporting it. It is not a simple matter of a recompile either. Businesses will stop using it if no one writes software just like we still would be using IE 6 if Google didn't refuse to support it for docs and youtube. Then afterwards facebook and others chimed in and poof the users went away kicking and screaming but upgraded to Firefox or IE 7 or later.

Same is true with XP. XP can't do HTML 5 in IE9 because it can't do the hardware acceleration.Also it can't support h.264 due to the lack of DRM and hidef in the driver level. Because of that the office365 features will not work fully for remote features. The GPU graphics can't be done. The malware protection and group and document management DRM can not be done for the cloud integration etc.

Exchange 2003 is not as cloud friendly nor as flexible as later versions to support the groupware integration of Outlook 2013 either.

Besides making XP Vista-lite and enabling users to keep from upgrading and ruining the stability and maturity of the OS it is time to let it go. There are more modern implementaitons already called Windows 7 and 8.

Why not Vista? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40694245)

I thought the kernel for Vista was very similar to that used in windows 7 [url]{http://www.pcworld.com/article/153624/under_the_hood_windows_7_is_vistas_twin.html}[/url]. so why wouldn't Office 2013 not work in Vista; this seems strange to me. Does anyone have a thought as why this is the case? Not that Vista is some great OS or anything it just seems weird.

I can see why they'd drop support for XP, but... (5, Insightful)

NervousNerd (1190935) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694249)

I can see why they'd drop support for XP, being that it's 11 years old now and that it's been succeeded by 3 versions now? But Vista? Really? Vista and 7 are very, very similar. They even back ported some of the 7 stuff to Vista around the time 7 was released with the "platform update". This is a marketing reason, not a technical reason

Re:I can see why they'd drop support for XP, but.. (1)

yuhong (1378501) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694303)

There are even software vendors that drop official support for Vista but keep XP support. Adobe Photoshop CS6 for example. In most case there is nothing stopping the software from running on Vista but the vendor don't want the additional support costs.

Re:I can see why they'd drop support for XP, but.. (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694385)

Vista is over 5 years old. That is ancient in computer terms. XP changed our perception recently and was the oddball. Vista does not offer DirectX11 GPU nor the DRM and document protection of Windows 7 for the sharing features of Sky Drive Pro. (Sky Drive Pro is a rumor at this point from screenshots but many theorize it supports groups and what can be moved to the cloud).

Re:I can see why they'd drop support for XP, but.. (1)

humanrev (2606607) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694517)

Vista is over 5 years old.

It's not like Vista has been standing still over those years. Throw the latest service pack on and it has the same code base (effectively) as Windows 7.

If there are truly some features that Windows 7 has that haven't been back-ported to Vista (like perhaps the that document protection stuff you mentioned), then sure, maybe just have that functionality unavailable when running on Vista. But you can't tell me with a straight face that the ENTER of Office 2013 is incompatible with Vista.

Ho hum (2)

sylvandb (308927) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694253)

I am a little bit surprised that Vista will not be supported. I expect Vista just never had the market penetration to be worth the aggravation.

But really, who cares? Open Office (actually I prefer Libre Office since 3.5 came out) does everything I need, and everything everyone else I know needs. The only reason for Microsoft Office is cross compatibility with other MS Office users but it has been a few years since Open Office failed me in that regard. And even then, the sender did not actually need anything that Open Office didn't do. They used MS Office "just because."

Re:Ho hum (1, Informative)

Maow (620678) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694369)

I am a little bit surprised that Vista will not be supported. I expect Vista just never had the market penetration to be worth the aggravation.

I haven't looked into it much, but my understanding is that Windows 7 is just Vista SP2 (or 3). I have 2 computers here that came with Vista (now running only Ubuntu), and Win 7 in a Virtual Box, and I cannot see a difference, especially in the network connectivity area where I'm sometimes condemned to fiddle settings. That's an area that is atrocious and needs rework, IMHO.

So it's likely for the same reason as not supporting XP - force an OS upgrade on suckers^W customers.

But really, who cares? Open Office (actually I prefer Libre Office since 3.5 came out) does everything I need, and everything everyone else I know needs. The only reason for Microsoft Office is cross compatibility with other MS Office users but it has been a few years since Open Office failed me in that regard. And even then, the sender did not actually need anything that Open Office didn't do. They used MS Office "just because."

100% in agreement there.

Although, come to think of it, I recently send a 1-page ODT file with 3 images in it (and nothing else) to someone with MS Office 2007 (I think) and it coughed and sputtered opening the document (in a completely open format), and when it "fixed" the thing, it got the z-order wrong so the print-out was 1/3 useless. But I fully blame MS for that, though I probably should've sent a PDF instead, I wanted it to be editable if necessary.

Still happily using Office 2007 Pro (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40694255)

It was paid for by my company.

Never saw any reason to upgrade to Office 2010, much less Office 2013.
Office 2007 SP3 does its job well.

And I'm not particularly pleased about the recent emphasis on Metro, social and the cloud. I just want a simple productivity suite that allows me to work.

I can foresee myself using Office 2007 for the next ten years, until Microsoft becomes as irrelevant as Kodak or IBM.

VIM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40694269)

VIM: Supported by !windows and simply requires a kernel. It wont use any amount of RAM you throw at it and will never report you to its big brother. Very Impressive Move to get Off Ice and get clean.

Re:VIM (2)

DeathFromSomewhere (940915) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694487)

Maybe my vim-fu is weak but remind me how I can check my email and schedule a meeting with vim? Other then writing a shell script to wipe the drive and install windows/office of course.

LibreOffice will work on older Windows installs (5, Informative)

Qubit (100461) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694279)

I'd suggest that people run a more modern operating system than Win XP, but LibreOffice will even run on Windows 2000!

LibreOffice system requirements [libreoffice.org] :

- Microsoft Windows 2000 (Service Pack 4 or higher), XP, Vista, Windows 7, or Windows 8;
- Pentium-compatible PC (Pentium III, Athlon or more-recent system recommended);
- 256 Mb RAM (512 Mb RAM recommended);

FUCK APPLE AND STEVE JOBS!!!11 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40694301)

Greedy pricks won't support older operating sys...oh wait this is a Microsoft story.,, Hey, everybody isn't Windows 8 going to be wonderful? I'm so excited! Pre-order today!

Ummm, no? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40694309)

Office 2010 is compatible with XP. I have it installed. XP is mentioned here [microsoft.com] . Maybe they're talking about certain features? And as for 2013, will it fail to install on an older OS?

Oops, correction. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40694413)

Sorry. I missed the word "successor" after the word "2010". First part of my comment withdrawn.

I agree (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694335)

I also agree with Microsoft's drive to do everything they can to invalidate and kill Vista.
*Note - this post's chronometer may be inaccurate to a degree of + or - 5 years.

Incompatible with Exchange 2003 too (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694345)

It turns out that is not even patched nor supported either and businesses have no idea and still run it.

One part of me says businesses will simply not use it and it will fail. The other side thinks it is about time they moved on and we stopped catering to decade old technology and could see some progress. Web developers would be thrilled and could offer gradients and cool animations reserved only for the IPhone if we didn't cateer to ancient versions of IE anymore.

moJId up (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40694403)

exploiteD that. A

Everyone freaks out, but Apple already did this (0)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 2 years ago | (#40694473)

Apple's iWork already limits you to the latest OS. While everyone is going into a frothy rage over Microsoft putting OS limitations on Office, the Apple fanbois are all ready to buy the next OSX and next iWork as soon as it comes out.

Who the fuck uses Office? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40694525)

My company has used OpenOffice/StarOffice for a decade. Everyone I know uses OpenOffice or LibreOffice. And, usually, that's just to read shitty fucking documents that marketing or HR fucktards have drawn up. I do 99% of all my word-processing type of work in a simple text editor on Windows, the simple Bean text editor on OSX, and vi on Linux and Solaris.

All of these are simple, work everywhere, and are free. Oh, and they take up like jack shit for resources.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>