Microsoft Office 2008 Update Brings Speed Increases and New Features

[FoxyKaye]

We knew that there were users who were going to be very unhappy about it. We were stuck in a bad situation, and had to make a tough decision. Updating VBA to run on Intel is a huge chunk of pretty intensive work. Developers aren't interchangeable -- we couldn't just hire some kid out of college, throw him at it, and expect it all to work out in the end. We needed highly-experienced developers to work on that. We also needed those highly-experienced developers to work on some of the other major features of Excel 2008, such as the new file format or the Big Grid (a million rows, 16K columns). Waiting until VBA was ready would have delayed the release of Office 2008 further. We were already releasing it later than we wanted to, and the cries to update it were getting louder and louder. We couldn't make users who had already updated to Intel wait any longer for Office.

I'm very sorry that you're one of the users affected by this. I know that this decision had, and continues to have, a bad impact on some people. And I know that my answer isn't the one you want. My only goal here is to explain what happened on our end and what we're doing to fix it. I apologise for sounding glib in my earlier response to you, that definitely was not my intent.

Regards,
Nadyne.

I appreciate your apology, however, you should know that in my (and many others) view, the only way to rectify this situation is to either add *full* VBA support back in to Office 2008 (as piecemeal VBA support in Office 2008 with the promise of full support in the next paid release is still a cop-out) or let me exchange my Office 2008 licenses for future Office-with-VBA licenses at no cost.

You should also know that the lesson a lot of us are taking out of this is that we will find alternatives to Microsoft, which means that there may be some of us who purchase significantly fewer licenses in the future or never come back at all.

 

[Cave Man]

You need to download and install 12.1 Service pack 1. Then you can go right to downloading and installing Service pack 2. I forgot to install #1 the first time around so I got the same message. Much faster opening Word now.

I went to Mactopia to find the downloads.

Thanks for that info. I guess I've been spoiled by Apple's Software Update where these intermediate updates are unnecessary.

 

[MartiNZ]

The graphics of paragraph marks and other hidden characters still corrupt with scrolling; setting hanging indents still usually fails to update the display appropriately; beachball breaks are still all too common in Word .

However, with the file I've just been working on, I would previously have expected crashes every minute or so, and I didn't get one! It is also nice to have a combo updater before snow leopard comes, when I'll be reinstalling. I won't be reinstalling Entourage and all the better for it, at least assuming Apple fixes the issues with Exchange that the dev releases so far have had.

 

[FoxyKaye]

For what it's worth...

This seems to be the first update that made an actual dent in launch time for me vs. whatever Microsoft claims to be "speed improvements." Getting basic Word and Excel launched and running on my home G5 (PPC) and my work Dell Mini 9 hackintosh (Intel Atom) actually take perceptibly less time. I wish the version of Office 2008 we started with last year were this optimized - I used to be able to launch Office 2004/Rosetta faster than Office 2008 on our few Intel systems at work, but this appears to finally no longer be the case.

 

[Yodgee]

Some very noticeable speed increases in boot-up which was the main annoyance. Been a ridiculously long wait for an update like this though. So sick of these 150+mb updates! A fresh install would be an absolute pain

 

[ThomasJL]

Is there a difference between downloading it with AutoUpdate vs. downloading it directly from Microsoft's Web site? I noticed AutoUpdate said the file was much smaller than the file on Microsoft's Web site. I forget the size, but it was under 190 MB with Auto Update.

For example, I've been told that with OS X point updates, it's always better to download from Apple's Web site instead of using Software Update.

So, is there a difference between downloading it with AutoUpdate vs. downloading it directly from Microsoft's Web site?

 

[illegallydead]

For everyone complaining about spaces: have you used Office recently? One of the last updates for it, between SP1 and SP2, completely fixed that problem. At least it did for me, maybe you have some other issues.

Oh, and for anyone who may have gotten their copy from "less that reputable sources " ... DO NOT install this yet. A "friend" had his copy stop working and demand a real serial. Just warning you

P.S. sorry if some of this has already been discussed; I don't really have the time to read through all 6-7 pages of posts...

 

[Heb1228]

First time Word startup was way fast. I had gotten used to leaving Word open all the time just because the startup time was so slow.

To nadyne,
I appreciate the patience you've shown here. I always wonder what developers think when they read people so flippantly trash software they've worked hard to produce - whether deserved or not. It takes a lot of maturity not to get defensive.

There are many of us out here who appreciate the product you guys put out. When I made the Intel switch a month ago, I decided to try OpenOffice to see if I could make do with the free alternative. After two weeks, I found it to be inferior in some small but annoying ways. So I switched back to MS Office. An experience like that makes you appreciate the software more.

No software is perfect (I'd still like to be able to turn off the Document Elements/Quick Tables/etc... toolbar just like any other toolbar) and some of those (macros) imperfections are serious problems for some people. But MS Office is a great product in most ways so keep up the good work and keep bringing the improvements.

 

[charlan7]

Yes Nadine, but Messenger with video?

No news after another seven months delay!!

 

[Razeus]

Wow, this is a much much needed update from MS. I was beginning to think that the Mac Office team at MS was disbanded. Granted this is my first experience with Office on the Mac since I've been a Mac user (since 2008) and I must say it was less than desireable product. This fixes alot and it works as I would have expected to.

It's too bad it takes them so long to do this. The team must be really small and doesn't get much resource $$$ help from MS. I really hope Office 2010 (or whatever it is on PC side) coincide with the Mac release, instead of this 2 seperate release stuff. I need the interfaces to be the same across Mac and PC. Learning 2 different interfaces is a pain.

I don't care about Office being Mac like. I just need to be able to find the functions I need and quickly. Instead I have had to find everything by hunt and peck. Or in the case of some of my Excel stuff, Boot Camp into Windows to get the job done.

 

[MikhailT]

Wow, this is a much much needed update from MS. I was beginning to think that the Mac Office team at MS was disbanded. Granted this is my first experience with Office on the Mac since I've been a Mac user (since 2008) and I must say it was less than desireable product. This fixes alot and it works as I would have expected to.

It's too bad it takes them so long to do this. The team must be really small and doesn't get much resource $$$ help from MS. I really hope Office 2010 (or whatever it is on PC side) coincide with the Mac release, instead of this 2 seperate release stuff. I need the interfaces to be the same across Mac and PC. Learning 2 different interfaces is a pain.

I don't care about Office being Mac like. I just need to be able to find the functions I need and quickly. Instead I have had to find everything by hunt and peck. Or in the case of some of my Excel stuff, Boot Camp into Windows to get the job done.

Office:mac 2011/2012 won't be releasing at the same time with Office 2010. They almost never release for both platfrom at same time, Mac version is usually just a year after Windows client release. MacBU is completely different from the Office development team, they do meet and work with the Office team once in a while but they don't follow each other's release schedule.

I am assuming Office:mac 2008 is not as good as it was because mainly they were stuggling with the Carbon>Cocoa move, they probably didn't have the whole staff confident or not experienced in working with Cocoa frameworks.

It is more likely that Office:mac 2010 is going to be much better, faster and lighter as the MacBU continues to play with Cocoa framework and getting used to it. They could seriously pull it off if they stay focused on it and have all the motivations from MS to release an awesome Office suite for the Mac. Would be interesting to see if they'll release 64bit version for SL.

Also, a parity between Office:mac and Office is probably almost impossible. We aren't going to get the same features for both platforms, not even the same interface. Two different environment with two different GUI guidelines.

 

[katanna]

I look forward to a speed upgrade (Word et. all take forever to open), but if there is STILL no option to turn off Presenter Tools in PowerPoint, then Microsoft is STILL dead to me.

Matthew

 

[AidenShaw]

Would be interesting to see if they'll release 64bit version for SL.

Just curious - but what advantage do you see for an x64 Office suite?

Do you have spreadsheets with more than 4 billion rows or columns? 5 GiB Word files? Powerpoints with more than 4 billion slides?

I'm a firm believer in 64-bit, and run Win7 x64 on most of my systems. At the same time, though, I realize that most of my apps are x86, and realize that that is fine.

For some apps, 64-bit is very important - and for those apps I'm using X58 systems because 8 GiB is simply too small.

I love 64-bit, and depend on it - but I don't see any reason for Office to go 64-bit right now. There may be some minor advantages - but until x86 disappears I can't see the need for supporting two streams.

 

[AidenShaw]

Acts 4:12

"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."

I'm sorry, but I can't figure out how your bible quote has any relevance. Either to "sinking nails" or the current topic.

But then, I usually can't make the new testament of the bible relevant to much in modern society....

 

[MikhailT]

Just curious - but what advantage do you see for an x64 Office suite?

Do you have spreadsheets with more than 4 billion rows or columns? 5 GiB Word files? Powerpoints with more than 4 billion slides?

I'm a firm believer in 64-bit, and run Win7 x64 on most of my systems. At the same time, though, I realize that most of my apps are x86, and realize that that is fine.

For some apps, 64-bit is very important - and for those apps I'm using X58 systems because 8 GiB is simply too small.

I love 64-bit, and depend on it - but I don't see any reason for Office to go 64-bit right now.

It's better to move everything to 64bit, regardless of what purpose it has. Imagine you have 64bit only browser that won't take 32bit plugins, how are you going to be able to use OneNote clipper plugin for that browser if it is 32bit? Now imagine 32bit plugins for Office suite x64, it won't run there either. So everything is all messed up. So it is better to have everything moved to 64bit anyway.

It's also not about just the memory size.. I was playing with 32/64bit versions of Office 2010 TP last week. 64bit was much faster in responsiveness and performance compared to the same build but in 32bit. I don't know why that is, but I wasn't the only one. A lot of my friends stated the same thing about Office 2010 TP x64.

MS is including videos now in PowerPoint with movie editing features such as adding shadow overlay to the videos, or applying filters. Those would gain from the faster 64bit calculation speed as the CPU has additional registers to play with. Excel's advanced statistics and math formulas would gain as well.

If you're just using Word for pure text documents, than any word processor would work fine. 16bit would be enough for anybody in that situation.

Like I said, it would be interesting to see if they will do a 64bit for the Mac suite as they are releasing 32/64 versions for 2010.

 

[katanna]

I'm sorry, but I can't figure out how your bible quote has any relevance. Either to "sinking nails" or the current topic.

The quote "Talk about sinking nails" is from the pastor Tom Nelson. It has nothing to do with the topic on hand, it is in my signature (which is attached to every post of mine). Sorry if you thought I was talking about Microsoft or something...

I would like to discuss what it means (and your signature), but this post isn't the place for religious discussion... maybe some other time. =: >

Matthew

 

[yojitani]

For everyone complaining about spaces: have you used Office recently? One of the last updates for it, between SP1 and SP2, completely fixed that problem. At least it did for me, maybe you have some other issues.

No, it didn't fix the problem.

 

[robby818]

The time it takes word to open changes depending on if I am coming off a cold restart or whether I have opened word recently. After a cold boot and waiting 30 seconds for the system to settle down, it still takes 3-4 seconds (3 bounces) for Word to open. form that point on, if I quit Word and restart it then it opens in under a second. I am not sure this update did much for start up times. I think this was pretty much what was happening before the update.

People are saying Word starts a lot faster with this update, but I wonder if people are seeing the effects of still having Word in RAM.

 

[MikhailT]

The time it takes word to open changes depending on if I am coming off a cold restart or whether I have opened word recently. After a cold boot and waiting 30 seconds for the system to settle down, it still takes 3-4 seconds (3 bounces) for Word to open. form that point on, if I quit Word and restart it then it opens in under a second. I am not sure this update did much for start up times. I think this was pretty much what was happening before the update.

People are saying Word starts a lot faster with this update, but I wonder if people are seeing the effects of still having Word in RAM.

I rebooted my mac, the Office apps still launched within one bounce. It used to take 5-10 bounces.

It is possible MS fixed some hangs that was causing slow load for some people but everybody else had normal load time. Which means you probably weren't affected by that fix because your speed was normal.

I don't know. All i know is that it is faster and not because it is in memory.

 

[nadyne]

I appreciate your apology, however, you should know that in my (and many others) view, the only way to rectify this situation is to either add *full* VBA support back in to Office 2008 (as piecemeal VBA support in Office 2008 with the promise of full support in the next paid release is still a cop-out) or let me exchange my Office 2008 licenses for future Office-with-VBA licenses at no cost.

I'm a member of the technical team, and something like that is far far outside my purview. If you have a Microsoft account rep (most large companies, academic institutions, and non-profits do), this is feedback that you should give to them. They pay lots of attention when you tell them that you're considering taking your business elsewhere, and they're the kinds of people that the powers that be listen to when making that kind of decision. If you don't have a Microsoft account rep, then you should submit a suggestion -- say how this impacts you, what you would like, and what you're considering doing as a result is much more meaningful than me going into a meeting and saying "hey, I remember that someone on a Mac forum once said ... ".

Is there a difference between downloading it with AutoUpdate vs. downloading it directly from Microsoft's Web site?

There is no difference. They're the same bits.

I appreciate the patience you've shown here. I always wonder what developers think when they read people so flippantly trash software they've worked hard to produce

Thanks.

I understand folks being frustrated about various things, which is why I try to step in and help when I have help to offer. And I know that folks view Microsoft just as some big corporate entity (we are, after all, The Borg) and forget that there are people behind it. I do wish that people wouldn't be quite so free in admitting that they have (ahem) borrowed our software, though. :/

No news after another seven months delay!!

We announced at Macworld Expo in January that we would do a beta for it this year; we're still on track for that.

Regards,
Nadyne.

 

[heisetax]

Do you mean a dead Yugo?

Hallelujah! I'm running my office suite on a Mac Pro but you wouldn't know it. Application launch and responsiveness makes a Yugo look like a Ferrari.

On my 1st Gen Intel Mac Pro Office 2004 runs at least 10 times faster than Office 2008. I deleted Office 2008 last tax season as I had a period that Office crashed every 15 minutes. I'd like to see if Office 2008 now runs like an operating Yugo.

 

[heisetax]

I'm a member of the technical team, and something like that is far far outside my purview. If you have a Microsoft account rep (most large companies, academic institutions, and non-profits do), this is feedback that you should give to them. They pay lots of attention when you tell them that you're considering taking your business elsewhere, and they're the kinds of people that the powers that be listen to when making that kind of decision. If you don't have a Microsoft account rep, then you should submit a suggestion -- say how this impacts you, what you would like, and what you're considering doing as a result is much more meaningful than me going into a meeting and saying "hey, I remember that someone on a Mac forum once said ... ".



There is no difference. They're the same bits.



Thanks.

I understand folks being frustrated about various things, which is why I try to step in and help when I have help to offer. And I know that folks view Microsoft just as some big corporate entity (we are, after all, The Borg) and forget that there are people behind it. I do wish that people wouldn't be quite so free in admitting that they have (ahem) borrowed our software, though. :/



We announced at Macworld Expo in January that we would do a beta for it this year; we're still on track for that.

Regards,
Nadyne.

I make my total living using Excel with my Accounting/tax prep business. That means that Excel must work no matter what. For that reason I haves or 3 copies of both Office 2004 & Office 2008 for my Macs. My main computer is an Intel Mac Pro. With it Office 2004, mainly Excel 2004, runs like it is an universal app. Even without the loss of VBA support in Excel 2008 I am not able to run Excel 2008 at a speed as fast as Excel would now run on a Mac 128. I'm looking to see if I still have an installed copy of Office 2008 on any of my Macs hard drives. If I do I'll check to see if these changes do any good. I know that I have at least one copy & probably 2 copies around here somewhere.

I'm waiting to see if MS will again make the Mac version of Excel, Word & Power Point the premier version as their history is longer on the Mac or whether the Mac version of Office continues to become more of a shell of the Windows version of Office. I hope that the Mac version continues to waste less space than the Windows version does. I need to display 128 lines, (64 lines per page) with my tax prep course. Excel 11 does 129 lines, great, but Excel 12 will only do 127 lines with all of the extra menus turned off. What happened to the Mac way of only having the menu line on the start-up screen. I want my different Excel windows just to be my data, not another copy of menu lines or toolbars.

MS is not the only one that does this space wasting activities. Apple does a great job of it in Numbers also. Office 2008 appears to have some good points. But they are either hidden by bad points or my Mac system's inability to run it. I hope to be able to run the Excel beta to see if will be a suitable replacement for Excel 11, Excel 12 so far is not even coming close to doing that job. My first version of Excel was version 1 so I am not new to Excel. That's close to 25 years of use now.

 

[ThomasJL]

I'm a member of the technical team, and
There is no difference. They're the same bits.
Nadyne.

Then why is the AutoUpdate's Service Pack 2 file much smaller than the one that can be downloaded from Microsoft's Web site?

 

[SnowLeopard2008]

It's better to move everything to 64bit, regardless of what purpose it has. Imagine you have 64bit only browser that won't take 32bit plugins, how are you going to be able to use OneNote clipper plugin for that browser if it is 32bit? Now imagine 32bit plugins for Office suite x64, it won't run there either. So everything is all messed up. So it is better to have everything moved to 64bit anyway.

It's also not about just the memory size.. I was playing with 32/64bit versions of Office 2010 TP last week. 64bit was much faster in responsiveness and performance compared to the same build but in 32bit. I don't know why that is, but I wasn't the only one. A lot of my friends stated the same thing about Office 2010 TP x64.

MS is including videos now in PowerPoint with movie editing features such as adding shadow overlay to the videos, or applying filters. Those would gain from the faster 64bit calculation speed as the CPU has additional registers to play with. Excel's advanced statistics and math formulas would gain as well.

If you're just using Word for pure text documents, than any word processor would work fine. 16bit would be enough for anybody in that situation.

Like I said, it would be interesting to see if they will do a 64bit for the Mac suite as they are releasing 32/64 versions for 2010.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Developers actually like having hybrid versions (ex. there 32/64 bit applications on Leopard, running simultaneously). IE 64-bit takes 32-bit plugins. The gain you see is rather small, vs the amount of effort. To port from 32 to 64-bit takes tremendous amounts of work, especially for mainstream apps/suites like Office, Adobe CS, iLife, iWork. What do you gain? A few seconds faster launch time. Faster calculations and more memory streams for the >1% people that actually touch upon this every once in awhile.

64-bit calculations do not benefit over 32-bit. Processors are already calculating in 64-bit, but the applications limits it to 32-bit. My MBP addresses 4GB of memory which 32-bit processors can't. But my applications are 32-bit, which limits everything. PowerPoint's new video overlay features won't see a dramatic improvement whilst in 64-bit mode. And Excel is already good enough for most. Improving it to cater to the minority is not a good business model. Apple is a good example. Decades before, they were expensive machines. Nowadays, they are catering to the consumer market. Glossy glass screens, backlit keyboards, multi touch, etc.

A good example of 32-bit being already good enough is CS4 Photoshop. Photoshop is far more powerful and CPU-hungry than the entire suite of Office combined. Photoshop still runs pretty fast. While I see the performance gains in 64-bit, for an Office suite, it's simply not completely-necessary, especially if you want a few seconds faster launch time.

 

[jmann]

I just updated, and it opened a lot quicker than the previous version. I have always had trouble updating the damn thing in the past. It said a previous version of Office was never installed, but this update installed perfectly.