5 ms·
you're falling for MS's marketing gimmick: "let's put the year in the product name so it will slowly shame and pressure people to give us more money for next ye
by digler999 10y ago
you're falling for MS's marketing gimmick: "let's put the year in the product name so it will slowly shame and pressure people to give us more money for next years version (whose killer feature is a new splash screen with a year that is closer to now).
- excalibur 10y agoAmen to this. If Wine is now compatible with Office 2013, how bad do you think the UX would really be if you tried to run 2016 on it?
- LordKano 10y agoMaybe it's just the crotchety old man part of my personality but I don't like anything after Office 2003. The ribbon interface is a deal breaker for me.
- B1FF_PSUVM 10y agoWhippersnappers with their newfangled stuff. Office was done with the 1997 version. Although the late 80s Word and Excel for Mac would do perfectly well for 95% of today's users.
- SwellJoe 10y agoOffice 97 is the last version I ever bought or used. I used it for a decade, or so, to open those few files that didn't work quite right in OpenOffice (or AbiWord or KWord or whatever other program I was using back then on Linux). I'm glad I haven't had to open MS Office in about a decade. These days, I keep LibreOffice installed, but use it maybe a couple of times a year; Google Docs does everything I need.
- ZenoArrow 10y agoYou do realise 'let's put the year in the product name' is not MS' current strategy with Office though right? Office 365 is what is promoted most heavily now, for both business and home users.