Microsoft Office 2013 drops support for XP, Vista

By on July 19, 2012, 6:00 PM

Microsoft has published clearer system requirements for deploying Office 2013 on its Technet website. Users still running Windows XP and Vista may be disappointed to hear that Office 2013 will not be compatible either operating system. The new version Office will only be compatible with Windows 7, 8, 2008 R2 Server and 2012 Server.

Dropping support for Windows XP is not surprising, but Vista users may feel a little sore after the stark reality of impending abandonment manages to set in. Keep in mind Vista already reached its end-of-life milestone in April, so excluding Vista from IE10 -- and now Office 2013 -- actually isn't very surprising at all.

For users who are running a compatible operating system, they'll still need to meet a set of minimum hardware requirements too. 

  • CPU: 1GHz of faster x86 or x64 processor
  • RAM: 1GB for x86 or 2GB for x64
  • Storage: 3GB of available space
  • Operating System: Windows 7, Windows 8, Windows Server 2008 R2, or Windows Server 2012
  • Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer 8, 9, or 10; Mozilla Firefox 10.x or a later version; Apple Safari 5; or Google Chrome 17.x.
  • .NET version: 3.5 or higher
  • Multi-touch: A touch-enabled device is required to use any multi-touch functionality. However, all features and functionality are always available by using a keyboard, mouse, or other standard or accessible input device. Note that new touch features are optimized for use with Windows 8.
  • Hardware acceleration requires DirectX10-compatible graphics card

New features in Microsoft Office 2013 include a "flatter" look which borrows heavily from Windows 8 and its Metro interface and a greater focus on touchscreen accessibility with tiles and other finger-friendly UI changes. 2013 will include cloud integration, bookmarks, PDF editing, Skype integration and various other improvements, changes and additions.




User Comments: 41

Got something to say? Post a comment
TomSEA TomSEA, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

Wow...that's quite the snub. Windows 7 isn't much more than a souped up version of Vista, so a bit of a shocker there. People who are stuck on XP better get with the program. They're slowly but surely being left in the dust.

Adhmuz Adhmuz, TechSpot Paladin, said:

More touch BS, nice... I just don't understand how OFFICE which is PRODUCTIVITY software will benefit from being able to use your fingers. Does M$ just expect everyone to run out and get a touchscreen because windows 8 has arrived. And if you don't your stuck looking at a big clumsy interface designed for peoples fat fingers, can people really not touch? This isn't Jurassic Park, is the world just full or Sarah Hardings (26:26 into the 2nd movie if your confused)

Chazz said:

More touch BS, nice... I just don't understand how OFFICE which is PRODUCTIVITY software will benefit from being able to use your fingers. Does M$ just expect everyone to run out and get a touchscreen because windows 8 has arrived. And if you don't your stuck looking at a big clumsy interface designed for peoples fat fingers, can people really not touch? This isn't Jurassic Park, is the world just full or Sarah Hardings (26:26 into the 2nd movie if your confused)

Office 2013 is made for keyboard and mouse, with the added feature of basic touch functionality. People complained because Microsoft went the proper route of keeping Office as primarily a keyboard + mouse friendly UI. Most of your argument is moot as far as Office goes. You should try out the preview.

Being able to touch up a few things while you're on the go is nice, so that limited touch feature set is welcome.

Guest said:

Mmm, its a shame that Office 2003 does everything I need...I might feel the need to leave XP. :)

SNGX1275 SNGX1275, TS Forces Special, said:

I can see dropping XP. But dropping Vista support seems like intentional artificial hamstringing. If someone knows of a technical reason they are killing off Vista support, I'd like to know.

amstech amstech, TechSpot Enthusiast, said:

If someone knows of a technical reason they are killing off Vista support, I'd like to know.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

ReederOnTheRun ReederOnTheRun said:

Man, I never noticed how much people cling to old technology until I started reading comments on these articles. I'm actually glad they're dropping support for xp and vista. I'm also really glad they are trying out the touch screen stuff with windows 8. I see it as a good sign for their company in general that they are dropping support for the old stuff and focusing on the new. It'll be tough for consumers at first of course, but in the long run it'll open the door for a lot more possibilities.

SNGX1275 SNGX1275, TS Forces Special, said:

amstech - that isn't a technical reason

reeder - I completely support killing XP off, but Vista is essentially the same as 7. Killing Vista support for Office is analogous to killing Office XP support in Windows 98se but allowing it in ME.

Win 8 has some big changes from Win 7, and having spent a lot of time running the CP of 8 I'm in support of them. But there is almost no difference in today's Vista and today's Windows 7. It is a totally artificial limitation. You know where I've seen artificial limitations before..? Macs..

Guest said:

1. Of course! Windows Vista and 7 are the same thing (6.X), and the new 8 too!

2. Windows 8 upgrade is not free!

3. Windows XP is a rock!

4. There are OpenSuse, CentOS, Madriva, Fedora, Ubuntu, Kubuntu,... too!

5. Who needs an OS upgrade ?

1'. Of course! Office 2007 and 2010 are the same thing, and the new 2013 too!

2'. Office 2013 upgrade is not free!

3'. Office 2000 is a rock!

4'. There are Open Office and LibreOffice, too!

5'. Who needs a Office upgrade ?

The best car is that you have!

' The best sotware is that you have!

Guest said:

office 2003 .. is the latest version I like .. and still use ...Ribbon UI .. frustrated me

Guest said:

I couldn't give a stuff, I haven't used MS office for ages! :-)

Guest said:

or you can switch to libreoffice like I did. it does everything I need from an office program and it's free!

hitech0101 said:

I am using office 07 its frustrating to use it after becoming familiar with '03 then I heard '10 was released then this I just don't see the point in uprading as it is more of a pain and off course you have to pay for the pain.

NTAPRO NTAPRO said:

Schools will probably will be the least effected. Waste of money for them up upgrade. They used 03 for a while even when 07 came out and just had converters installed for people that didn't know how to save as an compatible 03 file >_>

ReederOnTheRun ReederOnTheRun said:

amstech - that isn't a technical reason

reeder - I completely support killing XP off, but Vista is essentially the same as 7. Killing Vista support for Office is analogous to killing Office XP support in Windows 98se but allowing it in ME.

Win 8 has some big changes from Win 7, and having spent a lot of time running the CP of 8 I'm in support of them. But there is almost no difference in today's Vista and today's Windows 7. It is a totally artificial limitation. You know where I've seen artificial limitations before..? Macs..

Good point, yeah it probably wouldn't have been too much trouble to include Vista support.

killeriii said:

Man, I never noticed how much people cling to old technology until I started reading comments on these articles. I'm actually glad they're dropping support for xp and vista. I'm also really glad they are trying out the touch screen stuff with windows 8. I see it as a good sign for their company in general that they are dropping support for the old stuff and focusing on the new. It'll be tough for consumers at first of course, but in the long run it'll open the door for a lot more possibilities.

That's like saying your 6 year old fridge is "old" technology. Most average households can't afford to buy a new computer every 5 years. Nor should they feel they have to when the one they have still works.

The problem I see Microsoft creating here is compatibility issues with new Office files and older versions of Office. Thus making people feel they need to upgrade their whole home computer just to work on spreadsheets from work or colleagues.

Again, this seems to be another M$ decision based solely on potential income rather than consumer needs.

avoidz avoidz said:

Man, I never noticed how much people cling to old technology until I started reading comments on these articles. I'm actually glad they're dropping support for xp and vista. I'm also really glad they are trying out the touch screen stuff with windows 8. I see it as a good sign for their company in general that they are dropping support for the old stuff and focusing on the new. It'll be tough for consumers at first of course, but in the long run it'll open the door for a lot more possibilities.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Did XP suddenly not work for millions of people? Office 97 still works on Windows 7 and produces fine-looking documents.

Enjoy your Windows 8 Kool-Aid.

ReederOnTheRun ReederOnTheRun said:

That's like saying your 6 year old fridge is "old" technology. Most average households can't afford to buy a new computer every 5 years. Nor should they feel they have to when the one they have still works.

The problem I see Microsoft creating here is compatibility issues with new Office files and older versions of Office. Thus making people feel they need to upgrade their whole home computer just to work on spreadsheets from work or colleagues.

Again, this seems to be another M$ decision based solely on potential income rather than consumer needs.

I'm not saying EVERYONE needs to buy this stuff. If you are happy with less high tech stuff thats cool, whatever works for you. In the grand scheme of things though, the thing that gets the majority of consumers excited to buy stuff is coming out with new, innovative stuff. Apple is living proof of that. It's been ten years since XP. All I'm saying is that I'm happy that Microsoft is focusing all of its talent on making technology better for all of us people who don't want to stick with XP until the end of time.

voteDC voteDC said:

What drives me onto the next operating system is when it can run something that I want, that I can't do on the OS I am using.

The only reason I moved on from 98SE for example was that "The Battle for Middle-Earth" would not run on it. So that game made me upgrade to Windows XP, which I am on now.

Vista, Windows 7 and Windows 8 offer me nothing but a new interface to learn, the removal of features that I use, and an increased use of hard drive space.

Where is the essential app or game that makes me want to upgrade? Why should I leave Windows XP, which I have gotten to run exactly as I need it to, when the ones after it offer me nothing but frustration and having to spend time getting basic features like the File Types tab back.

I'm running Windows 8 Consumer Preview on my second desktop and with the removal of the Start Menu I now either have to use the annoyance of Metro or have a desktop cluttered with icons.

Guest said:

FAIL-Software~!

Let me get this straight office is all about productivity yet it can't run on windows xp? I am I missing something here? Why would you call your product very productive if it doesn't work on windows xp. Way to make the work environmentt more complicated and less productive between users. Thanks but no thanks I'll stick with office 2010, at least it works on just about EVERY windows os including Win8. Office 2013 looks like 2 steps backwards rather than forward.

Guest said:

So wait 2012 only works with Windows 7 and 8? What business in their right mind would buy this lol? This a joke or something because last I looked business are still having a hard time leaving Windows XP. Yeah I'll stick with office 2010, looks the same,cost less, and actually works on more than 2 OS....

danhodge danhodge said:

Okay with XP, but Vista? Really?

Hmm, well, I can't afford Windows 7. Torrent anyone?

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

I guess you guys didn't get the memo where Microsoft dropped support for XP and Vista. This drop in support is relevant to any application that they are developing as well as future OS updates. Dropping OS support in applications is just another step in forgetting an antiquated OS.

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Okay with XP, but Vista? Really?

Hmm, well, I can't afford Windows 7. Torrent anyone?

Honestly, please try again with a valid argument.

If you can afford Office (2010 or 2013), you can afford Windows 7. In some instances Office is twice the price of Windows 7, depending on the version/edition selected.

SNGX1275 SNGX1275, TS Forces Special, said:

The bottom line here is that Microsoft has to make money, otherwise there is no reason for them to exist. It is that simple. Now we as consumers will see it differently, they need to exist because we use their software, but WE USE THEIR SOFTWARE!. We buy the product they sell us.

Most people on TS like to exclaim XP as 'good enough', and why screw with it past there, even office 2003 too. But I believe this is an age related thought. XP sort of reigned for a minimum of 6 years in the 'consumer' world. Most people that post to places like this are between 13 and early 20s. Most people that post here then didn't experience any Windows OS other than XP (as their first OS).

Windows before XP wasn't all that dreadful. Businesses were running something called Windows NT. NT was pretty stable, NT became Windows 2000, and Windows 2000 sort of merged with Windows 9x and made XP. But XP is really NT.

NT was pretty damn good, and 2k was really good (got plug and play support). So, be careful how much you lean on the "why do I need Win 8 or whatever next gen os" because it is equally as possible to argue against XP. Windows 2k was fine.

killeriii said:

NT was pretty damn good, and 2k was really good (got plug and play support). So, be careful how much you lean on the "why do I need Win 8 or whatever next gen os" because it is equally as possible to argue against XP. Windows 2k was fine.

XP is 2000 with better eye candy and a walk-you-through-it interface.

8 seems like a step back...Ugly and a we're-going-to-change-everything-you-got-used-to interface..

btw NT sucked! IMO (networking was a headache...but it was more stable than win95,98)

Guest said:

This won't effect much, some big company (Bank) still using Microsoft Office 2007 or 2010 for stability and reliability,

NightAngel79 said:

Vista is 3+years older than 7. Also 7 is essentially the finished product of vista. Anyone running Vista is doing themselves a disservice by not immediately upgrading to Vista (MS should let users do that for free)

NightAngel79 said:

1. Of course! Windows Vista and 7 are the same thing (6.X), and the new 8 too!

2. Windows 8 upgrade is not free!

3. Windows XP is a rock!

4. There are OpenSuse, CentOS, Madriva, Fedora, Ubuntu, Kubuntu,... too!

5. Who needs an OS upgrade ?

1'. Of course! Office 2007 and 2010 are the same thing, and the new 2013 too!

2'. Office 2013 upgrade is not free!

3'. Office 2000 is a rock!

4'. There are Open Office and LibreOffice, too!

5'. Who needs a Office upgrade ?

The best car is that you have!

' The best sotware is that you have!

******! I keep forgetting to use the quote button!

Show me a world where Openoffice can even conceive of competing with MS Office

Guest said:

Just because Microsoft builds it doesn't mean you have to use it. So Office 2013 doesn't support XP/Vista, then don't upgrade, keep using what your using now. I don't believe there are any new formats with Office 2013, so your current product should keep working just fine. Microsoft has increased the release cycle of products and is pushing people to the cloud so that they can make more money. They would love to go to a subscription based model where you never own anything but you get free upgrades for a monthly cost of $$$$. Your choice is, I don't have to keep jumping on the upgrade bandwagon or I can switch to another vendor. Just because Microsoft builds it doesn't mean you have to use it.

Guest said:

...we have more important things to talk about like those evil bandwidth caps.

Doctor John Doctor John said:

Show me a world where Openoffice can even conceive of competing with MS Office

Does it not?

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Show me a world where Openoffice can even conceive of competing with MS Office
Does it not?
I know OpenOffice Projections doesn't compete with MS Office Powerpoint. I tried using Projections as a substitute for Powerpoint because I didn't have a License for Powerpoint on a machine I needed to show a presentation from. After a week or so of working with Projections, I was left with no other choice but to abandon that app because it was useless trying to fine tune my work. My presentation was constantly showing glitches with few resources for customizable features (the features I was using anyway). The word processor and spreadsheet app may be fine for a substitute but the presentation builder fell short quickly in my experience.

Guest said:

"OpenOffice Projections" ???

What is it ?

Where is it ?

I've never heard it...

... from a OpenOffice User!

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

"OpenOffice Projections" ???
Whether or not it was ever called Projections or not, I don't know. For some reason that is the name I have been calling it. The name now appears to be Impress whether or not it has always been Impress, I can not say for sure.

Sorry for any confusion.

1 person liked this | Guest said:

The equivalent in LibreOffice is presentations, I think it's the same in Open?

It works fine for me (not being smug just giving my input!)

Doctor John Doctor John said:

The equivalent in LibreOffice is presentations, I think it's the same in Open?

It works fine for me (not being smug just giving my input!)

Sorry, that was me, I forgot to login

avoidz avoidz said:

Most people on TS like to exclaim XP as 'good enough', and why screw with it past there, even office 2003 too. But I believe this is an age related thought. XP sort of reigned for a minimum of 6 years in the 'consumer' world. Most people that post to places like this are between 13 and early 20s. Most people that post here then didn't experience any Windows OS other than XP (as their first OS).

Windows before XP wasn't all that dreadful. Businesses were running something called Windows NT. NT was pretty stable, NT became Windows 2000, and Windows 2000 sort of merged with Windows 9x and made XP. But XP is really NT.

NT was pretty damn good, and 2k was really good (got plug and play support). So, be careful how much you lean on the "why do I need Win 8 or whatever next gen os" because it is equally as possible to argue against XP. Windows 2k was fine.

Windows XP was an improvement on Windows 2000 (more features, consumer-friendly interface, better game support, etc.) and is the sweet spot in Microsoft's OS history. Windows 7 comes very close. I am 40 and have used all of Microsoft's operating systems.

Guest said:

"Most average households can't afford to buy a new computer every 5 years"

But somehow they can afford iPhones, iPads, and Android tablets?

Are desktops and laptops still starting at $500 or did they get cheaper in the last 10yrs?

SNGX1275 SNGX1275, TS Forces Special, said:

Windows XP was an improvement on Windows 2000 (more features, consumer-friendly interface, better game support, etc.) and is the sweet spot in Microsoft's OS history. Windows 7 comes very close. I am 40 and have used all of Microsoft's operating systems.

I'm 32 and have used every Windows OS since 3.1 (although spent very little time with the Server OSes), I still stand by my statement though.

More features isn't much of an argument, because the more crap that gets built into the OS the slower it gets. Compare Windows XP prior to any service packs on something like a Pentium II, with XP SP3 on the same computer. You could just put 2k on that machine, suffer through the long boot (2k took forever to boot) and then put 3rd party apps on, that didn't screw up the responsiveness of the OS, to give it the 'features' of XP SP3. Sure its sometimes nice to not have to install stuff to give your OS an ability (like mounting isos), but often that comes at a price. Hardware is fast enough now that it isn't such a big deal, but when XP SP2 and SP3 were coming out, there were significant responsiveness issues over something like 2k SP4.

Most games that work in XP will also work in 2k. For the relatively few that didn't, you could often work around that. Per Hasson on these forums made a few guides on how to do so.

I don't think XP is much friendlier than 2k. Setup maybe was because of the help bubble holding your hand through some parts, but inside the OS itself there wasn't much difference. Plus you had the "Fisher Price" interface to deal with or change.

danhodge danhodge said:

Honestly, please try again with a valid argument.

If you can afford Office (2010 or 2013), you can afford Windows 7. In some instances Office is twice the price of Windows 7, depending on the version/edition selected.

That wasn't an argument, I was joking...

But to keep at it, fine, I can torrent Office too - but I wouldn't be able to do that with Vista.

The point is, I paid for a Windows OS, and I expect Microsoft stuff to work on it. I am happy buying Office 2013 should I need it, but I wont buy a new OS just for the sake of using a new version of Office.

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.