JorgeA

BlouBul, Oh yeah, I forgot to report that my friend also has Nortom 360 on his Vista x64 laptop. The file is a .doc file, as my customer only has Office 2003 and can't create or read .docx files. Unfortunately I don't have access to more PCs. My office is at home, so I've tried it on all the computers we have here. (Well, O.K., I tried it on my Windows for Workgroups 3.11 system running MS Word 6.0, but it couldn't read the file at all. ) I'm wondering if the issue might be related to Grammar Check. I won't get a chance to try it tonight, but next chance I get I'll see if I can turn off that feature, at least temporarily and for this file, and then see how long it takes to be ready. --JorgeA

dencorso, Yes, I did make an emergency boot disk under the BlackArmor wizard when I set up that external HDD for my wife. Would that be enough? The manual claims that it is. Hmm... What sorts of things could be going on with that? --JorgeA

BlouBul, I have some more data bits on Word file loading. First, I tried loading that same big file on my Windows 98 tower (Office 2000). The time was -- 0:40. Can you believe it?? Next I got my wife to let me put the file on her new Windows 7 PC and try loading it into Word 2007 a couple of times (no more). The first time was 1:43; the second, 1:45. And last, I finally persuaded a friend to let me use up one of his precious Word launchings (he's hoarding the 25 free launchings he got from his Office 2007 trial) on his Vista laptop. He finally relented when I explained that even though I wanted to open the file 7 times, I would only be using one launch since I could open Word and one other (small) file, then open and close my test file as needed from inside the program and the one Word session would remain intact. The times on the Vista x64 laptop were: 3:31 3:31 3:32 3:32 3:33 3:36 3:43 Pretty consistent, eh? But, interestingly, these values are not that far off from those of my Vista tower. And he doesn't have the laptop stuffed with applications and running processes, it's a lightly used computer. This hints at the possibility that the root of the problem may lie with Vista as such, rather than with any accumulated registry crud. I suppose it could still be due to Office settings, but if somebody else has a standard installation and it acts the same, then we're looking at making it into a non-standard (that is, probably less functional) installation. --JorgeA

Hey jaclaz, You have just doubled the amount of research I have to do -- but that's welcome! In the initial look-through I did see that PDFWizard is supposed to work on Windows 98. Not that I need that capability, but still it's good that they offer it... Thanks for letting me know about these. --JorgeA

Hi BlouBul, Great to see you here! Both of these look very attractive. How well have they worked for you, in terms of "playing nice" with Office and your PC generally, the program crashing, problems installing it, updates messing things up, and things like that? Thanks very much! --JorgeA

Hello, I'm looking for PDF software that includes the following features: 1) It lets me edit documents (fix typos, delete/add words) directly on the PDF file, rather than having to convert to another format (i.e., Word) and then convert back again to PDF after the edit. All this while maintaining the format of the text (such as right-justification or table alignment). 2) It lets me convert PDF files to MS Word (despite #1 above, I do need to do this sometimes). 3) It lets me select individual pages from the PDF file and create a new PDF containing just those pages. The first thing I looked at (of course) was Adobe Acrobat, but the descriptions on their website haven't left me completely confident that I can do all of those things with their software. Moreover, I haven't been able to determine whether I would need Acrobat Standard or the (even) pricier Acrobat Professional in order to be able to do all of these things. Then there is also the question of reliability. If we can believe the reviews on Amazon.com, the current version of Acrobat is prone to crashing or otherwise causing various and sundry problems on one's PC. So I guess I should amend my question to say that I'm looking for PDF software that will do the above things, reliably. Is there anything out there that meets all of these criteria? FWIW, I use Windows Vista x64 and Office 2007. Thanks for any guidance you might offer. --JorgeA

dencorso, Thank you immensely for the links to the discussions of disk imaging and backups. The first link in particular is the clearest, most satisfying explanation of the issue that I have ever come across. It could be extracted and put into one of those "stickified" threads so that it doesn't get buried under newer topics. It does lead me to a question, that I hope you'll answer when you come back. My wife has a Seagate BlackArmor WS 110 drive to create system images. We bought it because they claim it can do a "bare-metal restore" on a new HDD in case of catastrophic failure of the old HDD. But now that I read your description, it sounds like the BlackArmor is creating the "common disk image" (or, rather, partition image) that you indicate may not be good enough. Should I tell her that she's not as well protected as we had thought? Thank you for pursuing the issue with my Word file. You and BlouBul and I will regroup in a few days when the new HDD comes in. In the meantime I'll see about loading that file in Word on another modern computer, and post the results. --JorgeA

BlouBul (and also @dencorso), I have two items: One, I ordered the 1TB Western Digital HDD. We should resume the discussion when the drive arrives from amazon.com in a few days -- due to my terminal cheapness, I had it sent to me via free Super Saver Shipping. (dencorso, the company in the U.S. is called amazon.com. Is the company's Brazilian branch named mississippi.com? ) And two, I tried loading the big file in Word again, this time with the Task Manager open and set to list processes by their CPU use, so that I could see what was taking up the PC's resources during file loading. By far the biggest chunk of CPU cycles during loading went to WINWORD.EXE: usage hovered between 40 and 50 percent most of the time, with a single spike up to 65%. Nothing else went above even 3% in the 3:02 that the file took to load. Does this affect any of our hypotheses? As I said, I don't mind "repurposing" the 1TB drive, so we needn't use that purchase as a sole reason for proceeding with the surgery. I'm thinking that it all (or mostly) has to do with Word somehow, especially in light of the trial with Works where the file took only 1:12 to load. I'm glad to get the "proof of concept"! --JorgeA

BlouBul, Another good idea. I've decided, though, to go ahead and get the new drive, for two reasons: One, I can use it to keep images of the hard disk, as a "super-backup" on top of the normal data backups that we are all advised to make. Kowing that (if disaster should strike and my computer gets fried) I can still re-create my computing environment with everything in it, really does give a sense of security. The more I think about it, the more that to my mind this is what PC backups should be all about in the first place. The other reason is that it will give me flexibility in terms of our TV viewing. (Huh?!? Read on.) We've been toying with the idea of ditching the cable company's crappy digital video recorder and going to a "home theater PC" setup where the cable line would go into the computer and a (new) PC would serve as channel tuner and recorder. A 1TB drive would be great for that -- giving about 4 times the amount of recording time as the current DVR. It would take my wife longer to fill it up. If for whatever reason I decided that this would be a better use for that external HDD, we'd already have that part of the setup. One way or the other, the new drive won't go to waste. --JorgeA

BlouBul, You're giving yourself MUCH less credit than you're due! For one thing, the Office Diagnostics tool did work. In the next test the file took a full minute less to load. Moreover, the tool found a problem with my Office setup and fixed it. That wouldn't have happened without your involvement. For another, even with the ideas that haven't panned out I am learning a lot. Thanks to you I have discovered a bunch of concepts and settings (such as DDE and repagination) that I had no clue about before. So -- THANK YOU. And now, let's continue. --JorgeA

dencorso, Let me know what you're envisioning us doing here. The reason I ask is because you raise the portability factor as a negative for the Western Digital. (I'm not committed to the WD, I'm genuinely curious.) How would that be a problem in our case? I wouldn't be moving the drive from place to place. At least, I don't see how that need would arise in our case. Even counting that in, though, it sounds like the WD's pros outweigh the cons. If I understand what we are thinking of doing, I'm guessing that one or the other of these drives would be used to image my internal HDD so that we can tweak and adjust the latter at will. Then if we mess up we can restore the system from that external drive; or if we succeed then we can keep the external drive for storage and backup. Either way, I wouldn't be booting permanently from an external drive, or even have to keep it on the desk after we're finished. Right? --JorgeA

BlouBul, Thanks for continuing to look into this, I appreciate it! I don't seem to have a way to disable DDE in Word 2007. However, I did get to use Office Diagnostics. Pretty cool find! I had no idea that that existed. It fixed one issue with Office that, however, it didn't specify. But while a test file opening before using Detect and Repair took 4:27, the test file opening after running Office Diagnostics took 3:24. I'm going to try a few more things before undertaking more radical measures. --JorgeA EDIT: I tried Norton Disk Optimization, and Norton Cleanup. Time to open the big file: 3:15. @BlouBul: @dencorso: Would it help to go into Task Manager and see if I can disable some (unnecessary) processes that might be slowing things down, or not really?

dencorso, what do you think of instead of deleting the whole Office directory in the registry, to go one level deeper and deleting (or rather renaming) the directories for the old Office versions (after a registry backup and creating a System Restore point)? Also, maybe a stupid question (I do not know too much about disk images), but if he creates an image of his drive as it is now, won't the same problem occur again if he recreate the image somewhere else? BlouBul, Excellent question. I'm curious to see what dencorso says. As for the first question, we can probably dispense with it (or make the necessary adjustments to the procedure) because I don't have any old Office versions on my PC. This was a brand-new computer when I bought it, and the Office 2007 installation was on the virgin HDD. --JorgeA

dencorso, Thank you for the link to the Seagate DiscWizard manual. I've started to go through it. For what you have in mind, does it make a difference whether the new external HDD is a Seagate? I found the "Western Digital WD Elements 1 TB USB 2.0 Desktop External Hard Drive" for less than US$80 on amazon.com. Would that serve the purpose? --JorgeA

dencorso, Uh-oh -- we are worse off than we thought. I don't have Acronis, either. That question about using Acronis or Norton Ghost was a hypothetical: I've been considering using one or the other, but [ahem] haven't gotten around to it yet. If puntoMX replies in the affirmative, then that would eliminate both of them as suitable candidates for my system. System Restore worked perfectly today, I'm happy to say. And BTW, Norton did agree with you that the RAMdisk program was safe. But by then I was more worried about why System Restore wasn't working, than about that neat little application. So Norton gave reassurance in one case, and made things harder in the other. --JorgeA

dencorso, No, sorry to say, I don't have any edition of Norton Ghost. Where does that leave us? --JorgeA

BlouBul, I have a theory as to what might be causing that System Restore error (drum roll...): a Norton product (cymbal crash)!! Sunday is backup night for my PC. As soon as those processes are finished, I'll try the procedure described on that page, and report back with the results. -JorgeA UPDATE: I followed the procedure given there, and then System Restore worked. Of course, as a result there were a number of updates to download again (including some from Norton!), but at least now I know how to get this to work properly.

BlouBul, Thanks for explaining, I see. Hmm... I think I'd much rather muck around in the registry than reinstall Vista and/or Office! Although, that said, and FWIW, I notice that I've been having trouble using System Restore to go back to previous restore points. Last week I downloaded a program dencorso suggested, that turned out to originate in China. I got jittery about that (sorry, dencorso! ), and tried to go back to a previous restore point to obliterate the program. No dice!! It won't do it. The error message is maddening -- "System Restore did not complete successfully. Your computer's system files and settings were not changed... An unspecified error occurred during System Restore." Very helpful message, eh? (Just for the record, the issue with Word does, of course, predate the installation of that Chinese software.) So, great, now for whatever reason if my PC has a problem I can't even go back to a previous working copy of the system. Lovely. Windows 98 is looking better and better from the rearview mirror. --JorgeA

BlouBul, The big (C:) partition has 337GB available, out of a total of 454GB. Unfortunately, I don't have any other internal drives around. What do you have in mind? --JorgeA

Shoot! Then my Acronis idea will not work... puntoMX, Does that mean that I could not use something like Acronis or Norton Ghost to create a whole-system image as a complete (OS + applications + data) backup in case my HDD gets fried? (Or if that's not what you mean, then what is the problem that arises by having the recovery partition on the same HDD?) --JorgeA

dencorso, To take your questions in order -- Yes. Yes and no. The data is in the same partition as the OS, but the manufacturer (HP) created a recovery partition on the same physical HDD. There is just the one internal hard disk. If you count only the internal HDD, C: and D: are assigned to it. Other letters are assigned to various external HDDs and flash drives of different kinds. HTH. --JorgeA

puntoMX, I have a Seagate ST3500620AS. But I doubt if the issue has anything to do with the drive itself -- remember that the file took only 1:12 to open in Microsoft Works (as opposed to Word) on the same machine. I suspect that it has something to do with MS Word or Office. --JorgeA

BlouBul, Thanks for providing that link, I read through it. Sadly, it sounds like the fixes people are offering there, create as many problems as they solve (losing your settings, menus, and toolbars; files opening in explorer.exe by default). Plus, I rarely open files from outside Word -- normally I first go into Word and then look for the file to be opened. Doctor, going into the Registry is major surgery that I don't think I want to undergo for my stubbed toe! --JorgeA

BlouBul, I re-ran the trial, and this third time it was back down to 3:27. To give you a more complete answer as to the size of the files vs. the loading time, there seems to be a relationship but it's not linear. I've been working lately on a 199-page (746K) Word document, and I just timed it -- 33 seconds to finish loading!! (Incidentally, and especially if we intend to make calculations, I should point out that I got the size of the big file wrong. It's 7.08MB, not 13MB -- when I reported that, I was looking at something else and thinking it was that file. ) A one-page, 25K file took less than 3 seconds to finish loading. These various files each have their own independent origin. Hope this helps. Thanks for sticking with me on this! --JorgeA

BlouBul, The pattern seems to be that the bigger the file is, the longer it takes to finish loading. BTW, I just ran a second test using that same method via Run. Time: 5:36. Unbelievable! --JorgeA