From the tone of this post, you seem to think the NYTimes is way behind the times, and that they should have adopted the newer versions much sooner. You are completely wrong. There are so many costs associated with adopting newer software versions (I refuse to say "upgrade") in IT and training and just overall headaches, I would say the NYTimes is doing this exactly right. Except the move to Outlook is a horrible idea. And, whatever they do, they should avoid Word 2007 at all costs. It's not an upgrade at all, it's a new program with the same name as the older one, and doesn't offer any advantages, except maybe to the Microsoft executive whose staff came up with it.