"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

"John H." wrote in message
...

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 16:52:16 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 11:35:08 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 08:30:07 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Mrs H got an almost free MS Office Enterprise 2007 from her job. We've
not
had any problems with Office 2000. Running XP.

Would you install or not install?

Be aware the DOCX files Office 2007 produces are pretty much "write
only storage" for the rest of the world.

Thanks, the decision's made. It's trash.

Thank God for all you smart guys!
--
John H


God had nothing to do with it.

You're wrong, but that's OK.
--
John H


Prove it.



Oh, for Christ's sakes, Doug, give it up and let people think what they want
to think.

Eisboch

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:36:45 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 08:30:07 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Mrs H got an almost free MS Office Enterprise 2007 from her job. We've not
had any problems with Office 2000. Running XP.

Would you install or not install?


It's been a few days since I looked at this thread but I certainly
won't be installing this. I'm not ready to take my vows

Priesthood?
--
John H

wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 08:30:07 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Mrs H got an almost free MS Office Enterprise 2007 from her job. We've not
had any problems with Office 2000. Running XP.

Would you install or not install?


It's been a few days since I looked at this thread but I certainly
won't be installing this. I'm not ready to take my vows


I have the "full" MS Office 2007, which I installed on my desktop. I
uninstalled it and went back to Office 2003. I did not like the
interface in the 2007 version, and I could not see any "improvements"
that made a difference for me.

These big office suites are really bloatware. I rarely use anything in
2003 except Excel. For WP, I use Wordperfect. It's a little "lighter"
than WORD, and for me it seems faster, too. There's no problem saving
files in any file format others might need.

"HK" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 08:30:07 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Mrs H got an almost free MS Office Enterprise 2007 from her job. We've
not
had any problems with Office 2000. Running XP.

Would you install or not install?


It's been a few days since I looked at this thread but I certainly
won't be installing this. I'm not ready to take my vows


I have the "full" MS Office 2007, which I installed on my desktop. I
uninstalled it and went back to Office 2003. I did not like the interface
in the 2007 version, and I could not see any "improvements" that made a
difference for me.

These big office suites are really bloatware. I rarely use anything in
2003 except Excel. For WP, I use Wordperfect. It's a little "lighter" than
WORD, and for me it seems faster, too. There's no problem saving files in
any file format others might need.


How fast does a word processor need to be? It spends 99% of its existence
waiting for humans to type of press a button. What does Wordperfect do
faster?

I'm not asking because I dislike Wordperfect. But, if I already had one word
processor installed, I wouldn't bother installing another unless the first
one was screwed up in a major way.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 08:30:07 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Mrs H got an almost free MS Office Enterprise 2007 from her job. We've
not
had any problems with Office 2000. Running XP.

Would you install or not install?

It's been a few days since I looked at this thread but I certainly
won't be installing this. I'm not ready to take my vows

I have the "full" MS Office 2007, which I installed on my desktop. I
uninstalled it and went back to Office 2003. I did not like the interface
in the 2007 version, and I could not see any "improvements" that made a
difference for me.

These big office suites are really bloatware. I rarely use anything in
2003 except Excel. For WP, I use Wordperfect. It's a little "lighter" than
WORD, and for me it seems faster, too. There's no problem saving files in
any file format others might need.


How fast does a word processor need to be? It spends 99% of its existence
waiting for humans to type of press a button. What does Wordperfect do
faster?

I'm not asking because I dislike Wordperfect. But, if I already had one word
processor installed, I wouldn't bother installing another unless the first
one was screwed up in a major way.




Fewer commands, fewer options, easier and faster to set up and use or
not use "defaults," a lot less of doing it Microsoft's way or no way at
all. It's a feeling, as I stated, that it seems faster to me. I find
WORD clunky, obtuse, and overstuffed.

"HK" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 08:30:07 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Mrs H got an almost free MS Office Enterprise 2007 from her job. We've
not
had any problems with Office 2000. Running XP.

Would you install or not install?

It's been a few days since I looked at this thread but I certainly
won't be installing this. I'm not ready to take my vows

I have the "full" MS Office 2007, which I installed on my desktop. I
uninstalled it and went back to Office 2003. I did not like the
interface in the 2007 version, and I could not see any "improvements"
that made a difference for me.

These big office suites are really bloatware. I rarely use anything in
2003 except Excel. For WP, I use Wordperfect. It's a little "lighter"
than WORD, and for me it seems faster, too. There's no problem saving
files in any file format others might need.


How fast does a word processor need to be? It spends 99% of its
existence waiting for humans to type of press a button. What does
Wordperfect do faster?

I'm not asking because I dislike Wordperfect. But, if I already had one
word processor installed, I wouldn't bother installing another unless the
first one was screwed up in a major way.


Fewer commands, fewer options, easier and faster to set up and use or not
use "defaults," a lot less of doing it Microsoft's way or no way at all.
It's a feeling, as I stated, that it seems faster to me. I find WORD
clunky, obtuse, and overstuffed.


Fewer commands? You don't have to use commands that you don't need. And,
does your version of Word have the "Hide less-used commands on menus"
feature? If you don't use them, you don't see them, at least the more
obscure commands.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 08:30:07 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Mrs H got an almost free MS Office Enterprise 2007 from her job. We've
not
had any problems with Office 2000. Running XP.

Would you install or not install?
It's been a few days since I looked at this thread but I certainly
won't be installing this. I'm not ready to take my vows
I have the "full" MS Office 2007, which I installed on my desktop. I
uninstalled it and went back to Office 2003. I did not like the
interface in the 2007 version, and I could not see any "improvements"
that made a difference for me.

These big office suites are really bloatware. I rarely use anything in
2003 except Excel. For WP, I use Wordperfect. It's a little "lighter"
than WORD, and for me it seems faster, too. There's no problem saving
files in any file format others might need.

How fast does a word processor need to be? It spends 99% of its
existence waiting for humans to type of press a button. What does
Wordperfect do faster?

I'm not asking because I dislike Wordperfect. But, if I already had one
word processor installed, I wouldn't bother installing another unless the
first one was screwed up in a major way.

Fewer commands, fewer options, easier and faster to set up and use or not
use "defaults," a lot less of doing it Microsoft's way or no way at all.
It's a feeling, as I stated, that it seems faster to me. I find WORD
clunky, obtuse, and overstuffed.


Fewer commands? You don't have to use commands that you don't need. And,
does your version of Word have the "Hide less-used commands on menus"
feature? If you don't use them, you don't see them, at least the more
obscure commands.




There's a lot less drill down in Word Perfect. Let's just say it is more
a word processor for writers than it is for those in huge organizations
who "process" documents. It is also a hell of a lot easier to customize
and to automate functions, those within the program and new ones, via
macros.

I started with WordStar for DOS in the 1980s, dumped that for
Volkswriter, dumped that for Xywrite for DOS, learned WordPerfect 4.1,
moved to Xywrite for Windows, didn't like that, picked up WORD, hated it
and still don't like it much, and moved onto Wordperfect for Windows
while the programmers were still in Orem, Utah. Then Corel bought it
out, it went downhill for a while, but in the last year or two, has
gotten better.

I have dozens and dozens of macros in WP that I use professionally.
Doing the same sorts of things in WORD is either impossible, or very
cumbersome.

Here you go...this will help:

http://wptoolbox.com/

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:31:56 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:



Fewer commands? You don't have to use commands that you don't need. And,
does your version of Word have the "Hide less-used commands on menus"
feature? If you don't use them, you don't see them, at least the more
obscure commands.

Look, I've fat-fingered Word while writing a simple doc and suddenly
had a database, tables, pie chart, and hyperlinks communicating with
the space shuttle. That's when I'd give it to somebody else to
straighten it out and e-mail it back to me so I could send it out.

--Vic

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:27:06 -0500, HK wrote:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


I'm not asking because I dislike Wordperfect. But, if I already had one word
processor installed, I wouldn't bother installing another unless the first
one was screwed up in a major way.

Fewer commands, fewer options, easier and faster to set up and use or
not use "defaults," a lot less of doing it Microsoft's way or no way at
all. It's a feeling, as I stated, that it seems faster to me. I find
WORD clunky, obtuse, and overstuffed.

People who do a lot of writing often prefer WordPerfect.
I prefer notepad.

--Vic

Vic Smith wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:27:06 -0500, HK wrote:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

I'm not asking because I dislike Wordperfect. But, if I already had one word
processor installed, I wouldn't bother installing another unless the first
one was screwed up in a major way.
Fewer commands, fewer options, easier and faster to set up and use or
not use "defaults," a lot less of doing it Microsoft's way or no way at
all. It's a feeling, as I stated, that it seems faster to me. I find
WORD clunky, obtuse, and overstuffed.

People who do a lot of writing often prefer WordPerfect.
I prefer notepad.

--Vic


I use wordpad for really simple stuff. No fuss, no muss. I like it a bit
better than notepad.

My fav of all times was XyWrite for Dos. Used the same front end as the
typesetters of those days.