Powerpoint can't read the outline from no text converter is installed for this file type
Alain Dekker
of this error. I ahve the Office 2007 compatibility pack installed. What do
I do?
The first Google article on this is from Microsoft, but doesn't even
*mentino* Office 97, only going back to Office 2000.
I do not want to install Office 2007, if you're going to suggest that.
Thanks,
Alain
Echo S
doesn't support the compatibility pack.
You can open the file at the office and choose Office Button | Save As and
save as a 97-2003 format file (*.PPT).
--
Echo [MS PPT MVP] http://www.echosvoice.com
What's new in PPT 2007? http://www.echosvoice.com/2007.htm
Fixing PowerPoint Annoyances http://tinyurl.com/36grcd
PowerPoint 2007 Complete Makeover Kit http://tinyurl.com/32a7nx
"Alain Dekker" <abde...@NOSPAM.fsmail.net> wrote in message
news:%231qn64n...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Alain Dekker
Bit of a problem, though, because Powerpoint 97 and the rest of Office 97
are a nice set of programs. Why should I be pushed into installing Office
2007? I know MS wnat to make more money out of me, but its not right that
they do it this way.
Regards,
Alain
"Echo S" <msnews...@echosvoiceUGHSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:OWjPmMoW...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
LVTravel
"Alain Dekker" <abde...@NOSPAM.fsmail.net> wrote in message
news:#rYCsWoW...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
If you only need to view the files and not edit them you can download the
PPT viewer for 2007 and install that. Won't affect the way PPT 97 works
except if you double click on a ppt filename and then it would open the
viewer instead of PPT 97. To get around that problem you would need to
start PPT 97 and then open the file. Viewer is here:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=048DC840-14E1-467D-8DCA-19D2A8FD7485&displaylang=en
Another free option is to download Open Office 3.11 (www.openoffice.org)
which will open, play and edit almost all PPT and PPTx files from Office
2007 and earlier.
Echo S
I'd say, though, that Office 97 is now 12 years old, and it's four versions
back -- soon to be five. They've provided compatibility back to Office 2000,
which is nearly 10 years old and three versions back. I don't consider that
a rush at all. At some point, you've gotta move on.
--
Echo [MS PPT MVP] http://www.echosvoice.com
What's new in PPT 2007? http://www.echosvoice.com/2007.htm
Fixing PowerPoint Annoyances http://tinyurl.com/36grcd
PowerPoint 2007 Complete Makeover Kit http://tinyurl.com/32a7nx
"Alain Dekker" <abde...@NOSPAM.fsmail.net> wrote in message
news:%23rYCsWo...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
Steve Rindsberg
> All right, thanks, will suggest this to whomever gave me the PPT file.
>
> Bit of a problem, though, because Powerpoint 97 and the rest of Office 97
> are a nice set of programs. Why should I be pushed into installing Office
> 2007? I know MS wnat to make more money out of me, but its not right that
> they do it this way.
Office 97 really was (and remains) a classic.
But in order to make needed improvements to the program and to support new
features, MS had to change the file format. We can't expect them to do all
that AND maintain backward compatibility with the old software as well. The
fact that they've managed to do so through Office 2000, 2002 and 2003 is, to
me, quite amazing, but it couldn't go on forever.
The problem isn't so much that you're being pushed into updating ... after all,
you can continue to do what you've always done with the software. It's more
that others around you have elected to update and are now incompatible with
your software.
If we're happy where we are, we're free to stay there while the world moves on,
but we have to accept that that can leave us a bit out of synch.
FWIW, the compatibility pack will run with Office 2000, and 2000's not so
wildly different from 97 that you'd have difficulty using it. If you can lay
your hands on a copy, it'd be worth considering.
>
> Regards,
> Alain
>
> "Echo S" <msnews...@echosvoiceUGHSPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:OWjPmMoW...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> >I don't think you're going to be able to open the file, then, because PPT
> >97 doesn't support the compatibility pack.
> >
> > You can open the file at the office and choose Office Button | Save As and
> > save as a 97-2003 format file (*.PPT).
> >
> > --
> > Echo [MS PPT MVP] http://www.echosvoice.com
> > What's new in PPT 2007? http://www.echosvoice.com/2007.htm
> > Fixing PowerPoint Annoyances http://tinyurl.com/36grcd
> > PowerPoint 2007 Complete Makeover Kit http://tinyurl.com/32a7nx
> >
> >
> > "Alain Dekker" <abde...@NOSPAM.fsmail.net> wrote in message
> > news:%231qn64n...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> >> I've got Powerpoint 97 installed. I can't read a PPT file from work
> >> because of this error. I ahve the Office 2007 compatibility pack
> >> installed. What do I do?
> >>
> >> The first Google article on this is from Microsoft, but doesn't even
> >> *mentino* Office 97, only going back to Office 2000.
> >>
> >> I do not want to install Office 2007, if you're going to suggest that.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Alain
> >>
> >
==============================
PPT Frequently Asked Questions
http://www.pptfaq.com/
PPTools add-ins for PowerPoint
http://www.pptools.com/
Alain Dekker
Tried the viewer, but it wasn't able to open the file. Something about a
"text converter not installed" I think. Forget the exact error, will report
later.
I do understand and appreciate the issue of "moving on". Its just a shame.
Bit like having a great 1987 model of Toyota Corolla, say, and loving the
car...but eventually the manufacturer stops making spare parts for it. With
software, though, it should really be different, especially for such a large
corporation as Microsoft.
Spent some time reading about some of these new and (supposedly) wonderful
features that Office 2007 brings to the party. The fundamentals of creating
great slides, spreadsheets and documents haven't changed and I for one
remain unconvinced that these new features actually add much. Certainly
nothing springs out at me and says "Wow, I need that feature!".
I'm suspicious that breaking backward compatibility with its own products is
a commercial decision. Not aimed at legitimate Office 97 users such as
myself, but aimed squarely at competitors of Office, like Open Office. I'm
just an unfortunate casualty. I think this is unfair, but sadly an all too
common, business practice. MS dominates the OS market and by virtue of that
dominates the office-style programs as well (we remember Lotus 123 and Word
Perfect, I hope!). They should win the office-style program market by
producing great programs, not changing proprietary file formats to prevent
competitors writing readers.
Not totally unrelated, this reminds me of a serious problem I heard a
lecture on recently - the issue of "bit rot". The lecturer, who did
consultancy work for Google and NASA, pointed out that we'll soon get to a
stage where the only way to open old files is to preserve the program, the
operating system on which the program ran, the media to load both, the
hardware to support both and perhaps even an electrical supply to run that
hardware! If we don't then 20 or more years from now, nothing we've created
today will be usable, it'll be "rotted bits", a pile of useless 1s and 0s.
I'm sure we all hope this doesn't apply to some fundamental file formats,
like BMP or JPG or TXT, but its already happening very rapidly to many other
file formats. This PPT question I've raised is an excellent example.
I bought a private copy of Office 2000 for myself which I use on my personal
computer...hope nobody minds if I install that (illegally?) on my work
computer to get around the compatibility issues.
Thanks again,
Alain
"Steve Rindsberg" <ab...@localhost.com> wrote in message
news:VA.000053f...@localhost.com...
Echo S
office.microsoft.com -- it includes the compatibility pack so the 2007
Viewer can open PPTX (2007-format) files. The 2003 Viewer doesn't have this
capability.
--
Echo [MS PPT MVP] http://www.echosvoice.com
What's new in PPT 2007? http://www.echosvoice.com/2007.htm
Fixing PowerPoint Annoyances http://tinyurl.com/36grcd
PowerPoint 2007 Complete Makeover Kit http://tinyurl.com/32a7nx
"Alain Dekker" <alain....@NO.SPAM.loma.com> wrote in message
news:ez%233ld7W...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Steve Rindsberg
> I do understand and appreciate the issue of "moving on". Its just a shame.
> Bit like having a great 1987 model of Toyota Corolla, say, and loving the
> car...but eventually the manufacturer stops making spare parts for it. With
> software, though, it should really be different, especially for such a large
> corporation as Microsoft.
It's a lot like that, yes. Only in a way it's better with software, in that it
doesn't wear out. The computer underneath might, but you can still install the
old stuff into most newer operating systems.
MS has to make a living, and that comes from new sales, so naturally that's
what they're going to encourage by adding new features. Putting money into
retrofitting new features into old versions of the software has no return on
investment though; it'll only happen to the extent that NOT doing so hurts
sales of the new stuff. I'd guess that the cost of backward compatibility as
far back as '97 was higher than could be justified by the number of people
still using '97.
> Spent some time reading about some of these new and (supposedly) wonderful
> features that Office 2007 brings to the party. The fundamentals of creating
> great slides, spreadsheets and documents haven't changed and I for one
> remain unconvinced that these new features actually add much. Certainly
> nothing springs out at me and says "Wow, I need that feature!".
>
> I'm suspicious that breaking backward compatibility with its own products is
> a commercial decision.
It's a public company so certainly in the long run, ALL decisions are
commercial ones. But considering how long a run 97's had, and how well 2000
still maintains compatibility with the newest version, I'd say they've been
more than fair with us.
> Not aimed at legitimate Office 97 users such as
> myself, but aimed squarely at competitors of Office, like Open Office.
Ah, but they've actually opened up the format, with the result that competitors
now have an *easier* time reading/writing Office files than ever before.
> just an unfortunate casualty. I think this is unfair, but sadly an all too
> common, business practice. MS dominates the OS market and by virtue of that
> dominates the office-style programs as well (we remember Lotus 123 and Word
> Perfect, I hope!). They should win the office-style program market by
> producing great programs, not changing proprietary file formats to prevent
> competitors writing readers.
They changed FROM a proprietary format TO a much more open one. That change
happens to have broken backward compatibility with Office '97, unfortunately,
but we can't have it both ways.
> Not totally unrelated, this reminds me of a serious problem I heard a
> lecture on recently - the issue of "bit rot". The lecturer, who did
> consultancy work for Google and NASA, pointed out that we'll soon get to a
> stage where the only way to open old files is to preserve the program, the
> operating system on which the program ran, the media to load both, the
> hardware to support both and perhaps even an electrical supply to run that
> hardware! If we don't then 20 or more years from now, nothing we've created
> today will be usable, it'll be "rotted bits", a pile of useless 1s and 0s.
It's already happened at NASA ... I'm surprised he didn't mention that. Old
data tapes are crumbling.
But with digital (as opposed to analog) storage, we have an advantage ...
there's always going to be a period of overlap, when both the old and the new
devices and formats are available and interchangeable. It's when we don't take
advantage of that opportunity that we're liable to lose data.
> I'm sure we all hope this doesn't apply to some fundamental file formats,
> like BMP or JPG or TXT, but its already happening very rapidly to many other
> file formats. This PPT question I've raised is an excellent example.
True to the extent that the "overlap" period for Office 95 and earlier formats
ends once you move totally to 2007 and no longer have an earlier version
available.
> I bought a private copy of Office 2000 for myself which I use on my personal
> computer...hope nobody minds if I install that (illegally?) on my work
> computer to get around the compatibility issues.
I'm not sure what the licensing issues are in that case. I rather doubt you'll
see any body-armored warriors descending from black helos hovering outside your
building any time soon though.
Alain Dekker
>> I'm sure we all hope this doesn't apply to some fundamental file formats,
>> like BMP or JPG or TXT, but its already happening very rapidly to many
>> other
>> file formats. This PPT question I've raised is an excellent example.
>
> True to the extent that the "overlap" period for Office 95 and earlier
> formats
> ends once you move totally to 2007 and no longer have an earlier version
> available.
Just wanted to quickly comment on this one, though. You make a good point,
but I do think the situation might be less rosy than you suggest. On a
personal level, we move with the times fairly painlessly, particularly if
you're young and into techy things. Over a period of 5 years, say, not much
appears to change.
But make that 20 years and its a very different story altogether. In order
to read files created in Word 6 and Windows 95 (I still have some on a 3.5"
floppy somewhere!) its not going to be long before we have to keep the OS,
disk reader, hardware (that'll have moved on and maybe the Windows 95 OS
we've kept won't install), etc. For the average user, that will be an
impossibility.
You're right that we must "take advantage of the period of overlap". Very
true. Without constantly worrying (for want of a better word) about these
issues, we'll get into "bit rot" faster than we think. Your example of NASA
data tapes is a perfect example. In my opinion, though, file format writers
also have a responsibility to keep the file format itself lean and mean. We
do need to ask ourselves whether that extra data field allowing us to use
animated smiley faces in powerpoint slides really is a good idea!
But maybe I'm just pontificating too much. We have to deal with
"obselescence" all the time, and always will. A good example to this is my
wedding suit I tried to put on the other day. Hadn't worn it for several
years and, umm, the waistline must have shrunk in the cupboard because it
was too tight! :o)
Thanks again for yout thoughtful replies.
Regards,
Alain
Steve Rindsberg
> Hi thanks, for those thoughtful replies.
>
> >> I'm sure we all hope this doesn't apply to some fundamental file formats,
> >> like BMP or JPG or TXT, but its already happening very rapidly to many
> >> other
> >> file formats. This PPT question I've raised is an excellent example.
> >
> > True to the extent that the "overlap" period for Office 95 and earlier
> > formats
> > ends once you move totally to 2007 and no longer have an earlier version
> > available.
>
> Just wanted to quickly comment on this one, though. You make a good point,
> but I do think the situation might be less rosy than you suggest. On a
> personal level, we move with the times fairly painlessly, particularly if
> you're young and into techy things. Over a period of 5 years, say, not much
> appears to change.
>
> But make that 20 years and its a very different story altogether. In order
> to read files created in Word 6 and Windows 95 (I still have some on a 3.5"
> floppy somewhere!) its not going to be long before we have to keep the OS,
> disk reader, hardware (that'll have moved on and maybe the Windows 95 OS
> we've kept won't install), etc. For the average user, that will be an
> impossibility.
Aw, it's not quite THAT bad. You can still install '97 in the most current
versions of Windows, and any version of Office prior to 2007 will be able to
read your Office 95 (and possibly prior version) files and resave them in
current format.
Just as we need to update our storage media from time to time, we also need to
update our file formats. Tedious, undesirable, yes, but essentially it's a
cost of doing business.
The drawback with files, unfortunately, is that in updating the format, data
and formatting can be lost.
> You're right that we must "take advantage of the period of overlap". Very
> true. Without constantly worrying (for want of a better word) about these
> issues, we'll get into "bit rot" faster than we think. Your example of NASA
> data tapes is a perfect example. In my opinion, though, file format writers
> also have a responsibility to keep the file format itself lean and mean. We
> do need to ask ourselves whether that extra data field allowing us to use
> animated smiley faces in powerpoint slides really is a good idea!
>
> But maybe I'm just pontificating too much. We have to deal with
> "obselescence" all the time, and always will. A good example to this is my
> wedding suit I tried to put on the other day. Hadn't worn it for several
> years and, umm, the waistline must have shrunk in the cupboard because it
> was too tight! :o)
Ah, corporeal obsolescence has bitten you too? The data no longer fits the
storage medium? @#*$^ tailors and their continually changing formats!
> Thanks again for yout thoughtful replies.
A pleasure.
> Regards,
tpeacock
old O/Ss and programs being used out there, but really and truly, Office '97?
Try thinking of it from the manufacturers side, like with cars. Ever since
I was a kid, it was widely known that parts were kept for 10 years on cars
then became harder to get a hold of. A business just can't store things
forever because the world does move on, things get better, more and newer
features come along, etc.
A new copy of Office is not that expensive, and trying to belittle Microsoft
in any form or fashion for dropping support for what is now a 13 year old
program is beyond comprehension. I tried my best to stay away from computers
but due to a motorcycle accident in 2000 I had to redesign my life and cose
IT as my new career path. I still don't buy into iPhones and all that
nonsense, but do know that with software and hardware as it concerns
computers is something you need to realize changes and trying to compute in
todays world with >10 yr old stuff is ridiculous.
You can do it, no laws say otherwise, but don't criticize the manufacturer
because your too cheap or too stubborn, or whatever the excuse is for moving
on.
There are several reasons to make the move and I wouldn't waste time or
money moving to Office 2000. Get at least 2003 though 2007 is a much better
platform.
"Steve Rindsberg" wrote:
> .
>