Cheap options for MS Office?

[Insert_Nickname]

Which is all well and good, but a prospective employer quite frankly doesn't care. They care that it didn't open properly and looks like a mess, then they tossed in the garbage.

We're not talking about an apocalypse situation where we need to rebuild a file based on the documented standard, but an everyday business situation.

In my case office is for personal, not commercial use. In a business situation, I agree.

BTW using 2013 at work, and I really dislike the flat UI.

Then buy the one-PC version of Office 365 for $6 a month instead, the break even point is 3.2 years.

If you're going to buy a new copy of MS Office within 3.2 years, you saved money by going with O365 instead. If you're not going to buy a new copy of MS Office within 3.2 years, put the difference in cash that you didnt spend upfront in an interest bearing investment account of your choice and it will make more money (on average, subject to the markets, blah blah blah) per month than the $6 you're spending on O365. Hooray retirement savings!

If they release a new version of Office within that 3.2 years, you get to upgrade for free, which if you wanted to otherwise upgrade that would be a brand new $230 license (pushing the retail cost up to $460).

Whereas a retail copy is just a flat $230 hole in your pocket, paid up front.

Are there cases where buying a retail copy is the right choice? Sure, but it's maybe 1% of all situations where O365 truly isn't a flat out better choice from both a features and a cost perspective.

Not to mention that more than likely 2016 will be the last retail version of Office they sell, instead going to a full subscription model *only* selling O365.

You didn't see the first part of my post apparently. I'm running an older office version because, quite frankly, for what I'm using it for there is zero incentive to upgrade. I got 10+ years out of 2K, and since Win10 supports Office 2010 just fine, I'm properly looking at 2025'ish before I really need to upgrade.

Besides, even at $6 a month, we're still talking an additional $490 compared to a retail licence over a 10 year period. I'll not even go into the numbers if 2010 lasts me 15 years.

 

[Mushkins]

In my case office is for personal, not commercial use. In a business situation, I agree.

BTW using 2013 at work, and I really dislike the flat UI.



You didn't see the first part of my post apparently. I'm running an older office version because, quite frankly, for what I'm using it for there is zero incentive to upgrade. I got 10+ years out of 2K, and since Win10 supports Office 2010 just fine, I'm properly looking at 2025'ish before I really need to upgrade.

Besides, even at $6 a month, we're still talking an additional $490 compared to a retail licence over a 10 year period. I'll not even go into the numbers if 2010 lasts me 15 years.

I didn't miss the first part of your post, you just illustrated an outlier situation that isn't the norm. Office 2010 has already left mainstream support, and Extended support ends in 2020. If you want to run the software when it is no longer supported and vulnerable to security threats that will not be patched that's your risk to take, but it's certainly not recommended.

You did seem to miss the part of my post that detailed how if you invested the difference in price, you'd make more than $490 over a 10 year period, you would actually make money by going with the subscription service.

Most people don't expect to be using the same software or even the same PC 10 years from now, technology changes way too fast for that. Most people also have more than one device these days. You have a family? O365 is a no-brainer over retail licensing.

Though honestly, I don't know why you're arguing this so hard. If you're one of those 1% fringe cases where buying retail makes sense then by all mean buy retail. But the OP specifically said that budget was very tight and is looking for a way to not spend $230 on an office license upfront. Office 365 is bar none the best solution for his need for the first three years of owning that device, potentially more if there are other devices involved. It's kind of moot for us to start a cost/benefit on his finances beyond that as it's none of our business.

 

[quikah]

Tell her to check with her employer if they have any discounts. You can get Office for $9.95 through the home use program if her employer has the right agreement with MS.

 

[Mike64]

She says wants Office on the computer. How do you do that on a $400 computer? I see about $150 to $180 as the cost of Office from the likes of Dell and HP.

How do you/does she feel about pirated software?:whiste: I hope I'm not contravening forum policy... [If so, mods, please be my guest and delete/edit the post.]


You are and I did.
admin allisolm

 

[Insert_Nickname]

I didn't miss the first part of your post, you just illustrated an outlier situation that isn't the norm. Office 2010 has already left mainstream support, and Extended support ends in 2020. If you want to run the software when it is no longer supported and vulnerable to security threats that will not be patched that's your risk to take, but it's certainly not recommended.

No worse then running other elderly software. Occasionally there is little choice in the matter too.

You did seem to miss the part of my post that detailed how if you invested the difference in price, you'd make more than $490 over a 10 year period, you would actually make money by going with the subscription service.

Riiight. So spending $720/$1200 over 10 years is cheaper then a one time charge of $230...

Besides, if I'm to invest the price difference right away, its still an out-of-pocket expense*.

*Since I'm not American I'm not sure if that's the correct term for what I mean.

Most people don't expect to be using the same software or even the same PC 10 years from now, technology changes way too fast for that. Most people also have more than one device these days. You have a family? O365 is a no-brainer over retail licensing.

Office 2010 retail licences are fully transferable to new machines. Its not like I'm using the same PC for 10 years. In fact, unlike 2013, you can even use the Home and Student version on 3 machines, if you're so inclined.

As it happens, I do have a family. Guess what they're using. Hint, its not MS Office.

For 99% of standard home usage, LibreOffice is plenty. And you can't really argue with the price...

Though honestly, I don't know why you're arguing this so hard. If you're one of those 1% fringe cases where buying retail makes sense then by all mean buy retail. But the OP specifically said that budget was very tight and is looking for a way to not spend $230 on an office license upfront. Office 365 is bar none the best solution for his need for the first three years of owning that device, potentially more if there are other devices involved. It's kind of moot for us to start a cost/benefit on his finances beyond that as it's none of our business.

Honestly, I'm not arguing hard. I'm just pointing out there are cases were retail licences make sense. No more and no less.

 

[Ketchup]

Talking about hanging onto software over for 10 years. Show of hands, who here is still running office '03?

While that would certainly be a cheap option for the OP, software that is free, or supports multiple machines (like Office 365) would probably end up being the way to go.

 

[destrekor]

Talking about hanging onto software over for 10 years. Show of hands, who here is still running office '03?

While that would certainly be a cheap option for the OP, software that is free, or supports multiple machines (like Office 365) would probably end up being the way to go.

We are a terrible sample for the average consumer.

Plenty, plenty of people use old versions of Office. Remember how few people upgraded from Windows XP? And how few will ever upgrade from Windows 7? They use software until their system dies or they replace it.

 

[K7SN]

Talking about hanging onto software over for 10 years. Show of hands, who here is still running office '03?

While that would certainly be a cheap option for the OP, software that is free, or supports multiple machines (like Office 365) would probably end up being the way to go.

Have an older office with Access on a test XP machine ,along also with Word Perfect which I preferred then, that only writes a up to 2003 but is older than that. Also have a Vista Machine, again for testing with 2003, A windows 7 machine with 2007 Office (no Access), and development machine with 2010 Office. I prefer the 2007 version of Excel and Word to newer versions but will have to get 2013 and 2016 to support Windows 10 when my customer comes up with the money.

There is very little you can't do with 2007 and unless you have lot's of data in Office 2003 is a rock solution version; Newer is NOT always that much better, just more expensive.

 

[Mushkins]

No worse then running other elderly software. Occasionally there is little choice in the matter too.



Riiight. So spending $720/$1200 over 10 years is cheaper then a one time charge of $230...

Besides, if I'm to invest the price difference right away, its still an out-of-pocket expense*.

*Since I'm not American I'm not sure if that's the correct term for what I mean.



Office 2010 retail licences are fully transferable to new machines. Its not like I'm using the same PC for 10 years. In fact, unlike 2013, you can even use the Home and Student version on 3 machines, if you're so inclined.

As it happens, I do have a family. Guess what they're using. Hint, its not MS Office.

For 99% of standard home usage, LibreOffice is plenty. And you can't really argue with the price...



Honestly, I'm not arguing hard. I'm just pointing out there are cases were retail licences make sense. No more and no less.

Dude, c'mon. Your nitpicking and arguing against points nobody made simply to be contrary. I don't know why you're doing it and frankly it doesn't matter, but you're not contributing to answering the OP's question of how to get Office for a more reasonable price on a shoestring budget.

Office 365 absolutely fits their needs. A retail license of Office does not.

 

[Mushkins]

We are a terrible sample for the average consumer.

Plenty, plenty of people use old versions of Office. Remember how few people upgraded from Windows XP? And how few will ever upgrade from Windows 7? They use software until their system dies or they replace it.

We're also supposed to be better informed, more security conscious, and not afraid of new technologies.

I can at least understand the people saying "why not use a free alternative" as there's legitimate points in favor of it, but seeing just how many people around here pushing that things like Windows XP and Office 2003/2007 are perfectly acceptable solutions for *anything* in December 2015 is just frustrating and saddening.

 

[Carson Dyle]

Talking about hanging onto software over for 10 years. Show of hands, who here is still running office '03?

While that would certainly be a cheap option for the OP, software that is free, or supports multiple machines (like Office 365) would probably end up being the way to go.

I am. I only really use Excel and occasionally Word. Never liked the UI of later versions of Office, so I ignore them.

Thanks for all the ideas, guys.

 

[destrekor]

We're also supposed to be better informed, more security conscious, and not afraid of new technologies.

I can at least understand the people saying "why not use a free alternative" as there's legitimate points in favor of it, but seeing just how many people around here pushing that things like Windows XP and Office 2003/2007 are perfectly acceptable solutions for *anything* in December 2015 is just frustrating and saddening.

Well to be fair, Office 2007 is still receiving security updates. Not sure if they still provide patches for Office 2010, but they definitely are for 2007.

As long as the product is still receiving security updates, it's not some mortal sin to continue to utilize it, even in our IT-focused community. In fact, the newer versions are more likely to have more security holes because they still have to find them and then patch them, whereas 2007 is a fully matured version, likely to have fewer remaining vulnerabilities.

 

[Ketchup]

I am. I only really use Excel and occasionally Word. Never liked the UI of later versions of Office, so I ignore them.

Thanks for all the ideas, guys.

You certainly started a thread that wasn't boring, ha ha. I do hope you found some helpful info buried in here.

 

[Puffnstuff]

With the newer versions of office you can turn off the quick start screen and start them just like the the older version with a blank document. This is what I do with my office 2013 and 2016 suites and 2010 doesn't offer it anyway.

 

[Mushkins]

Well to be fair, Office 2007 is still receiving security updates. Not sure if they still provide patches for Office 2010, but they definitely are for 2007.

As long as the product is still receiving security updates, it's not some mortal sin to continue to utilize it, even in our IT-focused community. In fact, the newer versions are more likely to have more security holes because they still have to find them and then patch them, whereas 2007 is a fully matured version, likely to have fewer remaining vulnerabilities.

If you want to be technical, IE9 is still in extended support for another month too. But I don't think you'll see anyone around here recommending its continued use until that date

Yes, Office 2007 is still officially receiving security patches, but it's a very low priority for Microsoft to continually audit it. Vulnerabilities could be in the wild for a very long time before they get patched. Why keep running it when there are more modern alternatives that serve the same function but are more secure by design *and* better maintained?

 

[destrekor]

If you want to be technical, IE9 is still in extended support for another month too. But I don't think you'll see anyone around here recommending its continued use until that date

Yes, Office 2007 is still officially receiving security patches, but it's a very low priority for Microsoft to continually audit it. Vulnerabilities could be in the wild for a very long time before they get patched. Why keep running it when there are more modern alternatives that serve the same function but are more secure by design *and* better maintained?

Again, I'm not arguing that one SHOULD, just that one COULD.

I am very much a believer in the most up to date software versions, which is why I have 2016 on Mac and when I can get 2016 for Windows discounted I'll get that. If I can however, as I'm not sure how that damn HUP works - once a year or once per version? I have 2013 on Windows from HUP and am satisfied with that but couldn't stand to actually buy Office for Mac 2011 using HUP.

But some people would rather maintain official compatibility and don't care to pay for a new version just yet. And I get that, I'd probably be in that camp too. Likely have Libre Office or something for everyday use, but keep the older Office around in order to ensure compatibility when working on any shared documents.

 

[accguy9009]

Which is all well and good, but a prospective employer quite frankly doesn't care. They care that it didn't open properly and looks like a mess, then they tossed in the garbage.

We're not talking about an apocalypse situation where we need to rebuild a file based on the documented standard, but an everyday business situation.

As stated earlier, she should have sent the resume in PDF format and comparability would have been assured.

 

[Fardringle]

Talking about hanging onto software over for 10 years. Show of hands, who here is still running office '03?.

I still use Office 2000 on my home computers because there is absolutely no reason for me to use anything else. It does everything that I need it to do (including opening newer Office files from other people using the Office Compatibility Pack) and I have enjoyed not spending a few hundred dollars on each computer every few years just to get a newer version that doesn't do anything for me.

Now, if I was buying new, then Office365 would probably be the best option since it can be installed on multiple computers with a single license.

 

[88keys]

If you need compatibility between office at work and home, I'd recommend picking up a used license of office from no earlier than 2007 off of eBay. Open office and othe freeware alternatives are nice but I've had a lot of compatibility issues getting documents to display correctly between them. Heck even Microsoft can't get that shit right between versions.... It's very annoying but that has gotten better since office 2007

 

[bruceb]

My old Dell is still using Office XP ... does everything I need, except Outlook won't send due to changes in the way email providers handle security now. But I do not use Outlook at home except to keep a record of my contacts (which are also in Yahoo and Gmail) ... If I needed to use Outlook I could install Office 2003 or 2007 both of which I have if I need to use them. One thing about the old version, is you need to manually get the calendar update files.

 

[palmfire]

I like using open office its free and works for me.

 

[DigDog]

LibreOffice is a free alternative.

same. 100% clone of office and occasionally even better. has every file extension option you might want, and it's a complete suite. everything is compatible with microsoft too.

 

[elitejp]

How do you/does she feel about pirated software?:whiste: I hope I'm not contravening forum policy... [If so, mods, please be my guest and delete/edit the post.]


You are and I did.
admin allisolm

Not much of an edit there

I use openoffice and the only times i ran into problems is when I saved it in odt format rather than office format and sent it to someone who only had office. And because its free I can try it out for no loss. They didnt put a virus on my computer nor did they start sending me spam mail. The point is if she doesnt like it then she can look into office. No need to go into what is better and why. Some people will need the Microsoft support, others will be totally fine with a free alternative. For me opensource is a wonderful option.

 

[nemesismk2]

same. 100% clone of office and occasionally even better. has every file extension option you might want, and it's a complete suite. everything is compatible with microsoft too.

i use libreoffice and it's excellent. it evens performs great with 2.8ghz amd cpu with only two cores.

 

[Mushkins]

As stated earlier, she should have sent the resume in PDF format and comparability would have been assured.

I 100% agree it's the best option, but it's not always an available one. Many job postings specify to send your resume in MS word format. Lots of online submissions will *only* let you upload a word doc too. We can argue that HR departments are doing it wrong until we're blue in the face, but that doesn't get your foot in the door when you're looking for work