Word 2000
Cora Yockers
was wondering if you could give me a heads up on some conversion issues.
I've read Microsoft's overview on Word 2000 and understand that the file
format is "compatible" with Word 97? Are they actually the same format?
Will saving back to the previous version cause the same type of headaches
that were encountered when we upgraded from Word 6 or 7 to Word 97 and had
to save back to those versions? Is autotext handled the same way? Does
numbering work better than it does in Word 97? Has the Master Document
feature been fixed? Thanks for any info you might have.
- Cora Yockers
Please reply to group, not to author.
Mark Dormer
The new HTML features make word worthless as an html editor. One table I did
this morning Word 31Kb, doing it in Notepad 3.6 KB. (I keep forgetting it's
useless, and think I'm using 97) plus doesn't act like proper HTML, fixed
widths ect. I'm going to try to see if I can get 97 html converter working
with it as I like Word as a powerful editor and the docs I want as html and
rtf. I always had to manually edit Word 97 html. But 2000 is 10 times crap
to content in html files. HTML documents should tell browsers only the
minimun that they want, not specify every little part of the rendering
process. And you can't paste Word to Frontpage express.
Roundtrip - who cares, if you want word documents on an intranet put .doc's
on the intranet. IE will cheerfully show Word docs in the browser window.
--
Mark Dormer
www.angelfire.com/biz/serenitymacros
Last updated 2nd April 1999 with
Win98 command line parameters & registry settings
Bob Buckland ?:-) <7521...@CompuServe.com> wrote in message
news:eTgjPJZf#GA.266@cppssbbsa03...
>
> Hi Cora,
>
> The .DOC file format for Word97 and Word2000 are 'the same'
> in the way that Word 6 and Word 7/95 are the same. That is,
> the basic file structure is identical, but Word 7/95 has a
> few things that Word 6 knew nothing about.
>
> For example, Word2000 can do nested tables, which no prior
> version could do. This was needed to finally enable the
> ability to have a good experience in using .DOC files in
> a mix with .HTM files.
>
> In Word 2000 there is a setting in the program that allows
> you to turn off any features not supported in Word97 if that's
> what you need to do.
>
> The larger difficulty that I see, from what I've watched with
> our testers, is that the HTML/XML pagses created in Word2000
> (and used as an 'alternative' format for the .DOC type, say
> for a coroporate intranet standard) may not be useable within
> Word97 or earlier Word versions. I haven't seen anything
> yet from Microsoft on any improvements on the prior version
> side, and don't expect too much there related to Web View,
> but I do expect that an updated set of the WRD97CNV.EXE for
> going back to Word 6/7/95 will be along (tweaks, not a
> renovation).
>
>
> On the workstations where we installed Word2000 to replace
> Word97, the users didn't have a lot of problems in navigating
> their way around. There are more Tools=>Options=> Save compatability
> options than before and documents aren't as sensitive to
> Printer changes (at least on screen) with the new buzzword
> being not WYSIWYG but WYSIWYB (Browse) Things work 'similarly'.
> That is, the dialog boxes are different, the menus are 'adaptive'
> (things move 'below the line' (short v.s. long menu) or 'above
> the line' based on usage.
>
> A document that is corrupted when it was in Word97, is still
> corrupted in Word2000 (no magic bullets). I've stayed away
> from Master Documents for so long, that I'll let someone who
> ran it through its paces in Word2000 address that <g>, but
> my initial impression of it was similar to what we found in
> Word97. If you started the Master Document in the current
> version with a clean normal.dot file, then it works okay.
> If you try to bring forward one from an earlier version,
> you may soon discover some 'buried treasure'.
> ==
>
> Bob Buckland ?:-) *
> Microsoft MVP, Businessware
>
> Courtesy is not expensive and it pays big dividends.
>
> Net-Tamer V 1.08X - Test Drive