[robco]

I'm upgrading for the same reason many folks with Intel Macs will upgrade - because it's native. Word 2004 is nice, but running under Rosetta sucks. It's slow and takes up more RAM. OpenOffice is nice, but isn't completely OS X native and requires users to install X11, which some may not feel comfortable doing.
I don't use VB, but I can see why it's a problem. Hopefully they'll increase automation in the future. For now, I think they just want to get the product out the door. iWork is showing potential, but it's not quite there yet. Numbers needs more work.

[anothersite]

I, also, have to chime in that I thought the review was shallow. Is Notebook Layout View mentioned? I did a browser find and nothing was found. Word is such a big program that doing review justice to all its parts must be challenging. I wish that it was feasible to publish a Word only review that rivaled a traditional whole Mac Office review in length/content.
Separate issue regarding font families: I agree that the long lists scrolling is annoying. Thankfully, I usually know what font I want, so I just type the name in the font pull down menu area rather than scrolling down the list. I get my font faster that way. :)

[cjfields]

Just a note on OpenOffice for Mac; an Aqua-based version is under development.

[gruth]

I teach high school science and have literally hundreds of Word files with MathType equations scattered throughout. Can anyone comment on how Word '08 handles MathType Equations. MathType hasn't been updated in a long time, though it still seems to work fine even in Rosetta -- but my guess is that Word '08 will break all MathType suppot with the loss of VB. Does Word '08 import MathType files? How is the built in Word equation editor? This is a crucially important feature to me -- without it, I'll stick with the slow, buggy, Tourette's-inducing '04 version.

[gruth]

Really, I'm curious what the big deal is in running Word '04 on Rosetta. I mean, it's a word processor after all -- not Photoshop. I mean, how processor intensive can it be? It ocassionally beach balls and crashes for random reasons, but I honestly don'tt have a lot of faith that '08 won't do that as well.

[bhinmd]

I'm with Graphos on the publishing features in Word '08. A video on the Office for Mac website shows someone devising a flyer, saying, "They'll think this was done by a designer, but it's just me!" I immediately got visions of people sending me ads with low-res graphics, unembedded fonts, and other abominations, all from Word. This will be a prepress nightmare, for sure.
Remember, folks, Word is for recreational desktop publishing, not professional publishing. Better yet, Word should be for . . . words.

[mdawson]

While VBA scripting is possible across all Office applications, and a number of other Microsoft products in Windows, its use it most common for automating workbooks in Excel and managing databases in Access. The latter has never been supported on the Mac, but those in data-intensive fields, particularly the growing number of scientific, research and data analyst professionals that have begun to incorporate Excel into their workflows, VBA scripting is more common.
I have written VBA Excel code to do everything from coding simple task-specific functions to writing complex programs that analyze/summarize huge data sets. If you are not in those market segments then it is understandable that you would rarely come across VBA-encoded documents, especially in Word. In all my coding experience I have only ever written VBA code on the backend of a Word document to create an electronic form for a course survey.
As to AppleScript, I have only ever written—or more correctly recorded and (slightly) modified—one AppleScript in Mac OS 9 to overcome an issue with frequent Canvas 7 preference file corruption. The script would delete the Canvas preference file when the computer was started up and replace it with a backup copy that I knew was not corrupted. With Automator, I created a workflow to do batch renaming. Otherwise, I too have rarely used and therefore have had not compelling reason to learn AppleScript. Except for personal projects, my work must be cross-platform.
Due to Microsoft’s position in the productivity suite market learning VBA was became a de facto skill for a core group of Office users. Unfortunately, AppleScript has never gained that type of traction nor has it, to the best of my knowledge, ever migrated onto Windows in any form. At this point a cross-platform scripting solution is needed and neither Apple nor Microsoft offer it. Office:mac 2004 supported REALbasic coding, but that functionality was not brought to the Windows market making the feature about as useful as adding AppleScript/Automator support. If Microsoft is incapable of keeping scripting parity between the Mac and Wintel PCs, perhaps they should forfeit the task to a company such as REAL Software.

[mdawson]

Word processors have long gone beyond being simple text editors and Word was in desperate need of better layout features. The advent of the GUI-based word processor allows people to create more content-rich documents than in the heyday of the typewriter or even early word processors that were no more than software that allowed the computer to be used as a typewriter. People now (rightfully) expect to be able to create content-rich documents on their computers. The ability to add and place images, graphs, charts, tables, etc., into a document is a de facto standard for the modern word processor.
That stated, people definitely should not be using a word processor as a pre-press layout program. Word is fine for documents that will be making their way to the user’s printer and not a service bureau.

[Terrin]

I had an opportunity to play with Office 2008, the Beta version. I mostly use Word, and so that is what I spent most of my time checking out.
I can honestly say, Microsoft did a very nice job on updating Word. It is organized much nicer, and as the article says, Microsoft made some nice design decisions. There are no more tool bars getting lost, and it is much easier to find functions. Microsoft also upped Apple one on including Page Layout features and templates. It is also more appealing to look at.
Do not get me wrong, I think the listed price stinks. However, Word is far more functional then Pages for people who use a word processor frequently for more then just plain writing. More over, compatibility with other versions of Word is much nicer then what Pages and other competing products are able to offer. Of course this is Microsoft's fault for not opening up the formats, but I can't tell my boss that.
I also do not think you can lay the blame entirely with Microsoft for killing Visual Basic. When Apple decided to go Intel, both Adobe and Microsoft were both halfway into their development cycles for their next versions of Mac products. They both had to stop what they were doing and switch over to new developer tools in order to make Universal applications. Apple's free developer tools are nice, but they were hardly as feature complete as competing products. So, both Adobe and Microsoft had to spend a significant amount of time working with Apple to update its tools to include features and capabilities they were accustomed to in their other development environments. the developers also had to master the new tools, which can be a real pain when you are accustomed to working a certain way.
Microsoft essentially had to rework every line of Office code to make it Universal. If it would have included Visual Basic scripting, we would be waiting probably another year or two for that capability. If rumors are true, Microsoft may be killing Visual Basic in the Windows version of Office in an upcoming release. If so, that even makes more sense as a reason to not incorporate it this time around in the Mac version. As a user, I think that stinks. From a company standpoint, I can certainly understand the reasoning.

[Hurley42]

I would like to see a review of Word's new bibliographic tools compared with EndNote. With EndNote costing more then Office 2008 alone, does Word offer tools that compare well with EndNote. Or should I stick with Office 2004 and buy EndNote? Anyone have any thoughts?

[bdusen]

I was pleasantly surprised to see that, by default, the Font Menu groups fonts into families in Word 2008. If you don't want to upgrade though maybe you should look into Unsanity's add on Font Card - it can put the same function in any application with a font menu or font panel. (Note: Font Card is not compatible with Word 08, only 04)

[kcwookie]

iWork 08 will suffice for most users. While it's true that OpenOffice Aqua is still under development, NeoOffice is up and running well and is probably a better choice. While it is not as pretty as Office 08, it has strong support and sounds like it intergrates with Leopard better.
My only wish is that Bookends would directly support Pages 08.
This is the first version of Office I've misses since I bought 98. I won't miss it.

[josquin021]

I think the review makes an important point: MS Word is 24 years old. I've been using it first on PC and then on both PC/Mac for most of those 24 years.
Aside from the big shift from the text-based UI to the graphical UI in the mid-90's (which was a non-event on the Mac), Word just hasn't changed that much. What other computer product hasn't changed in 12 years, let alone 24? (Answer: Quicken. But that's beside the point.) Browsers barely existed 12 years ago. Digital cameras were a joke. Movie editing on your home PC? Nearly impossible.
I think the travesty of Word is total lack of innovation. The fact that MS cleaned up their interface and rewrote their code is supposed to justify four years of effort and a multi-hundred dollar upgrade? How about truly new features, workflows, IDEAS in word processing? Isn't that where the "R&D" investment should have gone?
This seems to be a real downside of MS's dominant (monopoly?) position in the Office marketplace: they have no reason to innovate, and competitors have no ability to introduce new ideas. http://I think the s...s with Quicken.
I've been searching for a while for a viable Word alternative. Nisus Writer and Mellel are very nice, but don't work for me because of their spotty Endnote support. Other folks, however, may really like them.
OpenOffice is a nice thought, but cloning MS Office seems like exactly the wrong way to create good software. Pages seems kind of hokey.
I really, truly wish that MS or someone would create a NEW word processor, one rethought from the ground up and without 24 years of detritus built in.

[bpeacock22]

Considering most work places (at least mine, I guess) won't be upgrading to the new .docx formats any time soon, is there a way to change the default save? Or are a couple extra clicks always required to save it as .doc for compatability mode? This is really the only thing holding me back, as I am a workflow nut. I cringed when a reviewer said he ended up saving all his files in the new format, then saves them back into the old for sharing.