Excel Upgrade Statistics
Does anyone know of a resource that shows how many users, or what percentage of users, use the various Excel versions? Someone asked me about it recently because they’re developing an application and want to find the good “version cut-off”. I think it’s an interesting question and fairly important for someone developing commercial apps.
I’ve talked to a few people about this over the years, but I don’t think there was anything published or definitive. I’ve all but abandoned Excel 97, but that’s based on my observations in the newsgroups, not on anything I’ve seen or read.
If you know where this information can be found, please leave a comment.
Mike:
I found this like that estimates 150 million total users although there is no breakdown by version:
http://searchcrm.techtarget.com/columnItem/0,294698,sid11_gci1081869,00.html
Another link (I forgot to look when it was dated) claims something like 70%-90% of users still use XL97! (this is just someone’s opinion, though):
http://www.officehelp.in/index/topic/737528-1.html
And I found this NG discussion that suggests using some functions in Excel itself to estimate users:
http://tinyurl.com/nmdxz
BTW…didn’t MS stop supporting XL97 last year or this year?
Wish I could help more!
5 April 2006, 3:43 pmTim:
i require my users to upgrade to 2000 or better
i refuse to support 97 though its still around.
I would estimate maybe 2-5% of people still have it
None of them are serious excel users so its never an issue to upgrade
side issue - its like operating systems
5 April 2006, 6:05 pmi refuse to support any pc thats running something earleir than win xp - preferably pro and service patch 2
if i have a customer come to me with pc problemns running win 95 or 98 i require them to upgrade - which usually requires them to get a new pc as well most of the time.
its cost effective and usually pleasurable for them to have a new pc that works well and reduces my stress levels!
Jon Peltier:
I had one client that until early this year insisted I program for 97. This required full development in 97, because otherwise upon opening a workbook, the 97 usr would get a warning that the file had been created in a later version of Excel. The 97 computer around here is an 11-year old Wondows 95 machine, which was state of the art when it was new, but now seems to plod along. After I explained the time spent waiting for screen redraws (the same client insisted in plotting 250,000 points in the workbook’s charts, so it was all just a cloud of black points that redrew in 45 seconds) at a consultant’s rate, and he realized none of his users were still on 97, he agreed to upgrading to 2000.
Among my other clients, a fair number are still in 2000, very few are using 2002 (under 10%), and about half are up to 2003. This is not a scientific survey.
6 April 2006, 5:10 amBillkamm:
I personally don’t think Excel 97 is all that bad. Until about a year ago (when my company upgraded to 2003) I was still developing in Excel 97.
6 April 2006, 7:42 amChad Sandstedt:
I operate a website called AnalystForum and we ran a poll last year to identify which versions of Excel were being used. The results would presumably be more applicable to business users, since most of the people on the site are financial analysts. I would imagine the older versions would be more likely for home users. Anyway, here are the results:
Question:
Which version of Microsoft Excel do you use?
Choices:
Option 01: Excel 2003 [173 votes]
Option 02: Excel 2002 [44 votes]
Option 03: Excel 2000 [92 votes]
Option 04: Excel 97 [15 votes]
Option 05: Excel 95 [2 votes]
Option 06: I don’t use Excel [17 votes]
Hope this helps.
Chad
6 April 2006, 7:53 amRichard:
Many corporate and local government users in the UK are still using Excel 97 because they are not willing to accept Microsoft’s iniquitous new licensing and upgrade regime.
The Bristol City Council has just abandoned Microsoft Office altogether in favour of Star Office 8/OpenOffice.org 2.0
Public sector workers account for around 20% of the total UK workforce. Around 2.8 million work in local government and of those at least half are still using Office 97 that’s quite a lot of Excel 97 users (on one tiny little island!)
6 April 2006, 8:25 amDCardno:
My two largest clients (~4K and ~7K desktops, as an estimate - I don’t work with the IT guys, so gthat’s an estimate based on e-mail address lists) have recently switched from XL97. The first one moved from XL97 to XP about eighteen months ago, and the other has just in the process (or maybe just finished) the switch to XL2003.
6 April 2006, 12:11 pmRich:
One advantage of still developing for XL 97 is that it allows for use in XL 2004 on the Mac (which is still on VB 5). So for cross-platform development, that has to be a factor.
7 April 2006, 11:25 amJon Peltier:
Hmmm, XL 97 and Macs. XL 97 projects accounted for about 1% of my billable time last year, and Macs accounted for about a tenth of that. Mac users also accounted for under 2% of my web traffic last year.
I’d say dropping Excel 97 support would not make any measurable difference.
8 April 2006, 8:22 amRich:
Howdy, John. Yes, I know that Macs are not significant in the Excel field. But I helped a developer last year who had a couple of projects that needed to be cross-platform. I tested the Mac solution for this person, which required substantial changes in adjusting for no ActiveX controls.
Perhaps now with the release of Boot Camp running Windows XP natively along with Mac OS X natively on MacIntel computers, the issue of Mac-Win cross-platform will be a non-issue.
While I use Win XP and Office 2003 at work, at home I use Mac OS X with Office 2004, and several other programs. However, since my needs at home require a capable word processor (Mellel)/page layout (Papyrus) that can properly handle English, Hebrew, Greek, German, Latin, etc. I rarely touch Excel (or Powerpoint) on the Mac.
10 April 2006, 3:24 pmRich:
Oh, nuts, I misspelled your name. Sorry, Jon.
10 April 2006, 3:24 pm