Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #63803

Re: For The Word Lovers

Show all headers | View raw

On 1/4/25 1:18 PM, Eric Pozharski wrote:
> with <vl9ad1$3vu59$1@dont-email.me> Phillip wrote:
>> On 12/31/24 8:09 PM, rbowman wrote:
> 
>>> https://www.theregister.com/2024/12/23/svardos_drdos_reborn/?td=rt-3a
>>> Now's your chance to run Word 6.0.
>> IMO Word 6.0 was the last good version of the Word program series.
> 
> (correction) IMHO, 7.0 and 95 (I haven't been exposed to 97 (if that was
> a thing)) are rebranding with possible minor fixes I can't point out.
> So, 95 is last *usable* Word.  That being said...
> 
> *SKIP* [  4 lines   1 level deep]
>> But man, Word 6.0 brings back good memories.
> 
> Like, Doing transfer from paper to file by manual re-typing (yes, 120hpm
> is good enough).  Auto-save skips if you are typing at that moment.
> 50min later -- BAM! CRASH! FSCK! 50min of work went improving The Termal
> Death.  Yeah, good memories.
> 
> p.s.  Yes, LO has crashed on me once, but it was 100page .docx.  Now I
> convert to .odt immediately and live happily ever after.
> 
> p.p.s.  People!  You can ship .odt and nobody notices.  Yes, there might
> be accidents, but GUM (aka The Management) is aware that different
> versions of Word behave differently.  And they are A-OK with this
> because it's Word.
> 

Isn't docx just an MS extended version of OpenDoc specs anyways? I think 
I read that somewhere but I could be wrong. I did try Word 7.0 which was 
fine, but I still preferred 6.0. Sure, it crashed (although for my much 
less then 7.0. I think 7.0 was patched later on but I had already 
returned to Word 6.0).

-- 
Phillip Frabott
----------
- Adam: Is a void really a void if it returns?
- Jack: No, it's just nullspace at that point.
----------

Back to comp.os.linux.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

For The Word Lovers rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-01 01:09 +0000
  Re: For The Word Lovers Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2025-01-01 07:52 -0500
    Re: For The Word Lovers Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-01 13:46 -0500
      Re: For The Word Lovers pH <wNOSPAMp@gmail.org> - 2025-01-02 01:28 +0000
        Re: For The Word Lovers Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-01 20:55 -0500
        Re: For The Word Lovers D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-01-02 12:24 +0100
          Re: For The Word Lovers The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-02 12:18 +0000
          Re: For The Word Lovers pH <wNOSPAMp@gmail.org> - 2025-01-03 07:21 +0000
            Re: For The Word Lovers D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-01-03 12:43 +0100
              Re: For The Word Lovers The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-03 11:51 +0000
                Re: For The Word Lovers Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-03 19:02 -0500
            Re: For The Word Lovers Allodoxaphobia <trepidation@example.net> - 2025-01-04 13:06 +0000
  Re: For The Word Lovers not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-01-02 07:40 +1000
  Re: For The Word Lovers Phillip <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> - 2025-01-03 13:30 -0500
    Re: For The Word Lovers Eric Pozharski <apple.universe@posteo.net> - 2025-01-04 18:18 +0000
      Re: For The Word Lovers Phillip <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> - 2025-01-04 16:21 -0500
        Re: For The Word Lovers Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-04 22:07 +0000
        Re: For The Word Lovers Eric Pozharski <apple.universe@posteo.net> - 2025-01-07 15:19 +0000

csiph-web