back to article 'No Office 14 this year,' says Ballmer

Microsoft boss Steve Ballmer has confirmed that the company’s upcoming Office package, codenamed 14, won’t land in 2009. He told Wall Street analysts at Redmond’s annual “Strategic Update” briefing today that the Office suite “will not be [shipped] this year.” Just last month Microsoft spun out an Alpha version of the server …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Richard Porter
    Gates Horns

    So next decade?

    Er? 2010 is the last year of the current (201st) decade!

  2. andrew mulcock

    New office software ?


    most people don't even have office 2007 , they stay with previous incarnations, why change to offic 14 ?

  3. Dave
    Thumb Down


    Is anybody using Office 2007 yet?

  4. jason

    Do we really need another version almost every year?

    Its painful enough for firms to switch Office versions every 5+ years, most home users are happy with any version that will create a simple letter and spellcheck it.

    I still know plenty of folks on office97/2000. I bought office07 last year and had to 'retard it' as most other folks I know that use Office thought I was Buck Rodgers from the 25th Century.

    Does MS actually make any money on Office? Other then the home user copy I bought last year obviously.

  5. David Simpson
    Thumb Down

    Why ?

    Is there a special reason we need office 14 this year ?

    I dropped MS Office along time ago for Open Office, which is slightly limited but IBM's free Lotus Symphony has everything anyone could need with plenty of plug-ins.

  6. Qneiform

    "this decade"?

    Is it just me or is there a general groundswell of feeling to the effect that 2010 is actually in this decade? This would be correct if decades only get brought forward a year once you can start referring to them by reference to the number in the tens column (i.e. once you get to the twenties), so that in each century

    (i) the first decade is the years '01 to '10 and the second is the years '11 to '20, in accordance with the general principle that things that come in tens get numbered 1 to 10 rather than the bonkers "0 to 9" idea propounded by all those charmingly impatient people who celebrated the turn of the millennium a year early,

    (ii) the year ending 20 is both the last year of the second decade in accordance with (i) above and also the first year of the third decade (being the twenties), and

    (iii) the year ending 00 inhabits no decade at all because the last decade of the previous century was the nineties and the first decade of the centruy at hand comprises the years '01 to '10 in accordance with (i) above.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Jobs Horns

    Office 13

    Office 2003 = Office 11

    Office 2007 = Office 12

    What happened to Office 13?

  8. Ken Hagan Gold badge

    Writer's block?

    Maybe they can't think of anything to put in it? Whilst I dare say there is a small customer base for every part of Office, the universal stuff is the Word/Excel/Outlook core. MS ran out of new ideas for those products about a decade ago, and the code is probably thoroughly sclerotic C from the late 80s and early 90s, so it wouldn't even be possible to give it much of a facelift.

    Not that this is a problem. After the ribbon, I expect another revamp is the *last* thing long-time Office users actually want.

  9. This post has been deleted by a moderator

  10. paul brain
    Jobs Horns

    take your time

    I've moved one of our organisations over to openoffice3.0, its good enough , there's only so many ways of writing a letter or doing sums. €300 per client saved is good money saved.

  11. Alan Esworthy

    Decade boundaries


    "Productivity software is so next decade"

    Current decade includes years 2001 through 2010. Next decade starts in 2011.

    Unless, of course, the first decade of the Christian Era only had nine years in it.


    Other than that, meh.

  12. Doug Glass



  13. Paul Uszak

    Praise the Lord!

    Do people want yet a more integrated, complicated, bloated piece of officeware? I'm willing to go out on a limb and suggest that more than 90% of users use less than 10% of Word, never mind the other products.

    Look around your offices and tell me (honestly) how many people even use things like Table of Contents..? Other than the nerdiest of the nerdy, who's ever used Show Changes in a meaningful way?

    Better off without it.

  14. David Kairns

    Yer Closer Blammer

    How about "Omitted Office Forever" for a bit o' IT relief.

    Open Office is free and coming right along you know, and exists without all that MS garbage corporate strangulation.

  15. TeeCee Gold badge
    Gates Horns

    The real reason.

    MS's Department of Cruft, Bloat and Other Generally Useless Features have finally run out of ideas, so they're going to have to wait until the Office team think of something that someone actually needs to justify a new version.

  16. N Silver badge

    @ is anyone using O2007

    During the current decade, Ive found Microsoft Orifice get progressively worse as years go by, 2007 defining the pinnacle of Microsoft crappyness by changing the default file format amongst other annoying tendencies all connected to the utterly meaningless, useless OOMXL format & nothing to do with productivity.

    Orifice 2003 was just annoying, to me that is, others may have loved it, but those wonderful defects such as crashing just before you could click save (& buggering up the backup copy as well) with the last gasp of: Try freeing up some disk or memory space knowing that you had half a terrabyte free & 2gbs of ram are just plain daft. It seemed like every button had an ulterior motive in some hidden subroutine. The only gem in Orifices badly polished collection of baubles was the one that got the least attention & that was Access.

    However I find Office 2000 more than adequate for my modest needs on the diminishing occasions that I have to use a PC.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Gates Horns

    Office Features

    Writing reports, business cases, specifications, contracts and such like in a big corporate features like table of contents and show changes get a lot of use. However - they worked well enough in Office 97 and haven't really moved on a whole lot to 2007. My experience of Word 2007 is that it was a bottom up redesign aimed at people who had never used an office app before which doesn't make a lot of sense when you own (nearly) the whole market already. One of the most important features for corporates sharing docs is Styles but no-one ever seems to know how to use them and every time MS change them they break everything that's gone before.

    Excel 07 has vastly simpler to use Pivot Tables (again I use them frequently) but they've also added functionality which means 07 pivot tables don't work with earlier versions (nor i think with the latest version of Mac Office which i also use).

  18. Paul M

    Re. Decade Boundaries

    I've never understood the certainty that some people have in stating that 2000 was the last year of the 20th century etc etc.

    In fact, the first year of the Christian era started at 4, not 1. And many other error corrections have resulted in years going walkabout over the millennia. So if we want 2010 to be the start of the next decade it's as valid as any argument you can come up with.

    And speaking of these early days, who needs Office 14 - stone tablets are probably less bloated.

  19. Charles King


    This is a tech website, so you all should know that indices start at 0.

  20. Qneiform

    @Paul M

    It's not really about when the Christian era began, it's about how counting works. If you place two hundred beans in a row and number them, the second hundred beans begins with bean 101, and the eleventh set of ten beans runs from bean 101 to bean 110. Try it -- it works every time!

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021