Microsoft Office 2013 dumps support for Vista, XP

 


It should not come as a surprise that Microsoft wants users to upgrade off of older Windows platforms and it looks like they will be using Office to force users to make that transition. If you take a look at the FAQ, Windows 7 or newer is required to run the new version of Office.

Microsoft dropping support for Vista is a bit surprising considering how long XP was supported but at the end of the day, Microsoft wants you to upgrade to its latest OS, so dropping support for Vista is a good thing.  

Microsoft is not shy about wanting you to upgrade off of its legacy products, they previously announced a campaign to kill off IE6. Upgrading to the latest platform also has several security benefits as well and not to mention that in April of 2014, Microsoft will kill support Windows XP.

While this requirement will affect some, if you are still holding on to XP, now might be the time to upgrade to Windows 7, or Windows 8 in the near future.

Source: Microsoft

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft announces Office 2013, Preview download now live

Next Story

Microsoft unveils OneNote for Metro environment

138 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Every time I try to navigate the folder structure in Vista's Explorer, I wonder how it could have possibly made it past anyone in command. Right click start, go to explorer, and find yourself balls deep into the folder structure. Those are the days that need to be over, and they are.

Out of interest, Microsoft have only stated that the PREVIEW (i.e. Office 365) works on 7 and 8. What about the usual installable version (i.e. Office 2013)? Will this have the same Windows spec?

Who needs this crap anyway? I have a portable Office 2003 with only Word, Excel and Powerpoint. And I got it for free. You fill Microsoft's pockets and pretend to like what you bought (Win7, Office13, Win8). I had Windows 7 for a long time, it's good... when you disable the themes service.

Why is this surprising to you guys? It's Classic Microsoft, and Office 2014 will dump Windows 7. That's how a Monopoly rolls.

Mike Frett said,
Why is this surprising to you guys? It's Classic Microsoft, and Office 2014 will dump Windows 7. That's how a Monopoly rolls.

i can really see the XP-using masses wanting to upgrade to Office 2013... yeah, their numbers must be astronomical

Mike Frett said,
Why is this surprising to you guys? It's Classic Microsoft, and Office 2014 will dump Windows 7. That's how a Monopoly rolls.

Wait, that sounds like MS is doing this all the time. I usually don't care but they support old stuff way longer than almost everyone else in the business. It's most definitely not "classic Microsoft".

Mike Frett said,
Why is this surprising to you guys? It's Classic Microsoft, and Office 2014 will dump Windows 7. That's how a Monopoly rolls.
Yeah, cos no one else does the same (Apple).

testman said,
Yeah, cos no one else does the same (Apple).

well how apple-ish of microsoft to drop the XP support - after 11 years
how long you want it to take? until the last rig running xp dies? don't joke around

Mike Frett said,
Why is this surprising to you guys? It's Classic Microsoft, and Office 2014 will dump Windows 7. That's how a Monopoly rolls.

I'm not worried, because there won't be an Office 2014.

Honestly, who gives a monkeys.....

Anyone running XP or Vista will just have to stick to one of the versions of Office that does work on their OS.

I doubt that typing a letter, or creating a spreadsheet or powerpoint presentation will have altered so radically with 2013 that it will render all previous versions of Office incompatible and defunct.

You don't know what many people are. Not everyone is tech savvy (but that number is increasing). My sister (last I heard), is still using XP on her family computer...why? Because that is what came with their comptuer. You should ask her to buy a new computer. But you will fail to realise that there is other things that need money as well...especially like her 3 girls, their camping, their trial-bikes. And their usual expenses (bills,etc) can eat into their budget. They do use the computer but for facebook and internet. So ask them, why should they shell out money just to buy a machine that can achieve the same results as her XP machine?

I'm sure millions of people are like this.

ozgeek said,
You don't know what many people are. Not everyone is tech savvy (but that number is increasing). My sister (last I heard), is still using XP on her family computer...why? Because that is what came with their comptuer. You should ask her to buy a new computer. But you will fail to realise that there is other things that need money as well...especially like her 3 girls, their camping, their trial-bikes. And their usual expenses (bills,etc) can eat into their budget. They do use the computer but for facebook and internet. So ask them, why should they shell out money just to buy a machine that can achieve the same results as her XP machine?

I'm sure millions of people are like this.

Welcome to the real world. No one is forcing anyone to buy anything. Your sister doesn't need Office 2013, so what makes you think she's entitled to it? Earn money and then you can buy new computer. Simple, really.

For sure, good point.
Also a lot of older computers arn't going to run as well on older hardware.
especialy after Mom & Pop have installed all kinds of BHO's, Toolbars and random crap..

Lucklily the opinion of tech nerds shouting your not allowed to use what you like
has no value what so ever and people will do what they want.
These people are stubborn like that horse in Family Guy that says
Kevin Bacon was not in footloose. nope, nope, nope, nope.. heeee haaaaaawww

ozgeek said,
They do use the computer but for facebook and internet. So ask them, why should they shell out money just to buy a machine that can achieve the same results as her XP machine?

That's fine, my dad's notebook can't run W7 because it's almost as old as he is. But you won't see him complaining about missing Office 13, he doesn't need it, doesn't know it exists and could live with O2010 for another 10 years.

Outlook 2013 won't connect to Exchange Server 2003 SP2.

Wonder how many users are still on business email systems just over 5-years old?
SBS2003 R2 was released end of 2005 with Exchange 2003 SP2 and is supported through 2014. We installed our last two systems in July 2007 as part of SBS2003 R2.

Puts a crimp in my Surface plans… or upgrading Win7 notebooks to Win8 and Office 2013.
At least my Lumia 900 isn't going to be left behind…

Cheers

xpclient said,
But why why do you want to run this Metro style atrocity and ruin your XP or Windows 7?

Don't worry, you can't ruin your XP machine with it, it doesn't work on XP. I'll take metro over blocky pixelated Fisher-Price blue plastic any day.

McKay said,

Don't worry, you can't ruin your XP machine with it, it doesn't work on XP. I'll take metro over blocky pixelated Fisher-Price blue plastic any day.

Thankfully the Fisher-Price theme colors can be changed, last time I checked Metro ugliness couldn't be eliminated. They removed the theme options. Ribbon+Metro for your enjoyment. Oh goodie!

The

babies

can do the usual and force install i'm pretty sure..
install ApplicationVerifier from Microsoft and use it to
install office on un supported OS's (i've done it myself it works)

*facepalms - 8 fingers*

I am Not PCyr said,
The
can do the usual and force install i'm pretty sure..
install ApplicationVerifier from Microsoft and use it to
install office on un supported OS's (i've done it myself it works)

*facepalms - 8 fingers*

Ha, someone can just email MS and have them do a forced update of AppVerifier that disables XP support.

You are an idiot.

MtnDewCodeRedFreak said,

Ha, someone can just email MS and have them do a forced update of AppVerifier that disables XP support.

You are an idiot.

Your the idiot because i don't have to have a forced update of AppVerifier.
Your so bloody smart ?
I already have the x86 and x64 installer on my machine now explain to me
smart guy just how Microsoft is going to magicly make those programs
update on my computer when i already have them ? Further more smart ass
why in the hell do you think they made the program ? For the reason i stated !
You need to think before opening your mouth and name calling kid..
You just make yourself look like the idiot.. i don't have to do it for you lol

This means that Office 2013 was made for Windows 7 and Windows 8. I hope it is faster than Office 2010 (2010 had some problems here and there in the performance department).

ArialBlue said,
This means that Office 2013 was made for Windows 7 and Windows 8. I hope it is faster than Office 2010 (2010 had some problems here and there in the performance department).

It actually is faster (Word 2013 vs. Word 2010) even with both versions fetching a SkyDrive-stored document. I thought C2R meant snail-slow? 2013 is C2R - 2010 was locally installed from a mounted ISO file; even more surprising, both are x64. Just for reasons of performance, I'd go back to Word 2010 *why*?

Like I said before, you want to use modern software? Use a modern OS with decent hardware, clinging on to ancient computers still running XP is a disservice to all users of the internet

so since the president of the United States Of America has
Windows XP installed in the oval office i guess this applies to him too then right ?
You should contact him and let him know about his "disservice"

I am Not PCyr said,
so since the president of the United States Of America has
Windows XP installed in the oval office i guess this applies to him too then right ?
You should contact him and let him know about his "disservice"
Does the President want to use the latest version of Office? There's your answer.

Crap. This is not good. XP could go to hell, for what I care, it will be a Dead OS soon, but Vista ?!

I don't use it, but this gives us a hint on what could happen with MS "forte" programs such as Office and Windows 7. I hope 7's astounding marketshare retaliate against this argument and prove me wrong...

MS and apple seem more alike by the day, one dumps support for vista and the other dumps support for 3 year old macbooks...

What the hell? I thought it was an Apple thang to drop support for no reason other than to push new stuff. I bet it would run perfectly fine on Vista. Apple will probably have to sue Microsoft now for stealing their business practices .

Shadrack said,
What the hell? I thought it was an Apple thang to drop support for no reason other than to push new stuff. I bet it would run perfectly fine on Vista. Apple will probably have to sue Microsoft now for stealing their business practices .

Be careful what you say! When Microsoft do it, it's because they need people to stop using legacy products and "get with the times" - when Apple do it, it's shameless profiteering!


Chicane-UK said,

Be careful what you say! When Microsoft do it, it's because they need people to stop using legacy products and "get with the times" - when Apple do it, it's shameless profiteering!


I believe both Microsoft and Apple are motivated by profits.

Chicane-UK said,

Be careful what you say! When Microsoft do it, it's because they need people to stop using legacy products and "get with the times" - when Apple do it, it's shameless profiteering!


Really? I thought when Apple did it they were "pushing the industry forward" and "refusing to be bogged down by legacy garbage" but when Microsoft does it they are just trying to force people to upgrade?

I like how every time a new software or OS comes out, people automatically think the existing versions will cease to function completely and they have no choice but to either upgrade or be stuck with no OS or software.

Kimleng said,
I like how every time a new software or OS comes out, people automatically think the existing versions will cease to function completely and they have no choice but to either upgrade or be stuck with no OS or software.

True. People think they can hang on to an existing software until they run into that one feature that drags them off the fence. Kind of like *hardware* upgrades, actually. What drove my previous hardware upgrade wasn't gaming, but virtualization, and virtualization is driving my current set of hardware upgrades as well. What drove my last upgrade (Office 2007 to Office 2010 x64) were two things - going entirely x64 where feasible (stability reasons) and GMail support; as good as Outlook 2007 supported GMail's POP3 settings, Outlook 2010's GMail IMAP4 support is better.

Kimleng said,
I like how every time a new software or OS comes out, people automatically think the existing versions will cease to function completely and they have no choice but to either upgrade or be stuck with no OS or software.

The problem I've seen is support for custom VBA scripts across multiple versions of Office. Lots of small businesses just can not afford to upgrade everyone's hardware simultaneously. In fact, it is usually a few computers here and there year-to-year. At one point our VBA guy was supporting Office 2003, 2007, and 2010. We just recently upgraded everyone to 2010 which was a huge help for him.

So what was wrong with version 2010?

I've always said, i'd be happy with the Windows 7 wordpad if it had built in spell checking.

The problem with not supporting Windows XP in general is that you cannot not simply buy Window 7 or 8 to and install it on a computer - it usually requires buying a newer computer to work. (Please don't quote me their unrealistic minimum requirements unless you've actually tried to use Windows 7 on a computer like that.)

As for Office upgrades in general, I can't say I've seen the need to since Office 2000. What have they really done besides adding useless features and rearranging toolbar icons? They almost got me with their self-incompatibility file format trick a few years ago, until I found out I could just convert docx to doc files online for free.

kayan said,
What have they really done besides adding useless features and rearranging toolbar icons? They almost got me with their self-incompatibility file format trick a few years ago, until I found out I could just convert docx to doc files online for free.

Sorry, but did you not watch the keynote? Office 2K has nothing on Office 2013.

I could start listing tons of new features that have served me well, especially in the Excel and Powerpoint departments (conditional formatting helps me identify errors, for example). It'd be pointless though, because you could easily say that you don't use them, you only edit simple documents, etc... I've heard it before.

So let useless features remain useless for you. The rest of us will be on the cutting edge.

Been a user since 97, the day I had to learn to script VBA, I appreciated each and every single new version of Office since. Let me put it this way, the difference between 2000 and 2010 is so gigantic, it would take 515x10^2837492 light years to travel the distance. What took me an insane amount of code to do in 2000 takes me 2 or 3 lines in 2010. MS would figure out all the popular functions people would have to write all the time and just bake them right into the software while giving noob users powerful and robust options without knowing crap about DLLs and such. I can't wait for 2013 just to see what custom 2010 code has become obsolete.

Maybe list a couple of useful things? I am genuinely curious about what makes these updates worth it to so many people. I do just use Office for simple documents, presentations, and financial spreadsheets, so there is a good chance I'd dismiss features I wouldn't use.

VBA scripting? I do programming in C, JS, ruby, and python. There are many great tools for doing scripting and automation. I just can't imagine why scripting capability should be a part of Office suite. Only a tiny percentage of Office users would ever find use for them, while every Office user would be burdened by the security issues inherit to executable code capability.

kayan said,
VBA scripting? I do programming in C, JS, ruby, and python. There are many great tools for doing scripting and automation. I just can't imagine why scripting capability should be a part of Office suite. Only a tiny percentage of Office users would ever find use for them, while every Office user would be burdened by the security issues inherit to executable code capability.

Scripting is extremely good for automation. For example, for the structural modeling software I use, I have tables full of forces and moment data for each point on my model. These tables aren't organized very well, so I use VBA to go though each data point and reformat it to be easily readable and graphable. Since there is no Excel formula that actually manipulates cells (i.e. actually moves cells and reorganizes them), I have to go to VBA.

kayan said,
The problem with not supporting Windows XP in general is that you cannot not simply buy Window 7 or 8 to and install it on a computer - it usually requires buying a newer computer to work. (Please don't quote me their unrealistic minimum requirements unless you've actually tried to use Windows 7 on a computer like that.)
Tough luck. No one is forcing you to buy a new version of Windows or a new version of Office. If you're STILL using a PC from before 2007 that can't run even Vista, then you'll just have to live with it. You're not entitled to anything.

Wow, Brad, did you have to use the word 'dumps'? Why not just say 'drops' support instead. Sometimes the headlines are just baiting people.

devHead said,
Wow, Brad, did you have to use the word 'dumps'? Why not just say 'drops' support instead. Sometimes the headlines are just baiting people.

What exactly is this baiting? Your toilet?

devHead said,
Wow, Brad, did you have to use the word 'dumps'? Why not just say 'drops' support instead. Sometimes the headlines are just baiting people.

Welcome to Neowin

ahhell said,
You expected different from this site?

Not really but TBH, I don't find this an insult at all. This (site) is still better than many other "tech" sites.

What feature of windows 7 could it be using making it incompatible with vista? Or is it simply blocked in the installer

xn--bya said,
What feature of windows 7 could it be using making it incompatible with vista? Or is it simply blocked in the installer

I doubt there is anything missing in Vista, they just want you to upgrade

xn--bya said,
What feature of windows 7 could it be using making it incompatible with vista? Or is it simply blocked in the installer

I wonder about this myself. Vista (with all service packs applied) and Windows 7 are VERY similar under the hood, the improvements are mostly UI tweaks. Just like Windows XP was very similar to Windows 2000 under the hood.
The whole touch focus and save to Skydrive by default thing will keep me from picking up Office 2013 anyway on my desktop/laptop. I may get a RT tablet which comes with it though and where the touch and skydrive make sense. I skipped Office 2007 because of the half-a$$ed ribbon implementation so it looks like I'm upgrading to every other version. I'm quite happy with Office 2010 (64bit).

xn--bya said,
What feature of windows 7 could it be using making it incompatible with vista? Or is it simply blocked in the installer

Off the top of my head, I can think of several differences that would make targeting Vista problematic.

There are literally thousands of differences in the underlying aspects that could have tiny impacts and there are hundreds of CPU/Memory/GPU differences that could have more drastic of an impact.

If Microsoft dual wrote for both platforms, it is enough of a difference to cost a lot of time and money to adjust for the differences and to code around them. There are also the holes (missing features) that require a fall back and coding to recreate the missing functionality.


People will always jump for the 'forced upgrade' claims, but sometimes there are real reason that make it cost too much or diminish the overall target of function and features in the product.

(Just the SPP in Windows 7 would be enough of a difference to cripple the Office 365 deployment and universal access functionality. )


**Even Apple recently made the decision to cut off support to some very current hardware. Having industry access, I know that they messed up in their hardware offerings and have put themselves in a corner with the 'duct tape' on OS X that we have been warning them about for nearly 10 years.

However, no matter what the past sins for Apple are, if they don't break and push the next version of OS X and the platform/frameworks forward, they will continue to be playing the game of duct taping. (I would love to see Apple do a full dump of OS X and rebuild from a more modern OS design, but that probably won't happen unless they license NT from Microsoft, which they have considered in the past and may end up doing so when OS X hits a wall.)

Asmodai said,

I wonder about this myself. Vista (with all service packs applied) and Windows 7 are VERY similar under the hood, the improvements are mostly UI tweaks. Just like Windows XP was very similar to Windows 2000 under the hood.

Fundamentally, NT is very similar going back to 1992 and the OS model and architecture haven't changed.

However, how this 'model' and the architecture is coded and works has changed quite a bit, with a lot of new functionality added to the core NT layers that make it far more different from previous versions that people that just look at the screen realize.

The whole nature of NT is extensibility and portability using a robust object model.

So sure the base kernel and HAL under it and the layer interfaces don't have massive changes as this is how and why it was designed like it was. Look at Vista, they literally replaced the entire video system with a new driver model, to a new subystem interfaces to Win32 to new rendering features for GDI and added in XAML rendering, a NT kernel level scheduler, and VRAM sharing and GPU virtualization with new computing and BUS transfer technologies.

Did this change NT itself much? Not really. Just like the move in drivers back in NT 4.0 wasn't a big deal then either.

However, this is where the object nature and extensibility of the NT architecture shine, and should NEVER be used to negate fundamental new features and changes.

In Vista, Applications on the screen rendered and looked like they did on XP (ignoring the glass), they also worked flawless 99.9% of the time, yet the way they were drawn on the screen from the lower layer to the rendering of the GDI and fonts was a whole new engine, and then it had the additional vector composer that all this was handed off for final presentation on the screen.

This looked easy, and for NT was easy. NT didn't need massive changes to maintain and have the WDDM and yet if you wanted you could still use XP drivers and the old video system and pipeline through XPDM.

To contrast how 'easy' this is beyond NT, look at just 'driver' changes or 'rendering' changes or even adding a 'composer' on Linux or changes in OS X - any single one of these changes were massive and most of them went down in flames being too hard to handle. OS X still doesn't accelerate legacy drawing, there is still not a good basic composer technology for Linux, the GPU drivers for Linux are still a mess with AMD/NVidia being in trouble for not releasing the code for how they created a new layer to bypass Linux, and on and on.

Now for Vista to Win7... Ya it may look like a few UI tweaks to you, but for people that work with lower levels of technology, they would like to punch you in the face.

Just the PCA or the memory flag changes or the additions to the WDM or 100s of other very technical and key features make Windows 7 a bigger jump in technology than maybe you can 'see' but you definitely get the benefit of these changes from stability to performance to new features that just make things work even when you don't realize the OS is doing anything. (Heck go look up the PCA, to explain it alone and the differences from Vista would be a fairly large technical book.)


I'm sure Microsoft is doing the 'cost' and the 'features' and the platform targeting, and they could shove most of the version into Vista, but to get the same experience or even have the distributed and 'cloud' based installation using the SPP is not as easy and would cost money. At that point, does Microsoft compromise essential features in the new version of Office or would it cheaper for them to make Windows 8 dirt cheap so people wouldn't feel like they go left behind? Seems like they are doing this.

thenetavenger said,
[...]

Not gonna lie, I didn't understand everything you wrote but it was a good read and had more substance than 95% of the usual comments. So thank you.

All MS is doing is allowing users to move to different Office suites. XP is still supported till 2014, so they should include support until it ends.

I highly doubt that. I'm guessing if someone is happy with Windows XP, they will be happy with Office 2003/2007/2010.

soldier1st said,
All MS is doing is allowing users to move to different Office suites. XP is still supported till 2014, so they should include support until it ends.

Windows XP support only means security and bug fixes nothing more. Office doesn't have to support an older version of windows if they don't want it to.

soldier1st said,
All MS is doing is allowing users to move to different Office suites.

I don't think this'll happen. I haven't seen an Office suite as fully integrated and clean looking as Microsoft Office, so really for anyone like me there is no moving. LibreOffice still has compatibility issues and is a terrible move for corporations (the ones most likely to still have XP).

soldier1st said,
All MS is doing is allowing users to move to different Office suites. XP is still supported till 2014, so they should include support until it ends.

Why release a new Office for XP in 2013, when support for XP ends in 2014?

soldier1st said,
All MS is doing is allowing users to move to different Office suites. XP is still supported till 2014, so they should include support until it ends.

XP is in extended support which means no new software by Microsoft, and only bug and security fixes now until 2014.

soldier1st said,
All MS is doing is allowing users to move to different Office suites. XP is still supported till 2014, so they should include support until it ends.

This is like the IE9 and DirectX10 arguments... There are TECHNICAL reasons the GPU and GP-GPU acceleration features of Office 2013 will simply NOT WORK on XP.

They would have to literally 'add on' the Windows 7 video model, and by the time they do that, XP would no longer be XP, it would Windows 7.

Very layman terms, but here...

Office 2013 - GPGPU (DirectCompute) and GPU rendering. It also uses the memory flag features of Windows 7, along with the trusted platform of Windows 7. These things DO NOT work on XP.

IE9 - GPU acceleration features pre-rendering, rendering, composing. XP cannot do 80% of these new features.

DirectX10 - Framework turns over RAM virtualization, scheduling and core functionality to the OS kernel which includes a GPU scheduler, and GPU virtualization technologies for sharing RAM and shoving data across the BUS in new ways. XP cannot do ANY of these things, and if a DirectX10 game tries to run on XP, it chokes because it expects the OS to be doing these base features for it.


The best they can do for XP is to do Web versions or add to the development costs considerably or reduce the features/functions.

You can't have progress and target regressive technology.

PS There is NO reason people should be running WinXP at this time in history. Enterprise should have licensing to upgrade for free to Win7/Win8 and even home users can obtain Win7 cheap and Win8 even cheaper. There is NO performance advantage to running XP, and there are few computers that NEED XP, and if they do, aka 1998 Pentium 200mhz, running anything past Office XP is going to be painful.

soldier1st said,
All MS is doing is allowing users to move to different Office suites. XP is still supported till 2014, so they should include support until it ends.
Take the blinders off and look at the big picture. You can not support an OS that is in extended support and, essentially, dead. If you release the new product for that old OS you need to decide to either A) Support that product on that OS beyond it's EOL or B) Pull support for that new product when the EOL hits. Neither option is a good one and both would be costly; their time, money and resources are better spent on moving forward.

soldier1st said,
All MS is doing is allowing users to move to different Office suites.

And they'll install the alternatives, look at them for 10 minutes, wonder why it's 1999 again and reinstall Office 2010 or buy 7. I agree Vista should be supported but I don't think it's a huge deal when you look at how many units 7 is selling by the minute.

S_Herbie said,

Do they have VBA and do they support full data exchange between applications?
You get what you pay for...

Enterprise users need those features but for families at home it's reached a point where LibreOffice will do, plus it's free

thealexweb said,

Enterprise users need those features but for families at home it's reached a point where LibreOffice will do, plus it's free

I'd rather use Office 2003, heck Office XP or 2000, than LibreOffice. It's not because I hate open source or anything, it's just that LibreOffice churns out Office-incompatible garbage when I'm opening up even simple documents (with a simple table of contents).

thealexweb said,

Enterprise users need those features but for families at home it's reached a point where LibreOffice will do, plus it's free

Meh, Office for Home is only like $99 and comes with 5 licenses (or is it 3 licenses?). If you spend any significant time working in Office applications I think $99 is worth it. Otherwise you get what you pay for.

thealexweb said,

Enterprise users need those features but for families at home it's reached a point where LibreOffice will do, plus it's free

Home users can get by with a legal pad to do their finances and write letters too...

This doesn't make these product 'good' or viable, especially when the cost to even lower income home users can afford Windows 8 and the Office 365 Home costs, which is at an all time low.

s3n4te said,
They should've dumped Win7 as well so that everyone has to upgrade to Win8 if they want to use the Office.

Somehow I think that would have been a TERRIBLE business decision!

s3n4te said,
They should've dumped Win7 as well so that everyone has to upgrade to Win8 if they want to use the Office.

You know, Win7 is the next XP. For the next 10 years everything will be supporting Win7. If Office 2013 was only for Win8, MS wouldn't even be able to count 30.000 sales.

s3n4te said,
They should've dumped Win7 as well so that everyone has to upgrade to Win8 if they want to use the Office.

Windows 8 is a FAIL. Thank goodness Microsoft is not so stupid to the point that they think everyone is going to switch over to it.

PC EliTiST said,

You know, Win7 is the next XP. For the next 10 years everything will be supporting Win7. If Office 2013 was only for Win8, MS wouldn't even be able to count 30.000 sales.

Yes and no...

The difference is the timeline and reorganization at Microsoft that created problems.

WinXP had an extended timeline before Vista was released because of the security overhaul Microsoft went through. Vista also was a complete reworking of several key technologies that came from the performance and functionality development of the XBox 360. (GPU/RAM priority/Network/Sound/etc.)


If you remember even Apple made fun of Microsoft for taking so long to get XP's successor released. (Although I still do not think Apple gets that Vista, even though not successful, technically jumped OS X by a 10 year generation, making hard for Apple to catch up to Windows 7, as OS X cannot even offer the same technology sets due to kernel and OS model limitations that NT does not have.)


However, I think Microsoft made the right choice as the security changes in WinXP SP2 alone helped stop the malware and security storm. Microsoft also put all their people through new security development training and creation of new security models for coding and exposure, etc.

So XP to Vista was a longer than normal cycle. It also was bogged down with the security nightmares from the XP timeframe and the uncertainty of Vista will people not realize that RAM caching was smart and it didn't mean Vista was consuming all your RAM.

Windows 7 is the current solid release, and even if Windows 8 does not have the Win7 adoption rate/level, Windows 9 will fit the enterprise corporate update scheduling.

JSYOUNG571 said,

Windows 8 is a FAIL. Thank goodness Microsoft is not so stupid to the point that they think everyone is going to switch over to it.

Win7 will have at most a few more years of real support, you won't have much of a choice about it

thenetavenger said,

Yes and no...

The difference is the timeline and reorganization at Microsoft that created problems.

WinXP had an extended timeline before Vista was released because of the security overhaul Microsoft went through. Vista also was a complete reworking of several key technologies that came from the performance and functionality development of the XBox 360. (GPU/RAM priority/Network/Sound/etc.)


If you remember even Apple made fun of Microsoft for taking so long to get XP's successor released. (Although I still do not think Apple gets that Vista, even though not successful, technically jumped OS X by a 10 year generation, making hard for Apple to catch up to Windows 7, as OS X cannot even offer the same technology sets due to kernel and OS model limitations that NT does not have.)


However, I think Microsoft made the right choice as the security changes in WinXP SP2 alone helped stop the malware and security storm. Microsoft also put all their people through new security development training and creation of new security models for coding and exposure, etc.

So XP to Vista was a longer than normal cycle. It also was bogged down with the security nightmares from the XP timeframe and the uncertainty of Vista will people not realize that RAM caching was smart and it didn't mean Vista was consuming all your RAM.

Windows 7 is the current solid release, and even if Windows 8 does not have the Win7 adoption rate/level, Windows 9 will fit the enterprise corporate update scheduling.

Interesting how you completely "forgot"/ "removed" any references to Longhorn in your chronicle....

JSYOUNG571 said,

Windows 8 is a FAIL. Thank goodness Microsoft is not so stupid to the point that they think everyone is going to switch over to it.


Clearly you've never tried Win8 or used the latest public build. It's honestly not that bad as people expect it to be, the metro interface is completely optional to use.

Fritzly said,

Interesting how you completely "forgot"/ "removed" any references to Longhorn in your chronicle....

Longhorn is an unreleased project, what does that have to do with this thread?

Cøi said,

Longhorn is an unreleased project, what does that have to do with this thread?

If you had spent few minutes to read the original post I replied to you would have realized that Longhorn, unfortunately halted, development was one of the reason why XP lasted so long as the "Latest" OS from Microsoft.....

WinA said,
Most people will stick with 2007 version! It looks awesome and its compatibly on all Windows!

Office 2010 also exists, y'know.

WinA said,
Most people will stick with 2007 version! It looks awesome and its compatibly on all Windows!

no, I think most people will go with Office 15 (especially if it's priced like Windows 8 is), but why no O2010 love?

sexypepperoni said,
Shooting themselves on the foot now. Ignoring XP users is ignoring their base.

Goodbye MS.

How so, Microsoft has been committed for a few years now to dumping support for XP. Internet Explorer is another program they are not supporting on XP anymore
Is Office 2010 even fully compatible with XP right now?
Why should Microsoft continue to support XP when its at its end of life cycle and 11 years old now.

They are not shooting themselves in the foot on this one, if anything, those that are on XP are shooting themselves in the foot by not upgrading to at least 7.

sexypepperoni said,
Shooting themselves on the foot now. Ignoring XP users is ignoring their base.

Goodbye MS.

Well more like ignoring 50% of their userbase, I sort of get they only want to offer Office 2013 to Windows versions on mainstream support but Vista and 7 share so much would it really have been that hard to support the 10-12% of PC users running Vista.

sexypepperoni said,
Shooting themselves on the foot now. Ignoring XP users is ignoring their base.

Goodbye MS.

why? 2010 and other versions work fine with XP and if you wish to stay on that old OS then fine stay on that old Office version. The costs of Win7 or what will be Win8 aren't that bad to stay on XP till you die or computer dies which ever comes first.

sexypepperoni said,
Shooting themselves on the foot now. Ignoring XP users is ignoring their base.

Goodbye MS.

If businesses are still running XP they likely still have Office 2003. They're probably not going to want to upgrade anyway.

sexypepperoni said,
Shooting themselves on the foot now. Ignoring XP users is ignoring their base.

Goodbye MS.

You've clearly not seen what Apple thinks of supporting legacy software/hardware, MS is a blessing.

sexypepperoni said,
Shooting themselves on the foot now. Ignoring XP users is ignoring their base.

Goodbye MS.

LOL, Look at it this way: If they are using XP they probably have not been a MS "customer" for quite some time. XP is no longer sold and is two versions back soon to be three. If you are still using XP, then you are more weeds choking growth than fruit.

funkydude said,

You've clearly not seen what Apple thinks of supporting legacy software/hardware, MS is a blessing.

Just what I was thinking. Drop Office support for a 6 and 11 year old OS, and it means the failure of a company. Don't support running an OS on a 4 year old computer, and to quote pepperoni, "Go Apple!"

sexypepperoni said,
Shooting themselves on the foot now. Ignoring XP users is ignoring their base.

Goodbye MS.

Our IT just upgraded the XP machines to Office 2010. I bet a lot of XP users will just continue to use Office 2003.

thealexweb said,

Well more like ignoring 50% of their userbase, I sort of get they only want to offer Office 2013 to Windows versions on mainstream support but Vista and 7 share so much would it really have been that hard to support the 10-12% of PC users running Vista.

Windows XP is 40% of their userbase, and if those people are continuing to use an 11-year old OS, what makes you think they are willing to use a brand new office suite?

dagamer34 said,

Windows XP is 40% of their userbase, and if those people are continuing to use an 11-year old OS, what makes you think they are willing to use a brand new office suite?

Queen Margaret University in Scotland uses Windows XP and Office 2010 on it's campus PCs.

sexypepperoni said,
Shooting themselves on the foot now. Ignoring XP users is ignoring their base.

Goodbye MS.

They would be shooting themselves in the head if they continued to support XP.

thealexweb said,

Queen Margaret University in Scotland uses Windows XP and Office 2010 on it's campus PCs.

Considering their update schedule, since they moved to Office 2010, with the new licensing options they either paid too much money because of stupid IT people or are specifically planning on moving to Windows 8.

Either way, this has no relevance to the 'power of XP users' - as they are either locked in by cost/circumstance or ignorance.

Anyone out there that is using XP, there are way to get Windows 7 and Windows 8 REALLY cheap - especially with the upgrade to Windows 8 promotion, and you can run the preview now free.

Windows XP has 1/20th the core OS features of Windows7/Windows8 and with the loss of features added to the bare performance differences you are literally wasting almost 50% of the time in front of your computer compared to Win7/8.

(GPU acceleration alone can be 20% of a boost over XP with fonts rendering on the GPU and other simple things that eat a lot of CPU cycles in just basic desktop applications.)


Just one malware that get through or one failed hard drive correction or one failed restore point/version catch and you will waste hours that just doesn't happen on Win7/8. (Let alone Win7 benchmarks 10% faster than XP with 512mb of RAM. Win8 benchmarks 10% faster than XP with 256mb of RAM, and at 1gb of RAM, they both benchmark around 25% faster than XP, and Win7/8 x64 with 2gb of RAM can hit close to 40% faster, especially in gaming than XP.) Notice the RAM levels, this is not Vista's overhead, in fact this is less RAM than Android and iOS want to run well.

sexypepperoni said,
Shooting themselves on the foot now. Ignoring XP users is ignoring their base.

Goodbye MS.

It's due to horrible sysadmins with this attitude that are holding everyone else back
It's 2012, time to let go of an ancient OS that no one in their right mind would still be using

thealexweb said,

Queen Margaret University in Scotland uses Windows XP and Office 2010 on it's campus PCs.

Yeah, but they're not a real university...

z0phi3l said,

It's due to horrible sysadmins with this attitude that are holding everyone else back
It's 2012, time to let go of an ancient OS that no one in their right mind would still be using


It isn't always the sysadmins fault, there are other enemies to progression.

Budget, business leaders, the view that IT does not need that much $$ and the lack of interest in upgrading an app that they have long neglected but drives the money maker which has no support and is deemed mission critical... sigh, that last one kills me daily.

sexypepperoni said,
Shooting themselves on the foot now. Ignoring XP users is ignoring their base.

Goodbye MS.


MS has provided more than enough years worth of support to xp users. I say it's just time for xp users to upgrade.

sexypepperoni said,
Shooting themselves on the foot now. Ignoring XP users is ignoring their base.

Goodbye MS.


Ignoring XP is convincing people that there is actually a reason to upgrade, and it's a great thing they're doing that IMO. they've supported XP for a lot longer than I would have if I'd been in charge.

BBgamer said,

If businesses are still running XP they likely still have Office 2003. They're probably not going to want to upgrade anyway.

My work machine sports Windows XP and Office 2007, and about half of the people at work have Office 2007.

sexypepperoni said,
Shooting themselves on the foot now. Ignoring XP users is ignoring their base.

Goodbye MS.

Are you suggesting people are still suing XP or Vista? GTFO already...

DrakeN2k said,
Glad there is no XP support.

Do you work for Microsoft ?
Is it your job to make the updates or something ?

I don't get it what's YOUR problem ?
(and all the creepy weird people clicking "like")

I agree fully it should be discontinued but it's not like
I'm gonna run around the net saying I'm happy about it.
Some of you people have mental issues or something
Why the hell should any of you care if someone wants to use XP ?
Some of you act like its some kind of personal attack on you..
Get over yourselves and let people live how they want.

Would you go out of your way to harass someone in a parking lot
because they are driving a Honda Civic from 2001 ?
And would you guys hold a bloody little parade because car repair garages
announced they will for now on refuse to fix those cars ?

I'm so sorry guys that *other people using Windows XP causes you so much grief.
You can always seek some counseling for your issues.

Are you hurt man? don't worry she will come back for you when you stop acting like a little bee Itch

I am Not PCyr said,

Do you work for Microsoft ?
Is it your job to make the updates or something ?

I don't get it what's YOUR problem ?
(and all the creepy weird people clicking "like")

I agree fully it should be discontinued but it's not like
I'm gonna run around the net saying I'm happy about it.
Some of you people have mental issues or something
Why the hell should any of you care if someone wants to use XP ?
Some of you act like its some kind of personal attack on you..
Get over yourselves and let people live how they want.

Would you go out of your way to harass someone in a parking lot
because they are driving a Honda Civic from 2001 ?
And would you guys hold a bloody little parade because car repair garages
announced they will for now on refuse to fix those cars ?

I'm so sorry guys that *other people using Windows XP causes you so much grief.
You can always seek some counseling for your issues.

And why did you try to make it look like a poem man?

I am Not PCyr said,

Do you work for Microsoft ?
Is it your job to make the updates or something ?

I don't get it what's YOUR problem ?
(and all the creepy weird people clicking "like")

I agree fully it should be discontinued but it's not like
I'm gonna run around the net saying I'm happy about it.
Some of you people have mental issues or something
Why the hell should any of you care if someone wants to use XP ?
Some of you act like its some kind of personal attack on you..
Get over yourselves and let people live how they want.

Would you go out of your way to harass someone in a parking lot
because they are driving a Honda Civic from 2001 ?
And would you guys hold a bloody little parade because car repair garages
announced they will for now on refuse to fix those cars ?

I'm so sorry guys that *other people using Windows XP causes you so much grief.
You can always seek some counseling for your issues.

I am Not PCyr said,
Do you work for Microsoft ?
Is it your job to make the updates or something ?
As a developer, I don't have to work for Microsoft to be happy that Windows XP is being killed off. If for no other reason, it is the primary reason that IE8 is still around, and until people move away from that, a lot of websites will be a lot worse off because of it.

Unlike someone driving a 2001 Civic, this does effect the rest of us.

pickypg said,
As a developer, I don't have to work for Microsoft to be happy that Windows XP is being killed off. If for no other reason, it is the primary reason that IE8 is still around, and until people move away from that, a lot of websites will be a lot worse off because of it.

Unlike someone driving a 2001 Civic, this does effect the rest of us.

BS.
Examples..
Waiting

[/poem form]

I am Not PCyr said,

Do you work for Microsoft ?
Is it your job to make the updates or something ?

I don't get it what's YOUR problem ?
(and all the creepy weird people clicking "like")

...[snip]...

I'm so sorry guys that *other people using Windows XP causes you so much grief.
You can always seek some counseling for your issues.

It's not other people using it that gives so many people grief.

I have an issue with supporting XP because frequently it's found in environments I have worked and have no control over the OS (eg. Schools, Universities, Work, etc.), obviously no-one cares what other people use at home, but when I have to use it I want to be using something that's not 10 years out of date.

These places always have the latest version of Office but not Windows. If this helps them move on then I wholly support the move.

To return to the car example, would you jump in an old car that has failed it's annual safety test?

I am Not PCyr said,

(and all the creepy weird people clicking "like")
...
Some of you people have mental issues or something

If you think clicking "Like" is creepy and weird then I think its you that has issues.

I am Not PCyr said,

Do you work for Microsoft ?
Is it your job to make the updates or something ?

I don't get it what's YOUR problem ?
(and all the creepy weird people clicking "like")

I agree fully it should be discontinued but it's not like
I'm gonna run around the net saying I'm happy about it.
Some of you people have mental issues or something
Why the hell should any of you care if someone wants to use XP ?
Some of you act like its some kind of personal attack on you..
Get over yourselves and let people live how they want.

Would you go out of your way to harass someone in a parking lot
because they are driving a Honda Civic from 2001 ?
And would you guys hold a bloody little parade because car repair garages
announced they will for now on refuse to fix those cars ?

I'm so sorry guys that *other people using Windows XP causes you so much grief.
You can always seek some counseling for your issues.

I bet you would want to see IE6 still being supported too right?
just gtfo, you're full of it.

I am Not PCyr said,

BS.
Examples..
Waiting

[/poem form]

Less XP ,
Less People crying due to Virus (Xp is more virus prone) ,
Less hassles for me to solve problems of my relatives running Xp ,

Better compatibility when i move from home ,
(win7) to some old cybercafe (having xp).

It does affect me at least.
It is same as to why we should make people,
aware enough to stop using IE6.

I am Not PCyr said,

BS.
Examples..
Waiting

Are you serious? It's a well known fact that web developers hate IE8.

Heck, even IE9 has issues that need to be addressed in terms of standard support.

Go to http://www.imdb.com/ in IE8, then IE 9 or IE10 , and then go in Chrome. The most immediate difference is the lack of "placeholder" text support in the search box up top. You can likely figure out what you can type into that box, but imagine the less tech savvy attempting to figure it out. IE9 doesn't even support Placeholder text, which means a lot of sites need to do extra work to emphasize input elements that should otherwise be emphasizing themselves.

Also take a look at the arrows on the buttons within "In Theaters Near You." They lack gradients because IE8 does not support them.

Beyond this brain-dead example, IE is also significantly slower. This goes without question, and it literally slows down the adoption of features on popular websites because they cannot isolate significant percentages of the web.