| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 32048 | 2003-04-07 21:25:00 | Microsoft Bloatware | Susan B (19) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 134204 | 2003-04-08 08:27:00 | > As for Word 97. I would NEVER go back to that. Really? I reckon that was the best version that they ever created. No bloat :) |
segfault (655) | ||
| 134205 | 2003-04-08 09:20:00 | > > As for Word 97. I would NEVER go back to that. > > Really? I reckon that was the best version that they > ever created. No bloat :) > There maybe no bloat, but there is also less eyecandy ( = bloat ). There is less impressive fonts, and a lacking in commands. For example: I saved a .doc on this computer - XPPro, Office XP - and used fancy fonts, and coloured it. I then emailed it to my mothers office computer - WinNT, Office 2000 - and it did not recognise the fonts, so picked the default ones instead. I was dissapointed, because I was hopeful of a neat printing. All that aside, oriffice XP is designed for use on newer systems that can handle the code - not ancient beasts that stutter and slurr. radz:p |
raddersnz (684) | ||
| 134206 | 2003-04-08 09:26:00 | > You probably have the version that has the huge Spellcheck file that was custom built for "tweak'e" (sorry mate, just had to get that one in!) How did you guess?! :D >> Which one wouldn't mind if he used it Oi!! Watch it Thomas!! tweak'e has very long-standing rights (mscandy.orcon.net.nz) you know. :| |
Susan B (19) | ||
| 134207 | 2003-04-08 09:37:00 | I think its coz one Office saves in some sort of newer XML format, which would be better for positioning of txt etc, and more customisable, and yet the other has their own language? Thats what I can remember reading, but I could be wrong. I think Office 97/2K use a special format, whereas 2K2 uses ful XML |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 134208 | 2003-04-08 10:07:00 | > > You can't have a 40GB hard disk and only use 2GB > of it. > > The boss thinks you can. :D > > > > That is roughly 3x the size. One for each version > > That is exactly what I told the boss. :-) > > > > If you open the word97 version in Open/StarOffice > and export as Word97, it will give you an even > smaller version of the file. > > I can quite believe it. Too bad about work upgrading > but I am beginning to wonder if I should have > bothered buying Office 2002 myself instead of > sticking with Office 97. Oh well, got to fill up my > 80 GIG hard drive somehow. :p Never fear Susan, you won't fill your hard drive LOL |
Baldy (26) | ||
| 134209 | 2003-04-08 10:31:00 | With every issie of MS Word from Word for Windows 2, the file size for an empty sheet has expaned 3 fold . in WfW2, an empty sheet was 2kb, that went to 6kb for Word 95, 18kb Word97 etc . . What you get for your increased file size, is access to the increased range of formatting options each updated version bring with it, as additional bagage . At work we have said goodbye to MS pork and retained Office 95 as the default program . On WinXP these programs open in the blink of an eye, tables are sorted in a flash, saving files is quick, everything about Office 95 is fast, cant say that with MS Office 2002 I can remember when I could save all the files I needed for my position as Church Treasurer, Kindy Treasurer, personal corospondance and local Rag editor on one or two floppies at most . I nearly always saved files in WfW2 or XL4 . Well so much for my hobby horse, as an aside, Rob Clarke wrote a very humerous article on this very subject a year or 2 back in PC World, anyone got a copy or remember what issue it was in? Cheers . . . . . . John . Even now, if Ive a simple plain straight forward document to save with nothing fancy in it, I save it in WfW2, Excel files in XL4 or CSV format . |
John W (523) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||