What makes Office 2003 better than 97?

[Phenomic]

Do you know why o97 doesn't install in Windows 7?

It feels intimidated by the size of the OS install?

It is most probably some "supporting DLL" and/or Registry setting (and filesystem pemissions) that has changed, it should be possible with some tweak/tricks, but it seems to me like it is an "isolated" problem you are having, there are several reports of success in installing, BUT the issue you should be aware is this:

http://news.softpedi...ge-130365.shtml

If I were you I would try in a "fresh" Windows 7 VM, first.

The issues with installing seem to come with the SR's:

http://www.win7heads...indows-7-a.html

jaclaz

Thank you. I ran into this when I was installing Windows 2000 on a flash drive. The answer was to copy the install CD to the OS partition and installing from there.

I have old VBA scripts that I use for financial applications, and I really don't want to buy a new version of MS office and rewrite the all the VB code (because I only use it once a month). It's much simpler to run Win2k in VM.

[jaclaz]

Thank you. I ran into this when I was installing Windows 2000 on a flash drive. The answer was to copy the install CD to the OS partition and installing from there.

I have old VBA scripts that I use for financial applications, and I really don't want to buy a new version of MS office and rewrite the all the VB code (because I only use it once a month). It's much simpler to run Win2k in VM.

I am completely failing to see what has in common "installing Windows 2000 on a CF card" with "installing Office 97 on a WIndows 7 OS"

jaclaz

[Phenomic]

Thank you. I ran into this when I was installing Windows 2000 on a flash drive. The answer was to copy the install CD to the OS partition and installing from there.

I have old VBA scripts that I use for financial applications, and I really don't want to buy a new version of MS office and rewrite the all the VB code (because I only use it once a month). It's much simpler to run Win2k in VM.

I am completely failing to see what has in common "installing Windows 2000 on a CF card" with "installing Office 97 on a WIndows 7 OS"

jaclaz

You'll see if you read the post. I was installing Microsoft office 97 in win2k on CF card.

[jaclaz]

You'll see if you read the post. I was installing Microsoft office 97 in win2k on CF card.

I have read the post.

See if you can spot any difference between :

1. Office 97 installing on Windows 7 failing.
   
2. Office 97 installing on Windows 2000 on a CF card seen as removable failing
   

jaclaz

[Jody Thornton]

I still prefer Microsoft Office 2003. It is much more contemporary looking the Office 97. But it still adheres to the rest of your desktop appearance. Office 2007 and 2010 use their own skinning and you can't change appearance as easily, or as consistently (kinda like Google chrome; another offender in this area)

[Simeon]

I have grammar/spellcheck for 3 European langueages in Word 97, it wasn't included though I had to downlaod them. Do you know why o97 doesn't install in Windows 7?

Strangle I have just managed to install Office 97 on Windows 8 (im surprised to say the least!) although it asked me if I wanted to enable 16-bit program execution.

[Asp]

I've installed Office 2003 recently, and:

- I does bring some grammar checking in several languages, including limited German declension, I appreciate;

- On an X25-E SSD and a 3.3GHz Core 2 duo running W2k with Ahci, o2003 starts almost instantly (o97 really is instantaneous).

On a 7k160 and PIIIs 1.4GHz, o2003 takes 1s while o97 takes zero.

Office by default installs a quickstart process -- which means that when you boot Windows, you also start Office. Which slows down your Windows boot of course.

So then it can open a file "instantly" because it's already in memory and chewing up cycles waiting for you to call it.

If you're using Office frequently then you might be happy with this; if you only use it once a week, less so.

Other juggernauts also use this method to make them appear more nimble, like many Adobe programs.

Just be aware of this and choose which you allow to run.

I deactivated all the quickstart processes using a startup manager.

Edited June 9, 2013 by Asp

[pointertovoid]

Needless to say that no application is allowed to load when my machine boots up.

And guess what, Adobe is not present on my machines, for that sort of reasons.

The start time I give for varied Office are without the loader at boot, and after a fresh boot, of course.

[almawardi]

http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/139093-create-standalone-word-97/

[Jody Thornton]

I wonder if there is any way to force security updates on Outlook 2003 past April 2014. I love this particular version of Outlook. And as for Office, I am EXTREMELY ANTI-RIBBON, so I do not wish to move to Office 2007. Kingsoft Office seems promising, but I am not 100% sure.

How bad of shape would I be in continuing to use Office 2003 on Vista x64 SP2 Ultimate after April 2014 (with and without Outlook 2003)?

[vinifera]

I used to like 2003 but that was only when I was more enhusiastic (or whatever its spelled)
but now I like 2007/2010 more for simple reason which is same reason why ribbon was made:

I'm too lazy to digg through bunch of either hidden tools/toolbars to find some simple thing

and/or the UI is mess

then I realised I only liked 97 like UI coz I started in school on it, and naturally xp - 2003 followed

but as said UI sucks big time and even if user can set toolbars to his liking and make it somewhat

complete set of needed tools in 2 rows (well maybe now on wide screen it would be 1 row)

I just cannot be arsed to set it all up, so its easier to simply go with mouse through tabbed UI and click things

the only thing that annoys me on 2007/2010 is stupid positioning of File menu and Save/undo buttons - that is so retarded

oh yes and the gigantic size (install) is also retarded

Edited December 13, 2013 by vinifera