Microsoft Office 2010 Tech Preview Leaked

[hdood]

Think he torrented it?

[Marduk]

Is this stable enough to be used all the time? Anyone have any crashes doing menial tasks?

[PGHammer]

That was the whole point of my comment above.

And the very fact that it IS consistent across every application (especially Outlook 2010) is going to cause some conniptions.

Consider this: Outlook hadn't had a major UI change since the out-of-order Outlook 98 (the first and only time a single Office application was changed without a change in the rest of Office); why did Outlook change to match the rest of Office after twelve years?

Consideration #2: The two leading open-source (especially Linux) Exchange/POP/IMAP mail clients other than Thunderbird (Evolution and KMail) follow the same UI trends that Outlook 98 through 2007 slavishly established. However, Outlook 2010 looks more like the rest of Office (or, egads, *Thunderbird*) than previous versions of Outlook.

[Calum Veteran]

And the very fact that it IS consistent across every application (especially Outlook 2010) is going to cause some conniptions.

Consider this: Outlook hadn't had a major UI change since the out-of-order Outlook 98 (the first and only time a single Office application was changed without a change in the rest of Office); why did Outlook change to match the rest of Office after twelve years?

Consideration #2: The two leading open-source (especially Linux) Exchange/POP/IMAP mail clients other than Thunderbird (Evolution and KMail) follow the same UI trends that Outlook 98 through 2007 slavishly established. However, Outlook 2010 looks more like the rest of Office (or, egads, *Thunderbird*) than previous versions of Outlook.

Are you forgetting that all word processors had used the same type of user interface style, before Word 2007? The interface of Word was changed greatly in the 2007 version and it worked out fantastically well.

Now, the interface of Outlook has also been changed to make it consistent with other applications in its own Office suite. It worked with Word, why wouldn't it work with Outlook?

Just because similar applications, developed by different companies, have had a similar interface style for years, it doesn't mean there are more efficient interface style's out there. The ribbon, in my opinion is much more efficient.

Have you used Outlook 2010? It's fantastic from what I've seen in screenshots. You click on "Calendar" and items in the ribbon change to calendar-specific tasks. Click Inbox and items in the ribbon will automatically change to emailing tasks etc. It's fantastic, looks very nice and will save a lot of time; increasing productivity.

[Denis W. Veteran]

The Office team is always the first to introduce a new UI element into Windows that eventually gets adopted by the OS. Sometimes it's for the better: the Fluent UI (a.k.a Ribbon) is an example. Menu animations is another. Or how about toolbar icons, back in the 2.x and 3.x days.

Some aren't though. The Office Assistant using Microsoft Agent got itself into XP. Personalized menus - BIGGEST pain in the ass feature ever - was first introduced in Office 97 or 2000 before it got itself into Me.

No surprise that they're taking this opportunity to create a UI that is slightly better than Scenic, which was an improvement (visually) over Fluent.

[+Tyranade Subscriber²]

HOLY FIDDLE STICKS! At school I had a 10MB Excell file I had to open on office 2003 it took about 5 Mins with this version it took less than 2 o.0. Bravo Microsoft <3.

[(Spork)]

i have to say im very impressed the new outlook is HOT !

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

HOLY FIDDLE STICKS! At school I had a 10MB Excell file I had to open on office 2003 it took about 5 Mins with this version it took less than 2 o.0. Bravo Microsoft <3.

I assume you're comparing Office 2010 installed on your computer to Office 2003 installed on your school's computer. If that's the case then it's unfair to make such a comparison. Chances are the computer(s) at your school are outdated and therefore slow.

Anyway, the UI in Office 2010 looks slightly better than the UI in Office 2007. I'm interested to read about the new features. However, I'm beginning to wonder if it's worth the upgrade. After all, Office software isn't cheap.

[+LogicalApex MVC]

People who have thousands of emails DO care. I use 2007 and it takes probably 15-30 seconds to completely load my 2GB PST. If you can prove that it is faster with a ton of emails loaded, that's great. Not so much if you just installed it with nothing loaded in it yet... :rolleyes:

Starts up super fast for me (def. faster than 2007) and I have it paired to my Exchange mailbox with over 6800 messages in the Inbox alone (well over 1GB PST file). It was also upgraded from Office 2007 so not a fresh install.

I just eye clocked my 2010 Outlook startup as around 7 seconds.

Hope that gives some glimpses.

Also, once 2010 loads Outlook is useable instantly. Not like 2007 which has to wait for some kind of Exchange sync or something to happen adding another 15+ seconds to its startup after the splash screen goes away.

[dcoaster]

Thanks for the real world usage stats. Hopefully it gets even better.

[Ci7]

People who have thousands of emails DO care. I use 2007 and it takes probably 15-30 seconds to completely load my 2GB PST. If you can prove that it is faster with a ton of emails loaded, that's great. Not so much if you just installed it with nothing loaded in it yet... :rolleyes:

how ironic :rolleyes:

[qdave]

so far its good. but i hate how some functions have become more difficult..like printing.

[+LogicalApex MVC]

Thanks for the real world usage stats. Hopefully it gets even better.

Not a problem. My assumption is it will only go uphill as this is very old build compared to what we'll get in July and more than 6 months from RTM.

I wonder how Exchange 2010 will help this, but I won't be pairing the two up until Exchange 2010 RTMs soon.

[PGHammer]

Are you forgetting that all word processors had used the same type of user interface style, before Word 2007? The interface of Word was changed greatly in the 2007 version and it worked out fantastically well.

Now, the interface of Outlook has also been changed to make it consistent with other applications in its own Office suite. It worked with Word, why wouldn't it work with Outlook?

Just because similar applications, developed by different companies, have had a similar interface style for years, it doesn't mean there are more efficient interface style's out there. The ribbon, in my opinion is much more efficient.

Have you used Outlook 2010? It's fantastic from what I've seen in screenshots. You click on "Calendar" and items in the ribbon change to calendar-specific tasks. Click Inbox and items in the ribbon will automatically change to emailing tasks etc. It's fantastic, looks very nice and will save a lot of time; increasing productivity.

I do, in fact, use Outlook 2010 (in fact, it's my default mail program in Windows 7 RC) and I personally have no complaints with the new UI. However, I am also quite aware that considering that Outlook's UI hasn't changed in nine years, that there *will* be some folks upset over the changes (consider the changes in the UI of Word 2003 over 2000 and how much some folks were torqued-off by that).

While some folks (including, apparently, both of us) are quite pleased with the changes in Outlook's UI, there are going to be those that are not happy with those changes. (My complaints with Thunderbird have nothing to do with the UI; I have *always* preferred Outlook as a mail client over Thunderbird, and that's despite the fact that I use POP3 mail, not IMAP or Exchange.)

One thing I do is teach newbies how to use their computers (home users and home-office users in particular), concentrating mostly on Windows and Office (however, I'm not averse to other operating systems, including various Linux distributions, MacOS, or even the BSDs and Solaris/OpenSolaris), and I can see the workload going up.

Not that that's necessarily a BAD thing.

[PGHammer]

Is this stable enough to be used all the time? Anyone have any crashes doing menial tasks?

Not a single crash doing everyday stuff.

However, I will admit that Outlook's new UI takes getting used to.

As I pointed out in another reply, I personally have no problem with UI consistency across Office (I actually complained about Outlook 2007 *not* having the same UI as the rest of Office). However, as a trainer, I'm certainly expecting to get an earful about Outlook 2010's UI from those that are coming from older versions of Outlook.

[Denis W. Veteran]

Anyway, the UI in Office 2010 looks slightly better than the UI in Office 2007. I'm interested to read about the new features. However, I'm beginning to wonder if it's worth the upgrade. After all, Office software isn't cheap.

Same here. But remember that we can get Office (2010) Ultimate for $64 - that's half the cost for your average university textbook, but this is far more useful than books. :p

For the record I find the Fluent UI to be okay - it was fantastic at first, didn't anyone remember having fun doing their homework in a word processor of all places (:p) when the beta first came out in 2006? - but now I find the UI to have too much contrast and gloss, save for Silver.

[Quillz]

I assume you're comparing Office 2010 installed on your computer to Office 2003 installed on your school's computer. If that's the case then it's unfair to make such a comparison. Chances are the computer(s) at your school are outdated and therefore slow.

Anyway, the UI in Office 2010 looks slightly better than the UI in Office 2007. I'm interested to read about the new features. However, I'm beginning to wonder if it's worth the upgrade. After all, Office software isn't cheap.

I can understand this. I can still get by with Office 97, honestly. I think for the average user, even old versions of Word will still work just fine, having most of the features they'd ever need. I think with Office 2010, it's much more about refining and improving the features that already exist rather than adding new ones. It was stated by an Office developer than when doing usability studies, people were requesting features that already long existed in Office, but they just couldn't find them. That's what the Ribbon is all about.

[WindowsServerUser]

I want a portable or virtual copy to take with me and show off plus run without uninstalling office 2007

I tried to make a portable version with vmware thinapp but failied can anyone help

Trials:

http://www.vmware.com/products/thinapp/

http://www.vmware.com/products/ws/

http://blogs.vmware.com/thinapp/2008/10/how-to-make-a-t.html

http://blogs.vmware.com/thinapp/2009/03/ho...ce-xp.html#more

VMware ThinApp From Start to Finish in 20 Minutes - Part 1 of 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Om5wzGYSVmU

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

Same here. But remember that we can get Office (2010) Ultimate for $64 - that's half the cost for your average university textbook, but this is far more useful than books. :p

For the record I find the Fluent UI to be okay - it was fantastic at first, didn't anyone remember having fun doing their homework in a word processor of all places (:p) when the beta first came out in 2006? - but now I find the UI to have too much contrast and gloss, save for Silver.

Yes, I actually thought of "The Ultimate Steal" while I wrote my earlier post. I'll probably purchase Office 2010 with that method. As for Office 2007, I find the Fluent UI to be both aesthetically pleasing and very functional. It's made things very easy for me in the past and it continues to do so today. The newer UI in Office 2010 seems like a repetition of the Fluent UI. If you're referring to the new UI in Office 2010, then I totally agree with you. The dark blue hues and whites don't "match". I guess it's because I'm accustomed to the Fluent UI in Office 2007.

I can understand this. I can still get by with Office 97, honestly. I think for the average user, even old versions of Word will still work just fine, having most of the features they'd ever need. I think with Office 2010, it's much more about refining and improving the features that already exist rather than adding new ones. It was stated by an Office developer than when doing usability studies, people were requesting features that already long existed in Office, but they just couldn't find them. That's what the Ribbon is all about.

That's how I felt after the release of Office 2007. At the time, I was still using Office 2003; however, I eventually upgraded but only because Office 2007 had so much more to offer compared to Office 2003. With the case of Office 2010, I don't see that much of an improvement over Office 2007. In any case, I'll probably end up buying it. I'm sure it has new features, even if they're "under the hood".

[Calum Veteran]

I do, in fact, use Outlook 2010 (in fact, it's my default mail program in Windows 7 RC) and I personally have no complaints with the new UI. However, I am also quite aware that considering that Outlook's UI hasn't changed in nine years, that there *will* be some folks upset over the changes (consider the changes in the UI of Word 2003 over 2000 and how much some folks were torqued-off by that).

While some folks (including, apparently, both of us) are quite pleased with the changes in Outlook's UI, there are going to be those that are not happy with those changes. (My complaints with Thunderbird have nothing to do with the UI; I have *always* preferred Outlook as a mail client over Thunderbird, and that's despite the fact that I use POP3 mail, not IMAP or Exchange.)

One thing I do is teach newbies how to use their computers (home users and home-office users in particular), concentrating mostly on Windows and Office (however, I'm not averse to other operating systems, including various Linux distributions, MacOS, or even the BSDs and Solaris/OpenSolaris), and I can see the workload going up.

Not that that's necessarily a BAD thing.

It's good to hear you are open-minded to change and I agree that unfortunately, there will be many people out there who do not appreciate the changes to the user interface and of Outlook especially.

However, many of those people are, in my opinion, extremely ignorant. Anybody who cannot see the benefits in change and who is resistant to acknowledge those benefits is ignorant in my opinion. An example I will use here is the amount of people who complained over the two Facebook redesigns that recently happened. It's ridiculous - the redesigns provided so many benefits, especially the first one. It's the same with this new Outlook redesign - it provides so many benefits.

Now, I'm not saying anyone who dislikes the user interface of the new Outlook or the recent Facebook redesigns is ignorant, I am saying people who cannot understand the benefits they bring are ignorant. It's fine to dislike a user interface as long as you have sat and played around with it and you have thought about the many benefits the interface brings. It's perfectly understandable that someone can dislike a user interface even if it brings many benefits :)

However, as I'm sure you know, many people looked at Office 2007 and straight away said "I don't get it", "It's too confusing", "I want my old Office back!", "Why are Microsoft so stupid to change it to crap like this!?", "I can't find anything" etc. They did this without even trying the new Office and without even trying to think about the benefits. They also did exactly the same with the Facebook redesigns. I do not have time for people like this and I also do not think Microsoft or Facebook should disadvantage the rest of us by not progressing with change just to please the users who are resistant to blatant improvements. Unfortunately, these people can sometimes make up the majority, but I still think companies shouldn't listen to them and they should progress with the improvements. Luckily most companies I know have been doing so :)

A little advice to some people - most of the time, companies make changes because it improves the product or service, sometimes to a great extent; think about what those possible improvements could be, and consider the benefits and drawbacks of the change, before you complain about it ;)

[Subject Delta]

I want a portable or virtual copy to take with me and show off plus run without uninstalling office 2007

I tried to make a portable version with vmware thinapp but failied can anyone help

I don't believe that is 100% legal. Although with a Beta it won't matter as much, but when the product reaches RTM, you will only be licensed to use it on one computer at any one time, so unless you don't have a hard copy installed on any of your licensed machines you won't technically be licensed to do so.

[hdood]

It's good to hear you are open-minded to change and I agree that unfortunately, there will be many people out there who do not appreciate the changes to the user interface and of Outlook especially.

Well, you have to look at the other side of things too. 2007 (and 2010) are so radically different that they require huge investments in retraining of both users and support staff. Does the corporate world that has to spend millions doing this appreciate it? I don't know.

However, as I'm sure you know, many people looked at Office 2007 and straight away said "I don't get it", "It's too confusing", "I want my old Office back!", "Why are Microsoft so stupid to change it to crap like this!?", "I can't find anything" etc. They did this without even trying the new Office and without even trying to think about the benefits.

Some people don't want to learn how things work, they just want to do the job they've always done by clicking the buttons they know where are (people memorize locations). Objectively speaking 2007+ might be simpler to use, but for these people it will just be something new they have to learn how to use. It's perfectly understandable.

[dcoaster]

how ironic :rolleyes:

Please tell us how real world usage stats are more ironic than utopian usage stats...

[SMELTN]

wow it actually looks really nice.

How is the functionality?

Only thing I don't like is Microsoft now seems to be cluttering the hell out of the toolbars.

[Calum Veteran]

Well, you have to look at the other side of things too. 2007 (and 2010) are so radically different that they require huge investments in retraining of both users and support staff. Does the corporate world that has to spend millions doing this appreciate it? I don't know.

I kept those situations in mind when I made my post. I did say that as long as the person recognises the benefits of the updated interface then I can understand if they dislike the interface or do not wish to upgrade.

The benefits of Word 2007's interface over Word 2003's interface are much greater than the benefits of Word 2003's interface over Word 2007's interface. However, a major benefit of Word 2003 was that everyone was used to it - there is no need to 'waste' money re-training people.

Some people don't want to learn how things work, they just want to do the job they've always done by clicking the buttons they know where are (people memorize locations). Objectively speaking 2007+ might be simpler to use, but for these people it will just be something new they have to learn how to use. It's perfectly understandable.

The thing I can't seem to fathom, in both this reply and my reply to the quote above, is - why do people need re-training? Why do people have to learn how things work when a new interface arrives? I'm not the most intelligent person, but I am still intelligent and it took me less than 20 minutes to have a good look around both Word 2007 and Excel 2007, when I first got them, and figure out where all the options I often use were. That's it - 20 minutes to get used to a new user interface. It took me less time to get used to the new Facebook. So, I ask again, why do people need re-training on how to use Microsoft Excel 2007 when they have been used to using Microsoft Excel 2003?

I can answer my own question and it is because of a few reasons -

Firstly, a lot of people out there do not use their eyes and look around properly. If you move your mouse around the user interface and click on anything which is clickable (reading tooltips in order to see what the button does first of course), surely you will easily be able to find out where all the options are and you'll know for future use then. This doesn't take long and shouldn't cost much, if any, money to a company.

Secondly, a lot of people are just generally not as intelligent as some people and therefore their ability to adapt to new user interfaces is not that good. As far as I know, this group is in the minority and the majority fall under the group above.

So, the way I see it is why should people like us be disadvantaged just because the minority of people cannot adapt to changes and improvements in software? As long as the company continually improves the software and isn't afraid to change things around (as long as these 'things' improve the software), then I am happy. It doesn't matter to me if a business deems it not feasible to upgrade - as long as I, as a home user, can upgrade, I will be happy. However, it won't stop me being annoyed at the people who can't see benefits when these benefits are staring them straight in the face.

On a note about Outlook 2010 - for the first time, I'm really considering using Outlook over Windows Live Mail. It looks fantastic and the ribbon would be very useful in such an application. Clicking on 'Calendar' allows the 'Home' tab to display calendar-related task, clicking on 'Mail' allows the 'Home' tab to change to email-related task... I like it! The interface also looks nice.

The only problem is, I imagine the Windows Live integration and presence will still be much greater in Windows Live Mail than it is in Outlook :/ After seeing Outlook 2010 screenshots, I wish Microsoft would just stick with developing Outlook as their only email client and allow users to use it for free - that would also entice users to use other Office applications (Unless, Outlook is the most popular Office application? If so, my suggestion would be a bad business decision).

Edited May 17, 2009 by Calum