No. I prefer the earlier Star Trek Spaceflight Chronology.
It was a Paramount-licensed, first published accounting of the years between now and the 23rd century.
I prefer that book's account of historic events and the sequence in which they unfolded.
Some argue this book's timeline is shifted 50 years behind the official history, or similarly incompatible. Aside from that, I like that history of events rather than the Official Chronology. The actual years of events aren't as important to me as the depiction of which historic events happened in relation to each other
(e.g. Romulans encountered before Klingons, Star Fleet formed after UFP founding, and so on).
If you're talking about the one published in 1980, I think that one is terrific.
John Ford used it as a reference for his novels, and that's about as good as it can get IMO. Plus it has the refit as ENTERPRISE-class, so that puts it over the top, since I don't believe the Okuda version of all that (what he had put on screen in TUC ) in the slightest.
EDIT ADDON: Man, I miss Dixon. I got a few warnings defending his views, and didn't mind those in the slightest. Guy really had a good line on the whole Enterprise-class thing as I recall.
Can't imagine why anybody would care to add the Abramsverse into this at all, since it has precious little to do with TREK. It doesn't seem to jive with TREK even before Kirk's birth, given what we see of the KELVIN, but I am no expert on it, since I found the movie so utterly sucky (one dvd viewing and most of one streaming viewing) I'm not likely to give it another view in this lifetime.