Why "upgrade?"

I'm still using Word97. It does columns, tables, textboxes and
watermarks. It can create an index, tables of contents, footnotes,
cross-references, and forms. It has an equation editor and that goofy
textart module that I never use.

What indispensible feature has Microsoft added to Word that makes Word97
obsolete?

It is, after all, only a word processor, not a desktop publishing program.

So, if you were a salesperson working for Microsoft on commission, how
would you persuade me to "upgrade?"

Or, if you wanted to send me a Word file that Word97 can't open, what
would you put in it?

"Michael Gula" wrote in message
...
I'm still using Word97. It does columns, tables, textboxes and
watermarks. It can create an index, tables of contents, footnotes,
cross-references, and forms. It has an equation editor and that goofy
textart module that I never use.

What indispensible feature has Microsoft added to Word that makes Word97
obsolete?

It is, after all, only a word processor, not a desktop publishing program.

So, if you were a salesperson working for Microsoft on commission, how
would you persuade me to "upgrade?"

Or, if you wanted to send me a Word file that Word97 can't open, what
would you put in it?

You seem to be happy with Word 97. Don't create a "need" when there is none.

"Chuck Davis" newsgroup at anthemwebs dot com wrote in message
...

"Michael Gula" wrote in message
...
I'm still using Word97. It does columns, tables, textboxes and
watermarks. It can create an index, tables of contents, footnotes,
cross-references, and forms. It has an equation editor and that goofy
textart module that I never use.

What indispensible feature has Microsoft added to Word that makes Word97
obsolete?

It is, after all, only a word processor, not a desktop publishing
program.

So, if you were a salesperson working for Microsoft on commission, how
would you persuade me to "upgrade?"

Or, if you wanted to send me a Word file that Word97 can't open, what
would you put in it?

You seem to be happy with Word 97. Don't create a "need" when there is
none.


I agree. I still use Office 97 (although my computer came with Microsoft
Works, including Word 2000). Excel and PowerPoint 97 more than meets my
needs. I have no intention of shelling out hundreds of dollars just to have
the latest Office.

silas

Hi, Michael. I run 4 versions of Office, but that's likely because I use
them all. If I only used Word for my personal use, 97 would be quite enough.
None of the new features are indispensable, and they've actually ruined some
of the features we loved...
The only real issues I can see you having a
--In 2000 and up, you can embed a table inside another table, but 97 can't
view it.
--In 2000 and up, there are more colors available that could look washed out
in 97 because they'll default to one of its colors.
So, if I had to pick just one that I could use forever, it'd be 2000.

************
Hope it helps!
Anne Troy
www.OfficeArticles.com
Check out the NEWsgroup stats!
Check out: www.ExcelUserConference.com

"Michael Gula" wrote in message
...
I'm still using Word97. It does columns, tables, textboxes and
watermarks. It can create an index, tables of contents, footnotes,
cross-references, and forms. It has an equation editor and that goofy
textart module that I never use.

What indispensible feature has Microsoft added to Word that makes Word97
obsolete?

It is, after all, only a word processor, not a desktop publishing program.

So, if you were a salesperson working for Microsoft on commission, how
would you persuade me to "upgrade?"

Or, if you wanted to send me a Word file that Word97 can't open, what
would you put in it?

The only reason I would use to convince myself to do that would be if I
thought I wanted the next version of Office. I would be very surprised if
Office 97 will still be a qualifying product for an Office 2007 upgrade
version.

But that's just how I would convince myself.

--

JoAnn Paules
MVP Microsoft [Publisher]



"Michael Gula" wrote in message
...
I'm still using Word97. It does columns, tables, textboxes and
watermarks. It can create an index, tables of contents, footnotes,
cross-references, and forms. It has an equation editor and that goofy
textart module that I never use.

What indispensible feature has Microsoft added to Word that makes Word97
obsolete?

It is, after all, only a word processor, not a desktop publishing program.

So, if you were a salesperson working for Microsoft on commission, how
would you persuade me to "upgrade?"

Or, if you wanted to send me a Word file that Word97 can't open, what
would you put in it?

Michael Gula wrote in
:

I'm still using Word97. It does columns, tables, textboxes and
watermarks. It can create an index, tables of contents, footnotes,
cross-references, and forms. It has an equation editor and that goofy
textart module that I never use.

What indispensible feature has Microsoft added to Word that makes
Word97 obsolete?

It is, after all, only a word processor, not a desktop publishing
program.

So, if you were a salesperson working for Microsoft on commission, how
would you persuade me to "upgrade?"

Or, if you wanted to send me a Word file that Word97 can't open, what
would you put in it?

-----------

I recently upgraded to Office 2003 for reasons unrelated to Word. The
only diffference I've noticed with my limited Word usage is that a minor
bug was fixed.

If I have a document with only black text and print it with Word97, it
isn't smart enough to use the black cartridge in my inkjet. Instead it
synthesizes a muddy dark green from the color cartridge as black. In
Word'03 it uses the black cartridge directly.

Similar small, but more aggravating bugs were fixed in Excel concerning
how it interacts with the display adapter on my second monitor.

If '97 works for you, I'd just keep plugging away with it.

Bill

On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 19:13:10 -0500, Michael Gula wrote:

I'm still using Word97. It does columns, tables, textboxes and
watermarks. It can create an index, tables of contents, footnotes,
cross-references, and forms. It has an equation editor and that goofy
textart module that I never use.

What indispensible feature has Microsoft added to Word that makes Word97
obsolete?

It is, after all, only a word processor, not a desktop publishing program.

So, if you were a salesperson working for Microsoft on commission, how
would you persuade me to "upgrade?"

I have Word 97, and my wife has Word 2003.

From what I've seen of Word 2003, I prefer Word 97.

I opened a redlined document in my wife's 2003. Note that Microsoft, for no
other reason than to confuse users, apprently, chanes the rems for functions
in successive versions. "Redlining" became "track changed" in some versions
and "revision marking" in others. They do that to make sure that when you
upgrade and you can't find out how to do it in the new version you WON'T find
it in the help file. Inter "revision marking" in a version that calls it
"track changes", and you will find nothing.

Anyway, When I opened this redlined document in my wife's 2003, i could not
make head or tail of it, even when it was printed. It was full of all sorts of
incomprehensible junk, and no indication of how to get it back looking as it
would if a human being had edited on hard copy -- stuff that had been crossed
out in strike-through mode, and stuff that had been added underlined.

So I stick to 97 because I've got a fat book on it and know how it works, and
nowadays a similar fat book for another version would cost six to ten times as
much and i can't afford one.

But I had a funny experience the other day.

I foudn Microsoft Antispyware had stopped working, and apparently I needed to
upgrade. So I upgraded.

Then I opened a Word document, and opened another document in another window
that I was referring to, and when I switched back to Word, it froze.

I had to press Ctrl-Alt-Delete, and then there was the thing about "Report
this problem to Microsoft", so I pressed the OK to report it, and then got
back a message saying Microsoft no longer supports this version. At that point
I thought that perhaps Microsoft Antispyware was itself a spyware product and
had gone arounhd corrupting old versions of Word in order to get people to buy
new ones, because whenever I tried to open that document, it froze.

I tried saving it to RTF, and reimporting it, but Word would not recognise the
RTF file.

Eventually I opened the document with Open Office 2.0, saved it as RTF, and
Word recognised that and imported it, and I carried on working.

On second thoughts I don't think MS Antispyware destroyed the program, but the
document file got corrupted, but for a moment there I thought that this was a
really nasty marketing tactic, prompted by the notice that "Microsoft no
longer supports this product".

But I prefer not to upgrade becasuse I want to spend my time writing, not
learning a new program, and wasting hours or even days trying to find out how
to undo unwanted changes that the new version has made to my documents.

If it's bad with word processors, with databases it's even worse. Long before
you've learnt how to use a program there will be an "upgrade" which will make
everything you've learnt useless. Computers are supposed to free you to get on
with your work; but the police of planned obscolescence mean you never get
anything done because you have to keep going back to square 1 and learn how to
use the latest version.




--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Sat, 18 Feb 2006 19:13:10 -0500 from Michael Gula
:
I'm still using Word97. It does columns, tables, textboxes and
watermarks. It can create an index, tables of contents, footnotes,
cross-references, and forms. It has an equation editor and that goofy
textart module that I never use.

What indispensible feature has Microsoft added to Word that makes Word97
obsolete?

I urge you not to upgrade. I was pretty happy with Word 97; I am
quite unhappy with Word 2003. It's MUCH more aggressive about working
the way Microsoft wants me to rather than the way I want to; it has
no new features that interest me; and its help system absolutely
sucks.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/

Michael

The first website outlines the differences between all of the MS Office
suites..

http://www.course.com/office/office2...Comparison.pdf

The second website deals with issues encountered in the migration from
Office 97 to 2003..

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...DisplayLang=en

Office 97 is obsolete in that no more development is taking place with the
version.. Office 97 is OK, and nobody is disputing the fact.. it can produce
a letter, calculate a spreadsheet, do whatever, and if it fulfills the
purposes of the user, then that's a good thing.. Office 2003 will do all
that Office 97 can and some, but if the user does not require the 'and
some', then stick with '97..

So, having looked at the PDF document, are there features of 2003 that you
consider critical to your needs right now?.. if yes, upgrade.. if not, stay
with what you have..

The issue that I have with what has been said in these threads is simple..
just because an individual does not have use for the added features of 2003
doesn't mean that the upgrade is universally useless, a waste of funds, or a
con by Microsoft.. this same question, and the inferences, spring up every
time that MS release a new version.. planned obsolescence is no more a part
of Microsoft culture than any other producer of goods..

Just in passing, how is your Model T these days?.. still getting you and
your family to the mall?




--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/User


"Michael Gula" wrote in message
...
I'm still using Word97. It does columns, tables, textboxes and
watermarks. It can create an index, tables of contents, footnotes,
cross-references, and forms. It has an equation editor and that goofy
textart module that I never use.

What indispensible feature has Microsoft added to Word that makes Word97
obsolete?

It is, after all, only a word processor, not a desktop publishing program.

So, if you were a salesperson working for Microsoft on commission, how
would you persuade me to "upgrade?"

Or, if you wanted to send me a Word file that Word97 can't open, what
would you put in it?

To restore the Track Changes behavior you expect, disable balloons on the
Track Changes tab of Tools | Options and set the formatting for inserted and
deleted items as you prefer (you will also see this formatting in Normal
view even if balloons are enabled).

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org
Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so
all may benefit.

"Steve Hayes" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 19:13:10 -0500, Michael Gula
wrote:

I'm still using Word97. It does columns, tables, textboxes and
watermarks. It can create an index, tables of contents, footnotes,
cross-references, and forms. It has an equation editor and that goofy
textart module that I never use.

What indispensible feature has Microsoft added to Word that makes Word97
obsolete?

It is, after all, only a word processor, not a desktop publishing
program.

So, if you were a salesperson working for Microsoft on commission, how
would you persuade me to "upgrade?"

I have Word 97, and my wife has Word 2003.

From what I've seen of Word 2003, I prefer Word 97.

I opened a redlined document in my wife's 2003. Note that Microsoft, for
no
other reason than to confuse users, apprently, chanes the rems for
functions
in successive versions. "Redlining" became "track changed" in some
versions
and "revision marking" in others. They do that to make sure that when you
upgrade and you can't find out how to do it in the new version you WON'T
find
it in the help file. Inter "revision marking" in a version that calls it
"track changes", and you will find nothing.

Anyway, When I opened this redlined document in my wife's 2003, i could
not
make head or tail of it, even when it was printed. It was full of all
sorts of
incomprehensible junk, and no indication of how to get it back looking as
it
would if a human being had edited on hard copy -- stuff that had been
crossed
out in strike-through mode, and stuff that had been added underlined.

So I stick to 97 because I've got a fat book on it and know how it works,
and
nowadays a similar fat book for another version would cost six to ten
times as
much and i can't afford one.

But I had a funny experience the other day.

I foudn Microsoft Antispyware had stopped working, and apparently I needed
to
upgrade. So I upgraded.

Then I opened a Word document, and opened another document in another
window
that I was referring to, and when I switched back to Word, it froze.

I had to press Ctrl-Alt-Delete, and then there was the thing about "Report
this problem to Microsoft", so I pressed the OK to report it, and then got
back a message saying Microsoft no longer supports this version. At that
point
I thought that perhaps Microsoft Antispyware was itself a spyware product
and
had gone arounhd corrupting old versions of Word in order to get people to
buy
new ones, because whenever I tried to open that document, it froze.

I tried saving it to RTF, and reimporting it, but Word would not recognise
the
RTF file.

Eventually I opened the document with Open Office 2.0, saved it as RTF,
and
Word recognised that and imported it, and I carried on working.

On second thoughts I don't think MS Antispyware destroyed the program, but
the
document file got corrupted, but for a moment there I thought that this
was a
really nasty marketing tactic, prompted by the notice that "Microsoft no
longer supports this product".

But I prefer not to upgrade becasuse I want to spend my time writing, not
learning a new program, and wasting hours or even days trying to find out
how
to undo unwanted changes that the new version has made to my documents.

If it's bad with word processors, with databases it's even worse. Long
before
you've learnt how to use a program there will be an "upgrade" which will
make
everything you've learnt useless. Computers are supposed to free you to
get on
with your work; but the police of planned obscolescence mean you never get
anything done because you have to keep going back to square 1 and learn
how to
use the latest version.




--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop
uk