kocoman Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 Size of Office 97 to 2003 installs? which version was bloated?thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoffeeFiend Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 Size of Office 97 to 2003 installs?MS Office 4.3: Don't recall, but used it on 386's (running Win 3.x) just fineMS Office 95: 386DX, 8MB RAM, and up to 88MB of HD spaceMS Office 97: 486, 8 to 12MB of RAM, around 120MB HD spaceMS Office 2000: P1 75, 128MB RAM for the OS (assuming XP) + 8MB/app open, around 200 to 400MB HD spaceMS Office XP: P1 133, 128MB RAM for the OS (assuming XP) + 8MB/app open, 230MB HD space for the Pro editionMS Office 2003: P1 233 or better (P3 recommended), 128MB RAM, around 400MB HDMS Office 2007: 500MHz, 256 RAM, up to 1.5-3GB HD space depending on the editionwhich version was bloated?None. A P4 from year 2000 (pretty much 10 years ago) will run Office 2007 just fine if it has enough RAM. If your PC can't handle that, you're well beyond overdue for an upgrade. I'm looking forward to Office 2010 already Haven't tried the beta yet though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
almawardi Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 Size of Office 97 to 2003 installs? which version was bloated?thanks2003 of course. Office 97 can open/handle the same files as 2003. Office 95 and earlier cannot, so it is different and not fair to compare with.2007 is a new office set with different files to open/handle (docx, xlsx, pptx, etc) and will be the first and the lightest edition if compare to later office edition (2010, 2013, and so on..) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoffeeFiend Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 2003 of courseSo you call something that requires an P1 CPU that's over a decade old and about 3 pennies worth of disk space (closer to one penny if you only install what you need -- and the full install would have easily fit on my old quantum fireball back in 1995) bloated? The PC I had back in year 2000 (years before Office 2003 came out) was already more than enough to handle it (that will be 10 years ago in about a week). Might as well go back to running Win 3.1 then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dencorso Posted December 26, 2009 Share Posted December 26, 2009 You can even work with the newer formats with Office 97... see: MS Office 2007 Compatibility Pack with Office 97. If super-small is what you want, a fully updated Office 97 SR2 with the Compatibility Pack is the way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kocoman Posted January 3, 2010 Author Share Posted January 3, 2010 You can even work with the newer formats with Office 97... see: MS Office 2007 Compatibility Pack with Office 97. If super-small is what you want, a fully updated Office 97 SR2 with the Compatibility Pack is the way to go.The problem is this does not work in Win98 to open and SAVE docx file.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dencorso Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 You can even work with the newer formats with Office 97... see: MS Office 2007 Compatibility Pack with Office 97. If super-small is what you want, a fully updated Office 97 SR2 with the Compatibility Pack is the way to go.The problem is this does not work in Win98 to open and SAVE docx file..Well, it's not at all clear to me it doesn't work to open .docx in 98... I think some more testing is needed. It seems it really desn't work to SAVE .docx files in 98. But why on earth would anyone wish to do that? You have to be able to open them. Then go ahead and save it as .doc, and help rid the world of those nasty .docxs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awergh Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 Office 95 and earlier cannotare you totally sure?I remember Word 6.0 could mostly open Word 97 files fine with the Converter, not sure about Office 95 but I assume its pretty similar to Word 6.0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kocoman Posted January 5, 2010 Author Share Posted January 5, 2010 You can even work with the newer formats with Office 97... see: MS Office 2007 Compatibility Pack with Office 97. If super-small is what you want, a fully updated Office 97 SR2 with the Compatibility Pack is the way to go.The problem is this does not work in Win98 to open and SAVE docx file..Well, it's not at all clear to me it doesn't work to open .docx in 98... I think some more testing is needed. It seems it really desn't work to SAVE .docx files in 98. But why on earth would anyone wish to do that? You have to be able to open them. Then go ahead and save it as .doc, and help rid the world of those nasty .docxs! Hmm, I thought docx files were good. can you tell me where/what threads I can find that docx files is bad.thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dencorso Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 But why on earth would anyone wish to do that? You have to be able to open them. Then go ahead and save it as .doc, and help rid the world of those nasty .docxs! Hmm, I thought docx files were good. can you tell me where/what threads I can find that docx files is bad.Sorry, I've got no links about it to point you to. Of course, it's a matter of POV. From my perspective, when you save your documents as a Word 97/2k3 .doc (since that's, by now, the de-facto standard), you are assured just about anyone in the world will be able to open it easily. If you do it in .docx, you're contributing to force people to upgrade or to go out of their way in order to convert it, before they can read it. Moreover, you'll say to me: "but .docxs are more convenient to send by e-mail, in that they are compressed". True. But then you can easily zip a .doc, so is the trade over in compatibility worth it? In my opinion it's not. When I want just about everybody to be able to read it, I send a huge document as a zipped .doc, maybe even a multipart .zip containing my .doc. And when I know for sure my correspondent is somewhat more savvy, I send a 7z-ed .doc, for better compression. But I only send a .docx, under protest, when my correspondent explicitly requires such a file format, to the exclusion of all others (in theory, since that never happened to me, up to now). So, here you have my POV. I bet you can find others that agree with me, if you do search for it. As there also must be many that don't. This is clearly a case where YMMV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sp0iLedBrAt Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacesurfer Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 .docx is not a zipped .doc file. Yes! .docx is zipped but it is a totally different format - namely XML format; whereas, .doc format is WordML. You can debate on whether XML is better or WordML is better - that's a different issue.The benefit of the newer file formats is .docx is safer as it has macros disabled by default. If it's .docm - it has macros enabled and open at your own risk if you got it from reliable source. With .doc, there was no distinction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now