Talk:Microsoft Office 2007

message: Does anyone have any news on a release date for Service Pack 3 for Office 2007?
81.131.149.102 (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK! Yes! Kiel Yan da Silva Alves (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Service Pack 3 

message: I feel it would be a good idea to give more attention to the ability to customise the ribbon, primarily the 'classic' menus of Office 2003 option. Many long term users of Office both power and occasional are upset with the ribbon interface and would welcome the ability to continue using an interface they're already familiar with.  The section briefly mentions that third party add-ons to do this are available for office 2007, but goes no further in explaining how these can be obtained or how well they work.
I'm suggesting this as a seasoned Office user (or newcomer who simply does not like the interface) may visit this article in hopes of finding this solution, and as the article currently stands it is not immediately apparent that said solution is available.
I personally am a fan of the ribbon interface, though more customisation would be nice.
: Mike (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ribbon; Customisation and 'Classic' Menus 

message: I added a link to a product that allows replacement of the Ribbon with the old menu interface because this seems like something a lot of people would want. I'm not affiliated with the company that makes the product.  -FoxMajik (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Justification for link to commercial product 

message: Umm, I downloaded the beta2 and now, the default page setting is is now that there is a paragraph break after each paragraph and the line setting is set to multiple so each time I have to change it to single space and change it so there isn't spaces between the paragraph-a big pain! Can you change the default setting, anyone? Signor Pastrini 02:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be in the paragraphs dialog box. --soumসৌমোyasch 05:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Help?

message: Could somebody please create an infobox at the top of the page with a screenshot from  this page? Also does anybody know the release date? Djone2121 07:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and added the screenshot from the link, thanks! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 18:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: We just can't add stuff from the preview site though. We need to paraphrase some of it at least... otherwise we have a copyright violation on our hands... as for the images I'd hesitate to include any more because of copyright issues... maybe I can crop them though.... Ryan Norton T | @ | C 07:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, will start paraphrasing. Do you want to do it or me? or we can both do some if you want. I'm not to familiar with the copyright stuff... I thought it would be ok as long as I put in the quotation marks and cited my source.
Would it be useful to state somewhere that when Microsoft questioned what users wanted from the next version of office that 9 out of 10 people questioned answered with a feature that already existed? This led Microsoft to realize that the power of Office is somewhat lost inside its confusing layouts and menus, which led to this versions new design. Hamdev Guru 22:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I think that would be very useful :) --Wulf 19:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: Sounds like a public relations message to me. It can't be definitely stated that it "will present a streamlined, uncluttered workspace that minimizes distraction and enables people to achieve the results they want more quickly and easily," as few people have used it yet. Maybe this is the intended outcome, but it sounds pretty assertive.
Anyone else notice the pinstripes, brushed metal titlebar, and Aqua-y toolbar buttons?
:Yea - I fixed that part. For the most part though - the rest of the article are direct quotations so its obvious they are PR. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 19:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I created this article. All the stuff under Whats New is direct quotations off the Microsoft Office 12 Preview site. Yeah its a load of PR, but its the only information around at the moment. Does anyone have a (estimated) release date yet? Djone2121 07:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Wasn't it going to be released concurrently with Windows Vista? Ryan Norton T | @ | C 07:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  PR? 

message: Has it been confirmed that FrontPage is being renamed SharePoint Designer? If so, please cite your source. Or did the author get confused and believed that Windows SharePoint Services (which is a separate software in itself) was the new incarnation of FrontPage?Viltris 23:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FrontPage has indeed "gone away" in Office 2007 -- they've gone so far as to say that it won't be supported after June 2008.  It's being replaced with two tools: Microsoft Office SharePoint Designer 2007 which is descended from FrontPage, but focuses more towards intranets.  And, Expression Web Designer is Microsoft's new "web design" tool for world-facing web sites, focusing more on design and web standards and all that. Source: Microsoft PressPass.Warrens 08:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SharePoint Designer 

message: Okay, we've got an interesting conundrum... Microsoft is at times referring to the entire Office line of products as "2007 Microsoft Office System", but individual Office suites are called, e.g., "Microsoft Office Professional 2007". I've renamed the page "Microsoft Office 2007", reflecting the latter usage, because it's the more well-known naming scheme (who really refers to it as "Office System" anyhow?) ... *sigh* Microsoft and their "special" naming schemes. :-)  Warrens 08:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The official name is "2007 Microsoft Office System". So what should be done with the title of the article? --soUmyaSch 08:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page name 

message: Microsoft Office Word 2007 is the first document editor without pull-down menus since the heydays of menu-less WordPerfect for DOS and Lotus 123.
But the menu-less ui is consistent across most of Office 2k7. So why just Word? Either Office 2k7 be mentioned, or the entire line be pulled out. --soUmyaSch 08:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it does mention the entire suite; it merely offers Word as an example.  Like saying "NASCAR is extremely popular; driver Jeff Gordon attracts thousands of fans..."  ---B- 09:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That whole section bugs me since it's little more than a copyvio plus that sentence you mentioned.  As for the sentence itself, BSchorr is right; it's an example.  Explicitly characterising it as such is probably the right way to go. Warrens 10:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost the entire description of new features (Ribbon, c.tabs, galleries et al) are just direct quotations with next to none explanation. It needs some rework. --soUmyaSch 14:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's tackle that when Office Beta 2 comes out and reaches a wider audience, so we can at the very least provide our own screenshots instead of copping shots from MS employees. Warrens 22:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Meanwhile, I am starting work on the text. But as I am on a vacation (till 23rd), I cannot be swift.--soUmyaSch 03:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First doc editor without menu 

message: The UI section of the article is more or less a replica of this article, with the same structure and offers just quotations. There is no need of the "Design goals" section, it is merged into the lead and the UI section. I am initiating a re-write, starting with the "Ribbon", which I will expand in the coming days. Please chip in, and also help with the other subsections of the UI section. See the "To Do" list. --soUmyaSch 10:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Copyrighted text 

message: Those prices in the table in the article is ?? Dollars? What kind of dollars are they? You should relize that Wikipedia is viewed by the whole world and not USA. By the way prices are unnecessary in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winxptwker (talk • contribs) 
I added the prices because I felt that it reflects an important peice of information about this product. Wikipedia is a new breed of encyclopedia.  I also changed it to reflect they are US$ I thought, maybe wrongly, that $ was almost universally refered to as US$ unless otherwise noted.  Sir hugo 13:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Editions 

message: Why is Visio included on the list? I don't think visio 2007 is included in the software in any edition.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.206.28 (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not. Visio and Project are classed as part of the Office family but are purchased as separate products and not included as part of any available edition of Office.
81.131.149.102 (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Visio 

message: Well, the article has changed quite a lot in the last few days. Now we need a feedback. Please comment on the article. --soUmyaSch 16:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: What is an upgrade? Is it from MO 2003 or from a "more basic" version of MO.
Aleksei 10:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Upgrade?

message: The known list of most-needed topics are now covered. Cheers to all who helped get this done. --soUmyaSch 06:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Done!!! 

message: "Microsoft Office Excel 2007.png" actually shows a screenshot of Excel 2010 (28 April 2010).
Looks like to me that the pictures are starting to overtake the article. Shouldn't the Office Application screenshots be in a gallery at the bottom? Winxptwker 04:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't feel that way. They are just to the right of the respective application, thus making it easier to relate to what is being talked about. --soUmyaSch 06:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And from now the article can only grow in text (barring a screenshot of project, which i cant provide as i have no plans to install it), further diluting the effect of the images. --soUmyaSch 12:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: Not really a very important issue at all, but it seems like all the screenshots of the new UI that we have are with the black color scheme. Given that the default color scheme on most computers is blue, should we not have at least some shots in the blue scheme for accurate representation? rdude 07:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that really matter? Its takes, what, around 5 clicks to switch. --soUmyaSch 07:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, of course. No, it doesn't really matter. Especially given that this is a beta and for all we know by release the default scheme will be chartreuse. rdude 16:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, a much better color scheme would be thistle. --soum সyasch 17:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, I thought of taking offence on your sarcasm, but later decided against. :-) --soum সyasch 17:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't take offense at my words. Sorry if they sound offending. They are not meant to be so. --soumসৌমোyasch 19:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I wasn't trying to be sarcastic. Sorry if I came across that way. rdude 01:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black vs. blue screenshots 

message: Sorry for the person who thought this was a GA but it doesn't satisfy the Stability criteria. Re-nominate it once the product is on the market (that means 2007). Lincher 17:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Product is on the market now, for business. It will be available January 29, 2007 for consumers. Please re-nominate it now.--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 10:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FAiled GA

message: Possibly the most important point for me is missing; that Office 2007 requires Windows XP. If this is strictly true, then this is going to affect a large number of corporate users, small business users, and I am assuming some non-Windows users. --Adx 01:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Non-windows users? When did any windows version of office work on anything but windows? And Mac versions on non-Mac systems? Office 2007 is windows only. The system requirements can be viewed here. --soumসৌমোyasch 05:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing Wine users might be affected. Definitely it will be NT only. I don't think this should be a suprised to anyone (was 2003 even 9x/ME compatible?). I'm surprised they did not decide to support W2K, but I guess this is MS... Nil Einne 13:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Wine is not officially supported by MS it would be foolish to expect MS to make their product Wine compatible. But if Wine can successfully emulate XPSP2 and higher, it should run fine. --soumসৌমোyasch 13:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, more to the point, there are a lot of people out there still running Win2K and even Windows 98 and Windows 95. I came to this page specifically because I wanted to know if Office2007 would run under Windows2000 (for some documentation I'm reviewing)... Aliza250 23:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think even 2003 ran under Win 9x (though the largely similar 2000 was perfectly happy with it, of course)... but I'll echo that concern about there still being quite a well-established Win2k user base. It's probably a considerable thorn in microsoft's side that their operating systems have a good 10-year or more lifespan "in the wild", but it's something that they really shouldn't ignore. 2k is still a perfectly good OS (worlds apart from 98... though i appreciated its lean-ness and immediacy, particularly with Task Manager halting all other processes by default, I don't much miss the rest of it), apart from being a bit graphically stark I haven't found anything significant it can't do on the machines I've found it running on, compared to XP and Vista which basically just add fluff. I doubt anyone still on 9x, particularly 95, will be buying a new copy of Office any more, or too bothered whether they can edit equations imported from 2007 via a converter :) 77.102.101.220 (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The last version of Office to support Windows 95/98 was Office 2000. 98SE/ME was Office XP (2002). Windows 2000 was Office 2003.Office 2007's minimum requirement is Windows XP with Service Pack 2. Office 2010 will require Windows XP with Service Pack 3.
81.131.149.102 (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  System requirements 

message: :Supported blogging sites include MSN Spaces, SharePoint, Blogger, Community Server etc. 
The etc to me implies most blog sites are supported. If this is true, it'll be far better to say Most blogging sites are support such as... or something similar. Nil Einne 13:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not all blog servers are supported. But the major ones are. But, since only these blogging systems are known to be supported, its better not to write anyting original by infering from the "etc". See this blog for more info. --soumসৌমোyasch 14:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etc 

message: Can anyone dig up a cite for this? --soumসৌমোyasch 07:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bonus Pack? 

message: Could someone please make a userbox for MS Office 2007?
Thanks
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.203.133 (talk • contribs) 
: The closest is , or you could make your own, eg ("edit" for source):
: --h2g2bob 14:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the icon should use the Office 2007 icon and the text shouldn't say contributes using, but uses. --soumসৌমোyasch 10:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Changed text to "is using" ("this user uses" looked a little odd). It's quite easy to set the text to whatever you want though. The logo, however, is more difficult. I don't know if using the (copyrighted) official logo would qualify as fair use, so it's probably best not to use the official logo (see Wikipedia:Logos for details on where you can and can't use logos). --h2g2bob 19:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't use fair use images  in userspace (Wikipedia:User page). Harryboyles 08:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox? 

message: The 'Get the beta' links and others seem to be redirecting to the 'Test-drive' page on the new look Office site. Apparently, on the UK page :
Announcement: We are thrilled with the incredible excitement around the upcoming 2007 Microsoft Office system as evident by nearly 3 million people using the beta 2 since its release at the end of May. Having exceeded our beta 2 participation quota we have had to make the business decision to implement a cost recovery measure for future downloads of Beta 2. We continue to offer the 2007 Office System Beta 2 orderable by mail or you may Take the Test Drive.
Now the 'mail' option also redirects to the test-drive feature. It seems that Microsoft have stopped distributing the Beta version. If anyone else is going through the same thing, change the article! --TheTallOne 16:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because it's RTMed? 09:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried it two days before it reached RTM build. Also the direct download link that I got when downloading the first time now asks for authentication. It seems most likely that it has been taken down as it is being RTMed. I read somewhere yesterday that MS will release a thirty day trial version in December. Can't find that again. --soumসৌমোyasch 10:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beta 2 seems to have been taken down 

message: Has Office 2007 been taken out of BETA? The reason I ask is that the template has been removed. 82.47.147.66 13:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has reached RTM status, i.e., it has been released to manufacturing. MS is currently manufacturing and packing them, while OEM vendors have gotten their copies to test compatibility etc. But it is still not yet available in retail. --soumসৌমোyasch 14:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BETA 

message: I've been trying to update all the Microsoft Office articles. Quite a lot of them still refer to 2003 as being the latest release. In addition, the screenshots are all wrong. Some don't use office 2007 screenshots and those that do are using shots of the apps when they were in beta. To help all my fellow editors out, I have compiled a bunch of screenshots of various office apps with more on the way. Access the project page here:
User:Wiki_fanatic/Office_2007_Screenshots_Project. Please feel free to leave comments or suggestion or request for a screenshot of an app not yet posted.--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 10:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Office 2007 Screenshot Project 

message: I have removed Microsoft Office Suite Comparison. I dont feel it is contributing anything to article. I have also added the link to http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/suites/FX101635841033.aspx page. Please dont add it again. If you feel it is contributing anything to the page. Please add it here. Thank You. --SkyWalker 15:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Microsoft Office Suite Comparison.  

message: :::I never said the phrase was used, I used it as an exaggerated metaphor, to get my point through. Anyways, back to the criticism added, for every (well, almost) source claiming the new UI is a mess, another reliable source can be provided which praises the same things. So, it is extremely subjective. For neutrality, either this subjective nature and refutes should be mentioned in the article or we should not tread the muddy waters here. Also, "The change in the interface strikes me as a change for change's sake" cannot be used as a ground for adding criticisms, because MS has made the reasons for making the change clear: to make the features more discoverable. (Hang on, where has the quote gone from the article?). For features you know about, this doesn't make much difference, as almost anyone but newbies uses keyboadrd accelerators. But for which you don't know, it does help as the new organization is more intuitive (the intuition is the subjective part :-P ).
::::Makes the features 'more' discoverable? Are you having a laugh? On my first tryout with it (thrown in at the deep end) I found all sorts of things I hardly knew existed and would have trouble finding a use for, but had terrible difficulty finding certain otherwise simple adjustments that I needed to make (line spacing and margins i think it was)... stuff that previously was a couple of clicks or an "Alt-O, P, tab tab 1.3 enter" away. Keyboard shortcuts only work if there's something there for them to shortcut to - and how's a newbie supposed to learn them now anyway, without the menus & their underlined-letter headings/entries being there? 77.102.101.220 (talk) 01:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Btw, there is an add-in that recreates the menu bar and the formatting and the other toolbar in a separate ribbon tab.--soum talk 12:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Secn break for easier editing

message: If you would delete all the advertising from this article, it would be shortened to two paragraphs. Wikipedia sure is a nice marketing platform for the big companies... Guest Account 09:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A list style (rather than summary style) listing of new features is hardly advertising. But, yes, it lacks a section or two on critical and mass reception. Please help adding them if you can. --soum (0_o) 16:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much advertising 

message: Do we really need pictures of the box for each edition? The boxes are almost identical, with just one word and the color of a small band changing. It makes the table long and makes scrolling necessary.
It would be far better to replace these pictures with the most important information: what programs are in each package. That is by far the #1 thing to know about the editions.
Any objections to me removing the box pictures and replacing them with lists of the programs included?
--Crocodile Punter 16:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With no objections, I went ahead and made the change --Crocodile Punter 06:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why have you deleted the pics?. I will be restoring the old article back. --SkyWalker 18:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editions and pricing 

message: what does that mean.--24.109.218.172 21:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a link to Volume license key. Hopefully that should explain it. Harryboyles 10:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volume License only 

message: I have been using office 07 for a few days now, I think that the intro to the topic in the article should contain the information that office 07 in normal mode is not backward compatible, ie, documents saved in .docx format (which is the default save mode)  cannot be opened by office 03 or other office suites. --LegalEagle 02:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DOCS plugin for older Office versions has been made available. --soum (0_o) 03:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it is true that the plugin allows earlier versions of office to be .docx compatible, but I still feel that the issue of backward incompatibility in default mode should be highlighted in the intro. Personally I faced a lot of problems in the first couple of days when documents prepared in office 07 couldn't be opened by other suites, I visited wiki just to checkup and I had to scroll to the 'file format' to find that microsoft has brought this new type of formatting. It would be a lot of help if this info could be compressed to a line and put at the top. --LegalEagle 08:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Compatibility issue

message: I think the Mac version should be moved out into its own article. Sure it might be a descendant of the same code base (in a lot of parts) but it is not Office 2007. It has many things different from the Windows version, and for things that are common, we can anytime link to this as the main article. --soum (0_o) 08:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mac version 

message: Hello everybody 
I just wanted to let you know if this article will show the system requirements.
Also if there are any criticism about the product, I heard that this product haves bloatware problem and also that its speech recognition is a rip-off, saw this on YOUTUBE :P
Please correct me if I’m wrong.
--SGTEdwards ~~ Tuesday, July 10 2007,  4:40 pm, GMT -8~~
:If you can attribute the claims to reliable sources (not blogs, forums or other user generated sources; YouTube is not a reliable source), feel free to add them. As for speech recognition, its in there since Office XP. It only enhanced what it inherited from its predecessor. So, if they were not rip-offs, how can this be? --soum talk 06:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to show System Requirements, also any Criticism to list on the Article? 

message: While commonly known unofficially as the ribbon, it is actually called the Microsoft Office Fluent User Interface. I recommend changing all references of "ribbon" to "Fluent User Interface" at least, while mentioning somewhere that the it is unofficially referred to as the ribbon. Danj205 13:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of user interface 

message: I can see that the ’97–03 program is different from the ’07 program, but how do the actual files differ aside from the file extensions? For example, I have been saving Word documents as ’97–03 files instead of ’07 files because the compatibility mode looks exactly the same as the regular mode, and the files can thus be compatible with most other computers (’97–03 is much more common than ’07). Is there a difference between the two besides ’07 documents lacking backwards compatibility, or am I missing something? If not, then what's the point of saving as an ’07 document? — Quin 04:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have noticed that when saving in the 2007 .docx format, the file size is considerably smaller.Dvferret (talk) 01:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

text: See Office Open XML -- simxp (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

text: The old .doc files stores information in a binary format. A binary format is advantageous when you want to save and load files quickly on old slow computers, but the downsides is that it's very difficult to work with and error prone. Docx is basically an ordinary Zip file with a human readable version of the document stored in it. Binary formats are generally smaller than a human readable format, but the Zip compression gives docx the file size advantage.--Anss123 (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Until the file is damaged in some way, that is - whereupon you're TOTALLY stuffed, compared to the old .DOC format where the formatting marks were binary, but the actual content was plaintext, so you could extract it, drop it into a new document, reapply the formats and be back on track. Saving it all as human-readable XML is fine and dandy, and lets you edit it in notepad if you want to (really, what the hell is the point? you're going to be opening it in word. this isn't 1992, we're not using ProText any more, FFS), but then adding the Zip compression on top is just asking for trouble. Word files never were particularly huge, save for some poorly conceived local council job applications I've previously downloaded (with huge images in - which Zip wouldn't help with anyway), and you could Zip them yourself if you wanted. Problem is, a damaged Zip file is not recoverable in any way, and the entire contents are now binary garbage that you have no chance of reconstructing - far more so, actually, than the old format. 77.102.101.220 (talk) 01:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. ZIP is a long-established format and I would say all available archive software applications (WinZip, WinRAR, PowerArchiver, IZArc, 7-Zip, etc.) can repair them (look on the Actions or Tools menu). The Office 2007 formats, .docx, .xlsx and .pptx, are just ZIP files with an internal structure. Simply rename the extension on any file to ZIP and open it with your installed ZIP-handling software to see the internal contents -- and to repair the file.  Once repaired just rename back to the original extension.
81.131.149.102 (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences between files 

message: :Image:Office07homestu.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 22:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Office07homestu.png

message: Maybe I'm missing something, but shouldn't the different editions list what they contain, ie Basic-Word, Excel; Home and Student-Word, Excel, powerPoint? (These are not correct, just examples) It seems as if we are going to list them the table should show what apps each contains. --tennisman 16:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you.  They do need to be added.  Providing an external link to comparisons should not and does not count.  Is anyone willing to update the table? Dvferret (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editions 

message: The top of the infobox says 2003. Any particular reasons? Kushalt 15:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was vandalism, and has been fixed.  Now, feel free to speculate as to how this particular piece of vandalism could have originated from a Microsoft-owned IP address..... utterly baffling.  -/- Warren 22:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2003? 

message: :Image:Databar.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Databar.PNG

message: PowerPoint 2007 no longer supports "hatching patterns" (I'm not sure about the correct word, how is it called in the previous versions?). Should that be mentioned? --Abe Lincoln (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The list of application-specific changes at the moment is at the moment couched in quite general, compact terms (e.g. "Improvements to text rendering") rather than being a list of every small change, in order to keep the size manageable.  There certainly isn't room to mention every single thing added or removed, and hatching does seem a rather trivial one. On the other hand, if you can find a reliable source or two which claim that the removal is significant, by all means go ahead and add it.  -- simxp (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a bit of an odd thing to remove, but it was somewhat anachronistic, unless you were wanting to use it for some certain effect... more a hang-over from when most PCs were VGA 16- or 256-colour, and the office apps themselves only supported 16 (or in some cases, a limited 'extended' palette of about 40) colours, with this being your only way of producing a multi-colour effect. A lot of them actually reminded me of patterns available in a paint package on my late-80s Atari ST, so they've probably been 'inspired' by some even earlier program. Still, why bother to remove them if they may still be usable, or allow back-compatibility?77.102.101.220 (talk) 01:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  PowerPoint without hatching 

message: One of the most interesting information I have not found in internet is how many computers one can install office 2007 for each version  .
Any of you know it?
:Home and Student edition allows for installation on up to three computers (presumably in one household).  All other retail editions allow for installation on one main computer and one portable/laptop.  OEM editions allow for installation on one computer only.  -- simxp (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put it in as an additional column in the Product Editions section. -- simxp (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many computers per licence? 

message: I'd like to propose merging Structured data interchange here. Structured data interchange doesn't seem notable enough for a standalone article, so hopefully someone can add a sentence or two about it here to explain its importance withing Office 2007. --Rividian (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have serious doubts about its authenticity. I am AFDing it.--soum talk 17:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That'll work too... I'm just trying to deal with stuff that's had maintenence tags for ages. --Rividian (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge Structured data interchange 

message: I'm reverting the removal.  The "Blue Edition" is neither spam nor speculation.  It's popped up on numerous blogs, MSDN and Microsoft forums, not to mention countless torrent sites.  I came across it in my search for info on the Enterprise Edition.  And the Blue Edition is ubiquitous enough that looking for Enterprise lead quickly to its discovery.  The Blue Edition is not a speculation, because it does exist.  What is in doubt is its legitimacy.  I think it deserves a mention here and I hope someone would provide better sources later. o (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Blue Edition" 

message: The image :Image:GrooveSShot.PNG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
The following images also have this problem:
*:Image:Sharepoint Designer.png
*:      Image:Office Publisher 2007.png
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, it is quite badly worded.  Be Bold and fix it yourself! -- simxp (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:GrooveSShot.PNG

message: I know this isn't mention elsewhere but the interface is strikingly similar to that of Creative Writer 2.  — Dispenser 18:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creative Writer 2 

message: I suggest Chapter 4 (...Specific Changes) be removed or placed into a new page, as the page is too long already220.255.7.231 (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say it's borderline. See WP:SIZE. As I recall, that section was merged into the article a while ago, from a separate article on Changes in Microsoft Office 2007. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 21:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page is too long 

message: Whoever wrote "In Microsoft Office 2007, the Office Assistants have been eliminated because of the much-improved help system." is being overly considerate. It was eliminated because practically  no one liked or used that worthless piece of annoying, useless software, period. --AVM (talk) 03:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The original phrasing is a bad way of putting it. The OA has been removed and the help system is greatly improved - the events may not be related. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Office Assistants eliminated 

message: Microsoft FrontPage has been removed from the Office suite entirely. It has been replaced by Microsoft Office SharePoint Designer, which is aimed towards development of SharePoint portals. Its designer-oriented counterpart Microsoft Expression Web is targeted for general web development. However, neither application is included in any of the Office suites.
Speech recognition and handwriting recognition are now part of Windows Vista. Speech and ink components have been removed from Office 2007 Handwriting and speech recognition work with Office 2007 only on Windows Vista or Windows XP Tablet PC Edition. However, XP users can use an earlier version of Office to use speech recognition.
Shouldn't this be moved into another section or in the Features area? I don't believe this qualifies for being in the top paragraph describing the application. They may be notable changes, but so are alot of other changes to Office 2007. --TylerM89 (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top paragraph / Removed features 

message: Has Microsoft published and news of a new version, like Office 7?
78.86.128.37 (talk) 11:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Office 2010 Earthsound (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Version 

message: Quote from the blog entry source - "Gunderloy, an Evansville, Ind.-based freelance developer for the past quarter century, goes way back with Microsoft. I was never a full-time employee, but have several times been a contractor with a badge and [Redmond] campus access, he says."  Removing misleading references to this contractor.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.155.128 (talk) 04:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. Please sign your message next time. Fleet Command (talk) 10:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gunderloy was an independent contractor, not a Microsoft employee 

message: Isn't much of the criticism section out of date, and in the wrong tense (though can be left for historical purposes)?  Especially about file corruption and format acceptance.  AOffice 2007 has been out for a long time.. many organizations have finally embraced it.  Service packs have fixed most errors..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.98.14.252 (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think there are issue that are now mitigated, please provide source. And please do not forget to sign your comments with ~~~~. Fleet Command (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism out of date 

message: hi there, while that "Mike Gunderloy on Access Perfection - The Daily WTF" reference is a nice read, I guess it has nothing to do with either Office 2007 or the issue of the Ribbon patent, so I would remove that reference  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.212.109.174 (talk) 09:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fleet Command (talk) 10:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary reference 

message: TorrentFreak's September 27 2013 article "Microsoft Wants Google to Censor Its Wikipedia Page" notes that a Microsoft vendor, LeakID sent a remove request to Google on behalf of Microsoft to request that Google "takedown" Wikipedia's Microsoft Office 2007 page due to copyright issues. From Microsoft's perspective, this appears to have been a mistake by vendor LeakID. In any event, please give the article a once over to ensure that no copyright or other significant issues exist. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: clerical error seems to be the likely explanation.  The report used undue focus to point out 1-2 items of about 600.  As usual of course, there may still be cut/paste problems as you've noted  TEDickey (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. I agree with this assessment, given the fact that there is an msdn.microsoft.com link in the takedown notice. Definitely WP:UNDUE. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Take down

message: I see nothing in the main article that defines what the academic version is for and if any qualifiers exist and how they are tested
Thanks  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.129.167.122 (talk) 05:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic versions 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Microsoft Office 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071204023654/http://www.tabletquestions.com:80/microsoft-office/34696-no-speech-recognition-office-2007-a.html to http://www.tabletquestions.com/microsoft-office/34696-no-speech-recognition-office-2007-a.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100824161716/http://www.doe.in.gov/octe/bme/curriculum/docs/SpeechRemovedFromOffice2007.pdf to http://www.doe.in.gov/octe/bme/curriculum/docs/SpeechRemovedFromOffice2007.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Microsoft Office 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc179219.aspx
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/products/ha101679411033.aspx
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/suites/FX101674061033.aspx
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/products/FX101635841033.aspx
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/help/use-the-ribbon-instead-of-toolbars-and-menus-HA010089895.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080305033418/http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/help/HA100898951033.aspx to http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/help/HA100898951033.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100604010028/http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/training/HA102295841033.aspx to http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/training/HA102295841033.aspx
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.afreshcup.com/2006/12/9/what-s-going-on-here
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Microsoft Office 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060703181937/http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/office2007_beta2.asp to http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/office2007_beta2.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130119084027/http://www.odfalliance.org/blog/index.php/site/microsofts_odf_support_falls_short/ to http://www.odfalliance.org/blog/index.php/site/microsofts_odf_support_falls_short/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090611181719/http://www.odfalliance.org/resources/fact-sheet-Microsoft-ODF-support.pdf to http://www.odfalliance.org/resources/fact-sheet-Microsoft-ODF-support.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090509084924/http://homembit.com/2009/05/microsoft-now-attempt-to-fragment-odf.html to http://homembit.com/2009/05/microsoft-now-attempt-to-fragment-odf.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071212110659/http://redmondmag.com/features/article.asp?EditorialsID=2346 to http://redmondmag.com/features/article.asp?editorialsid=2346
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130311110700/http://www.inera.com/word2007docx.shtml to http://www.inera.com/word2007docx.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: You motherfucking 🐶🐕 🤬😡🤬😡🤬😡🤬
Make a tabular comparision Kkshksh (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where the fuck is the comparision