From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2026/4/17 1:33:17, Steve Hayes wrote:

On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:17:02 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:

On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 08:58:22 -0400
Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

On Wed, 4/15/2026 7:28 AM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

Ah, so you mean it's the people opening them that need to do that,
rather than me saving them.

If your version cannot do anything whizzy, someone else is
going to have to do it. In the Software World, we
call this the "Wheel Of Misfortune".

Word2003 ===> LibreOffice Writer =====> A newer version
(review before save) that some other
tool can use.

It's like planning a transit bus trip.

After the sidebar for "transit bus", I've parsed the original sentence:
I think the problem is the assumption that _anyone_ actually _wants_ to
do anything "whizzy"! You're right of course, but nothing I've been
involved with - and that includes the village plan for my, er, village -
has needed anything more "whizzy" than my Word 2003 could handle. (That included assorted tables, cross-references, and was in columns.)

Oh for the days when a document meant text (maybe a bit of fonts
& formatting) without embedding a full-blown script backdoor vulnerability.

RTF does that, and most word processors can handle it.

I use LibreOffice for .docx, Word97 for .doc.

Interesting. Do you actually use the extras that .docx offers?

If you save what had been .docx as .doc in LibreOffice, does it tell you
which features you've used that will be lost?

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

B T Plusnet, a bit kinda like P T Barnum ...
... but quite often appears to feature more clowns
- "mikeb", 2024-4
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2026/4/17 10:4:34, Paul wrote:

On Thu, 4/16/2026 9:26 PM, Daniel70 wrote:

On 17/04/2026 10:42 am, Steve Hayes wrote:

On Thu, 16 Apr 2026 17:50:38 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
wrote:

I'd start by asking the other person what they've got for tools,
as you know some will answer "Macwrite" and others it will be
"WordPerfect". And then you've got more of a challenge ahead of you.

Any suggestions for editing/converting Lotus AmiPro or WordPro docs?

WOW!! Are you in my head .... cause I just tried to go to LotusOffice.com in Firefox to see if it still existed. It doesn't.

I used LotusOffice Suite when I was in Australia Army back in the 1990's. >> Lotus gave the Army or Defence 'permission'/'Licence' to copy and use their product at Home and at Work.

I guess they were trying to get some sort of Market penetration.

This isn't working for me right now, but this is a stab at a URL.

https://web.archive.org/web/20041204001636/http://lotusoffice.com:80/

And the "work and home" option exists for multiple products when
sold in large license purchases. While you might think that is unusual,
it's not actually. You can probably work deals like that, at the 10,000+
seat level. An Army could swing that. If you're only buying 5 copies,
no, you don't get that.

For large purchases, the terms are under NDA, and are not shared
with the populace at large. The seller does not want it known
what discounts are available.

Paul

We had that, for a couple of Office products (large multinational
company). The main one was that if you left the company's employ, you
were _supposed_ to remove the software from your home machine. I don't
know how many do! (I'm not sure if I ever _used_ it - it included 2007,
and I think another - might have been one free, the other very cheap, or something like that. The 2003 I actually _do_ use, I think I bought,
though almost certainly at a discount when it wasn't the latest.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

B T Plusnet, a bit kinda like P T Barnum ...
... but quite often appears to feature more clowns
- "mikeb", 2024-4
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 4/16/2026 4:24 PM, Chris wrote:

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2026-03-18 20:39, micky wrote:

In alt.comp.os.windows-11, on Sun, 15 Mar 2026 16:53:59 -0400, knuttle >>>> <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> wrote:

On 03/15/2026 3:34 PM, micky wrote:

In alt.comp.os.windows-11, on Sun, 15 Mar 2026 22:46:01 +1100, Daniel70 >>>>>> <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

My thoughts about using Google Docs would centre around the fact that >>>>>>> once Google has your Docs, Google HAS your Docs.

I think it was a grandchild who suggested google docs. They are too >>>>>> young to be suspicious. Until after something goes wrong.

Mind you, that's just MY assumption (and you know what they say about >>>>>>> people who ASSUME!!).

Yes, I do.

I would second the previously made suggestion of the free Libre Office. >>>>>
In my experience it is completely compatible with MS office documents. >>>>

When it asks me if I want to save a document as .odt or .docx, I'm not >>>> sure what to do If I leave it as .odt will the person I send it to who >>>> only has Word be able to read an .odt? With no special efforts on his >>>> part, just click on it?

Becasue I was not sure the answer above is Yes, I've saving files as
.docx or .doc, whatever LO suggest in that box, but then it warns me
that special features from LO may not be carried over. I don't use
special features, except maybe Bold and colored tex. These seem old and >>>> pretty basic. Surely these would be carried over to MS Office, right??? >>>

When using LO, save in .odt, and then, if you need to send it to a
windows chap, *also* save as .docx or something. Or if possible, export. >>>
Why?

Because it may lose some some thing (unknown what), if you want to edit >>> the file again. So do keep the original, and the original for LO is .odt. >>>
A nice feature to have would be some config in the file telling LO to
save both in odt and docx with a single click on the save button. Or
some other windows format.

I suggest that's unnecessary. Word will happily open and edit .odt
natively. This is native behaviour since 2013.

I'd start by asking the other person what they've got for tools,
as you know some will answer "Macwrite" and others it will be
"WordPerfect". And then you've got more of a challenge ahead of you.

Both docx and odt are open standards and can be read by most uptodate
software. Either is a good choice.

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2026-04-17 09:08, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2026-04-16 22:24, Chris wrote:

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

When using LO, save in .odt, and then, if you need to send it to a
windows chap, *also* save as .docx or something. Or if possible, export. >>>>
Why?

Because it may lose some some thing (unknown what), if you want to edit >>>> the file again. So do keep the original, and the original for LO
is .odt.

A nice feature to have would be some config in the file telling LO to
save both in odt and docx with a single click on the save button. Or
some other windows format.

I suggest that's unnecessary. Word will happily open and edit .odt
natively. This is native behaviour since 2013.

Yes, but windows people bitch about it. Specially the non technical
guys/gals.

Also I am not sure if recipient has the required word version or plugin
or whatever.

Oh, I forgot that sometimes my recipients use Android.

So? Lots of odt apps out there. Like google docs.

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On Fri, 4/17/2026 4:36 PM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2026/4/17 1:33:17, Steve Hayes wrote:

On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:17:02 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:

On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 08:58:22 -0400
Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

On Wed, 4/15/2026 7:28 AM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

Ah, so you mean it's the people opening them that need to do that,
rather than me saving them.

If your version cannot do anything whizzy, someone else is
going to have to do it. In the Software World, we
call this the "Wheel Of Misfortune".

Word2003 ===> LibreOffice Writer =====> A newer version
(review before save) that some other
tool can use.

It's like planning a transit bus trip.

After the sidebar for "transit bus", I've parsed the original sentence:
I think the problem is the assumption that _anyone_ actually _wants_ to
do anything "whizzy"! You're right of course, but nothing I've been
involved with - and that includes the village plan for my, er, village -
has needed anything more "whizzy" than my Word 2003 could handle. (That included assorted tables, cross-references, and was in columns.)

Oh for the days when a document meant text (maybe a bit of fonts
& formatting) without embedding a full-blown script backdoor vulnerability. >>

RTF does that, and most word processors can handle it.

I use LibreOffice for .docx, Word97 for .doc.

Interesting. Do you actually use the extras that .docx offers?

If you save what had been .docx as .doc in LibreOffice, does it tell you which features you've used that will be lost?

You do not expect a "table" to fail, but typical bar-bet testing
is to put a table within a table within a table. And that causes
a lot of DTP things some indigestion. So rather than it being
a primitive that won't save or has a representation, it's the
ability to use it multiple times in nested fashion that can come
to grief.

It should be remembered that Office itself, could not always
pass the "identity function". You could prepare a document in
your favorite extension, save, then re-open the item and
find graphical elements missing in there. It hardly seems
reasonable, when you cannot eat your own-prepared lunch,
that you would have the analytical skill to tell what output
elements you weren't emitting. It might well be that in
the identity test "save", that crap had silently gone missing
and this is why opening the file again was not quite the same.

I found the whole thing rather sad, which is why I stopped
doing this after a while. It was "serving no purpose and
making the inmates angry".

From a tactical perspective, we don't expect the four
heading styles and an inserted table or image, to foul up,
but on the other hand, some of the simplest of test cases
can still fail. Even if a DTP has a compatibility dialog
indicating lost constructs, if it can't pass the identity
function then it is unlikely to have bullet-proof
compatibility indicators either.

I've had some pretty weird outputs in LibreOffice, but
this was caused by them changing their "output subsystem"
for PDF, before it was ripe. At one time, this might
have been Cairo, and some of the output was emitted
as bitmaps, instead of more efficient vector representations.
At one point, LO did not have a typographer who could hand
fonts. One attempt to print, caused all the text to be
double-printed, with a sub-pixel offset, which was most
disconcerting. But with time, they passed these milestones,
by finishing Cairo and then changing it to something else
(you know, when you're bored with a new toy and you
must try another new toy).

One issue I had with LO, was how they treated people in
their forums, but I guess that is also water under the bridge.
Anyone who has been there, knows what I'm talking about,
the "gong show behavior" ("thread closed").

Paul
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:

On Thu, 16 Apr 2026 17:50:38 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
wrote:

I'd start by asking the other person what they've got for tools,
as you know some will answer "Macwrite" and others it will be
"WordPerfect". And then you've got more of a challenge ahead of you.

Any suggestions for editing/converting Lotus AmiPro or WordPro docs?

God, that takes me back. Ami Pro was so much better than Word back in the
day.

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2026-04-18 00:40, Chris wrote:

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2026-04-17 09:08, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2026-04-16 22:24, Chris wrote:

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

When using LO, save in .odt, and then, if you need to send it to a
windows chap, *also* save as .docx or something. Or if possible, export. >>>>>
Why?

Because it may lose some some thing (unknown what), if you want to edit >>>>> the file again. So do keep the original, and the original for LO
is .odt.

A nice feature to have would be some config in the file telling LO to >>>>> save both in odt and docx with a single click on the save button. Or >>>>> some other windows format.

I suggest that's unnecessary. Word will happily open and edit .odt
natively. This is native behaviour since 2013.

Yes, but windows people bitch about it. Specially the non technical
guys/gals.

Also I am not sure if recipient has the required word version or plugin
or whatever.

Oh, I forgot that sometimes my recipients use Android.

So? Lots of odt apps out there. Like google docs.

I would not use Google docs to read a contract, and hope it remains private.

And no, when I looked there was nothing to edit odt in android. Maybe
there is something now.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
ESEfc-Efc+, EUEfc-Efc|;
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2026-04-17 22:36, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2026/4/17 1:33:17, Steve Hayes wrote:

On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:17:02 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:

...

RTF does that, and most word processors can handle it.

I use LibreOffice for .docx, Word97 for .doc.

Interesting. Do you actually use the extras that .docx offers?

If you save what had been .docx as .doc in LibreOffice, does it tell you which features you've used that will be lost?

Nope.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
ESEfc-Efc+, EUEfc-Efc|;
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2026-04-18 00:40, Chris wrote:

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2026-04-17 09:08, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2026-04-16 22:24, Chris wrote:

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

When using LO, save in .odt, and then, if you need to send it to a >>>>>> windows chap, *also* save as .docx or something. Or if possible, export. >>>>>>
Why?

Because it may lose some some thing (unknown what), if you want to edit >>>>>> the file again. So do keep the original, and the original for LO
is .odt.

A nice feature to have would be some config in the file telling LO to >>>>>> save both in odt and docx with a single click on the save button. Or >>>>>> some other windows format.

I suggest that's unnecessary. Word will happily open and edit .odt
natively. This is native behaviour since 2013.

Yes, but windows people bitch about it. Specially the non technical
guys/gals.

Also I am not sure if recipient has the required word version or plugin >>>> or whatever.

Oh, I forgot that sometimes my recipients use Android.

So? Lots of odt apps out there. Like google docs.

I would not use Google docs to read a contract, and hope it remains private.

That's a personal choice. Doesn't change the fact that docx is unnecessary
for cross platform compatibility. Odt is sufficient.

And no, when I looked there was nothing to edit odt in android. Maybe
there is something now.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=odt.document.reader.odt.document.editor.libreoffice




--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2026-04-18 00:40, Chris wrote:

Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 4/16/2026 4:24 PM, Chris wrote:

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2026-03-18 20:39, micky wrote:

In alt.comp.os.windows-11, on Sun, 15 Mar 2026 16:53:59 -0400, knuttle >>>>> <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> wrote:

On 03/15/2026 3:34 PM, micky wrote:

In alt.comp.os.windows-11, on Sun, 15 Mar 2026 22:46:01 +1100, Daniel70 >>>>>>> <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

My thoughts about using Google Docs would centre around the fact that >>>>>>>> once Google has your Docs, Google HAS your Docs.

I think it was a grandchild who suggested google docs. They are too >>>>>>> young to be suspicious. Until after something goes wrong.

Mind you, that's just MY assumption (and you know what they say about >>>>>>>> people who ASSUME!!).

Yes, I do.

I would second the previously made suggestion of the free Libre Office. >>>>>>
In my experience it is completely compatible with MS office documents. >>>>>

When it asks me if I want to save a document as .odt or .docx, I'm not >>>>> sure what to do If I leave it as .odt will the person I send it to who >>>>> only has Word be able to read an .odt? With no special efforts on his >>>>> part, just click on it?

Becasue I was not sure the answer above is Yes, I've saving files as >>>>> .docx or .doc, whatever LO suggest in that box, but then it warns me >>>>> that special features from LO may not be carried over. I don't use
special features, except maybe Bold and colored tex. These seem old and >>>>> pretty basic. Surely these would be carried over to MS Office, right??? >>>>

When using LO, save in .odt, and then, if you need to send it to a
windows chap, *also* save as .docx or something. Or if possible, export. >>>>
Why?

Because it may lose some some thing (unknown what), if you want to edit >>>> the file again. So do keep the original, and the original for LO is .odt. >>>>
A nice feature to have would be some config in the file telling LO to
save both in odt and docx with a single click on the save button. Or
some other windows format.

I suggest that's unnecessary. Word will happily open and edit .odt
natively. This is native behaviour since 2013.

I'd start by asking the other person what they've got for tools,
as you know some will answer "Macwrite" and others it will be
"WordPerfect". And then you've got more of a challenge ahead of you.

Both docx and odt are open standards and can be read by most uptodate software. Either is a good choice.

Word doesn't need a plugin?
--
Cheers, Carlos.
ESEfc-Efc+, EUEfc-Efc|;
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2026-04-18 00:40, Chris wrote:

Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 4/16/2026 4:24 PM, Chris wrote:

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2026-03-18 20:39, micky wrote:

In alt.comp.os.windows-11, on Sun, 15 Mar 2026 16:53:59 -0400, knuttle >>>>>> <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> wrote:

On 03/15/2026 3:34 PM, micky wrote:

In alt.comp.os.windows-11, on Sun, 15 Mar 2026 22:46:01 +1100, Daniel70
<daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

My thoughts about using Google Docs would centre around the fact that >>>>>>>>> once Google has your Docs, Google HAS your Docs.

I think it was a grandchild who suggested google docs. They are too >>>>>>>> young to be suspicious. Until after something goes wrong.

Mind you, that's just MY assumption (and you know what they say about >>>>>>>>> people who ASSUME!!).

Yes, I do.

I would second the previously made suggestion of the free Libre Office. >>>>>>>
In my experience it is completely compatible with MS office documents. >>>>>>

When it asks me if I want to save a document as .odt or .docx, I'm not >>>>>> sure what to do If I leave it as .odt will the person I send it to who >>>>>> only has Word be able to read an .odt? With no special efforts on his >>>>>> part, just click on it?

Becasue I was not sure the answer above is Yes, I've saving files as >>>>>> .docx or .doc, whatever LO suggest in that box, but then it warns me >>>>>> that special features from LO may not be carried over. I don't use >>>>>> special features, except maybe Bold and colored tex. These seem old and >>>>>> pretty basic. Surely these would be carried over to MS Office, right??? >>>>>

When using LO, save in .odt, and then, if you need to send it to a
windows chap, *also* save as .docx or something. Or if possible, export. >>>>>
Why?

Because it may lose some some thing (unknown what), if you want to edit >>>>> the file again. So do keep the original, and the original for LO is .odt. >>>>>
A nice feature to have would be some config in the file telling LO to >>>>> save both in odt and docx with a single click on the save button. Or >>>>> some other windows format.

I suggest that's unnecessary. Word will happily open and edit .odt
natively. This is native behaviour since 2013.

I'd start by asking the other person what they've got for tools,
as you know some will answer "Macwrite" and others it will be
"WordPerfect". And then you've got more of a challenge ahead of you.

Both docx and odt are open standards and can be read by most uptodate
software. Either is a good choice.

Word doesn't need a plugin?

Nope. Maybe in the very early days in 2013 or so it did, but not now. I checked. It works transparently.

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2026/4/18 14:38:8, Chris wrote:

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2026-04-18 00:40, Chris wrote:

[]

Both docx and odt are open standards and can be read by most uptodate
software. Either is a good choice.

Word doesn't need a plugin?

Nope. Maybe in the very early days in 2013 or so it did, but not now. I checked. It works transparently.

Word 2003 needs a patch - not quite the same as a plugin - to read
.docx; I don't know if it can read odt at all. I think there _may_ have
been such a patch for the previous Word (2000?), and I don't think
earlier Words could read anything but .doc, .txt, and RTF (and possibly
.wri). I think .docx came in with 2007, though I don't know if that
could read odt.

Something being an open standard doesn't mean it's widely supported,
though I'm pleased to hear odt is. I'm surprised to hear .docx is -
surely M$ have kept some traps/features to themselves?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

did you hear about the guy who was frozen to absolute zero?
He was 0K ...
- Jason in alt.windows7.general (and three other 'groups), 2018-5-1
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 4/18/2026 7:07 AM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

Word 2003 needs a patch - not quite the same as a plugin - to read
.docx;
I think .docx came in with 2007, though I don't know if that
could read odt.

Yes, docx arrive with version 2007
Compatibility Pack released for earlier versions(2000-2003)
--
...w-i|#-o-#-n|#
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2026/4/17 23:42:21, Paul wrote:
[]

You do not expect a "table" to fail, but typical bar-bet testing
is to put a table within a table within a table. And that causes

Yes, there does seem to be an obsession with tables. Quite a lot of
years ago, when I was trying to investigate why an
automatically-generated HTML page was so huge, I discovered that one of
the reasons was that it contained tables nested three or four deep - and
yet there was little or nothing in the displayed result that _needed_
even one table. And I can't think of a reason in a Word document that
I'd need more than one table-in-table nesting - actually, I can't think
of where I'd need even that, though I concede there might be.

a lot of DTP things some indigestion. So rather than it being
a primitive that won't save or has a representation, it's the
ability to use it multiple times in nested fashion that can come
to grief.

I'm sure things can be devised to break anything.

It should be remembered that Office itself, could not always
pass the "identity function". You could prepare a document in
your favorite extension, save, then re-open the item and
find graphical elements missing in there. It hardly seems
reasonable, when you cannot eat your own-prepared lunch,
that you would have the analytical skill to tell what output
elements you weren't emitting. It might well be that in
the identity test "save", that crap had silently gone missing
and this is why opening the file again was not quite the same.

I found the whole thing rather sad, which is why I stopped
doing this after a while. It was "serving no purpose and
making the inmates angry".

Indeed. (I think I first heard that in the context of teaching pigs to
sing: the results are disappointing, and it irritates the pigs.")

From a tactical perspective, we don't expect the four
heading styles and an inserted table or image, to foul up,
but on the other hand, some of the simplest of test cases
can still fail. Even if a DTP has a compatibility dialog
indicating lost constructs, if it can't pass the identity
function then it is unlikely to have bullet-proof
compatibility indicators either.

Definitely.
[]

disconcerting. But with time, they passed these milestones,
by finishing Cairo and then changing it to something else
(you know, when you're bored with a new toy and you
must try another new toy).

:-)

One issue I had with LO, was how they treated people in
their forums, but I guess that is also water under the bridge.
Anyone who has been there, knows what I'm talking about,
the "gong show behavior" ("thread closed").

Paul

I've always preferred usenet to fora - if nothing else, their
labyrinthine structure usually beats me (i. e. which sub-sub-sub-forum
to look/post in with my query).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

did you hear about the guy who was frozen to absolute zero?
He was 0K ...
- Jason in alt.windows7.general (and three other 'groups), 2018-5-1
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On Fri, 17 Apr 2026 03:46:04 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
wrote:

On Thu, 4/16/2026 8:33 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:

On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:17:02 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:

Oh for the days when a document meant text (maybe a bit of fonts
& formatting) without embedding a full-blown script backdoor vulnerability. >>

RTF does that, and most word processors can handle it.

I use LibreOffice for .docx, Word97 for .doc.

RTF was a great concept, but in all the times I tested
that as part of building the Great Matrix of DTP tools,
it always failed to work properly.

Making it a binary format was just stupid.

I've only ever come across it as text, and never seen it as a binary
format.

It's like this:

{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang7177{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0
Times New Roman;}{\f1\fnil\fcharset0 Arial;}{\f2\fnil\fcharset0 Lucida Casual;}}
{\colortbl ;\red255\green255\blue255;}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs24 This is written in RTF format, and as far
as I am aware it is \i all\i0 text.\par
\par
\highlight1\b\f1\fs32 It has options for headers. \par
\par
\b0\f0\fs24 And various \f2 different kinds of fonts which can be in
\b bold\b0 , roman, or \i italic\i0\par
\par
\par


}
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2026-04-18 15:38, Chris wrote:

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2026-04-18 00:40, Chris wrote:

Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 4/16/2026 4:24 PM, Chris wrote:

...

A nice feature to have would be some config in the file telling LO to >>>>>> save both in odt and docx with a single click on the save button. Or >>>>>> some other windows format.

I suggest that's unnecessary. Word will happily open and edit .odt
natively. This is native behaviour since 2013.

I'd start by asking the other person what they've got for tools,
as you know some will answer "Macwrite" and others it will be
"WordPerfect". And then you've got more of a challenge ahead of you.

Both docx and odt are open standards and can be read by most uptodate
software. Either is a good choice.

Word doesn't need a plugin?

Nope. Maybe in the very early days in 2013 or so it did, but not now. I checked. It works transparently.

That could be. Maybe a patch is needed, as J. P. Gilliver says. What I
know is that I tried and recipients said they could not open it. True or
not is mostly irrelevant, I was not in a position to force them.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
ESEfc-Efc+, EUEfc-Efc|;
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2026-04-18 16:52, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2026/4/17 23:42:21, Paul wrote:

...

One issue I had with LO, was how they treated people in
their forums, but I guess that is also water under the bridge.
Anyone who has been there, knows what I'm talking about,
the "gong show behavior" ("thread closed").

Paul

I've always preferred usenet to fora - if nothing else, their
labyrinthine structure usually beats me (i. e. which sub-sub-sub-forum
to look/post in with my query).

In a well managed forum it doesn't matter. The administrators will tell
you are in the wrong subforum and just move the post to the correct subforum
--
Cheers, Carlos.
ESEfc-Efc+, EUEfc-Efc|;
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2026/4/18 20:52:10, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2026-04-18 16:52, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2026/4/17 23:42:21, Paul wrote:

...

One issue I had with LO, was how they treated people in
their forums, but I guess that is also water under the bridge.
Anyone who has been there, knows what I'm talking about,
the "gong show behavior" ("thread closed").

Paul

I've always preferred usenet to fora - if nothing else, their
labyrinthine structure usually beats me (i. e. which sub-sub-sub-forum
to look/post in with my query).

In a well managed forum it doesn't matter. The administrators will tell
you are in the wrong subforum and just move the post to the correct subforum

Agreed, though it needs a fair admin. staff to do that.

I think the main thing I dislike about fora is that to follow several, I
have to go to multiple websites, and learn each one's foibles. Yes, you
could say the last part about newsgroups, but at least they're all in
the same place (my news client), and the way it works forces a _certain_
amount of uniformity across them.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

... "from a person I admire, respect, and deeply love."
"Who was that then?" "Me." (Zaphod Beeblebrox in the Link episode.)
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2026-04-18 22:34, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2026/4/18 20:52:10, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2026-04-18 16:52, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2026/4/17 23:42:21, Paul wrote:

...

One issue I had with LO, was how they treated people in
their forums, but I guess that is also water under the bridge.
Anyone who has been there, knows what I'm talking about,
the "gong show behavior" ("thread closed").

Paul

I've always preferred usenet to fora - if nothing else, their
labyrinthine structure usually beats me (i. e. which sub-sub-sub-forum
to look/post in with my query).

In a well managed forum it doesn't matter. The administrators will tell
you are in the wrong subforum and just move the post to the correct subforum >>

Agreed, though it needs a fair admin. staff to do that.

I think the main thing I dislike about fora is that to follow several, I
have to go to multiple websites, and learn each one's foibles. Yes, you
could say the last part about newsgroups, but at least they're all in
the same place (my news client), and the way it works forces a _certain_ amount of uniformity across them.

Yes, absolutely.

But there are cons: no graphics (in a windows support forum you can post screenshots). No control of spam or trolls.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
ESEfc-Efc+, EUEfc-Efc|;
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On Sat, 4/18/2026 2:56 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:

On Fri, 17 Apr 2026 03:46:04 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
wrote:

On Thu, 4/16/2026 8:33 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:

On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:17:02 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:

Oh for the days when a document meant text (maybe a bit of fonts
& formatting) without embedding a full-blown script backdoor vulnerability.

RTF does that, and most word processors can handle it.

I use LibreOffice for .docx, Word97 for .doc.

RTF was a great concept, but in all the times I tested
that as part of building the Great Matrix of DTP tools,
it always failed to work properly.

Making it a binary format was just stupid.

I've only ever come across it as text, and never seen it as a binary
format.

It's like this:

{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang7177{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0
Times New Roman;}{\f1\fnil\fcharset0 Arial;}{\f2\fnil\fcharset0 Lucida Casual;}}
{\colortbl ;\red255\green255\blue255;}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs24 This is written in RTF format, and as far
as I am aware it is \i all\i0 text.\par
\par
\highlight1\b\f1\fs32 It has options for headers. \par
\par
\b0\f0\fs24 And various \f2 different kinds of fonts which can be in
\b bold\b0 , roman, or \i italic\i0\par
\par
\par

}

Here's one data point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Text_Format

"1.1 Microsoft Word 4 1989 Allowed for font embedding, which lets font
data to be located inside the file."

"Pictures

RTF supports inclusion of JPEG, PNG, Enhanced Metafile (EMF), Windows Metafile (WMF)...
picture types in hexadecimal (the default) or binary format in a RTF file.
"

Fonts in particular, they can choose to pass those in binary.
That's something you see in other formats. There is a tendency
to not pass a complete embedded font, in a text way (as a Chinese
font can be 10MB at the best of times).

If anything is compressed in there ("we cannot have too large files"),
they're not going to carry that in a readable way (because that
destroys the efficiency of compression).

If you had text and no non-standard fonts, maybe it does look
like text to you. At the time, I couldn't really read any of
that, nor did I intend to write any tools to work with it. In
my time at work, I do not recollect anyone making a project
out of "let's convert this extracted text into RTF". RTF interchange
was not a grass-roots thing, that I could see.

The purpose of having an interchange format that was English text,
was to encourage the creation of automated tools. And some people
were interested enough in that, to do it. I can't remember now,
how font declarations were done there, but the purpose was to
get the document content, into the tool. At least one individual,
made a business out of doing this.

Paul
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On Sat, 4/18/2026 3:52 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2026-04-18 16:52, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2026/4/17 23:42:21, Paul wrote:

...

One issue I had with LO, was how they treated people in
their forums, but I guess that is also water under the bridge.
Anyone who has been there, knows what I'm talking about,
the "gong show behavior" ("thread closed").

-a-a-a Paul

I've always preferred usenet to fora - if nothing else, their
labyrinthine structure usually beats me (i. e. which sub-sub-sub-forum
to look/post in with my query).

In a well managed forum it doesn't matter. The administrators will tell you are in the wrong subforum and just move the post to the correct subforum

A "neat freak" on the staff went into the forum and
closed threads. If you cannot withstand interaction
with customers, if you're that thin-skinned, the solution
is simple. Don't offer a forum. Don't play games with
us by closing a thread, mid-stream. These are not people
swearing at you. They're using normal voice and the
content is topical.

Notice that for unresolved feature requests, Mozilla
will keep a Bugzilla entry open for 24 years. And that's useful,
because when someone asks "can Thunderbird do this?", you
can point them to the 24 year old thread. Perfect. Serves
a purpose. Doesn't take all that much storage space. There
are some signs they may actually fix the 24 year old issue.
Not detected in the thread itself, unfortunately, but someone
presented a datapoint which indicates they're finally working
on something there that previously had, um, stumped them.
When they finish the work, we'll find out whether it sinks
under its own weight, back into the swamp :-)

Paul
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2026/4/18 14:38:8, Chris wrote:

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2026-04-18 00:40, Chris wrote:

[]

Both docx and odt are open standards and can be read by most uptodate
software. Either is a good choice.

Word doesn't need a plugin?

Nope. Maybe in the very early days in 2013 or so it did, but not now. I
checked. It works transparently.

Word 2003 needs a patch - not quite the same as a plugin - to read
.docx; I don't know if it can read odt at all. I think there _may_ have
been such a patch for the previous Word (2000?), and I don't think
earlier Words could read anything but .doc, .txt, and RTF (and possibly .wri). I think .docx came in with 2007, though I don't know if that
could read odt.

Something being an open standard doesn't mean it's widely supported,
though I'm pleased to hear odt is. I'm surprised to hear .docx is -
surely M$ have kept some traps/features to themselves?

Wouldn't be much of an open standard if they did. MS were forced into a
corner by various european countries writing into law that governmental documents must be saved in an open standard. At the time odt was the only option available. MS fast-tracked the creation of docx to avoid falling
foul of the law.

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2026-04-19 06:22, Paul wrote:

On Sat, 4/18/2026 3:52 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2026-04-18 16:52, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2026/4/17 23:42:21, Paul wrote:

...

One issue I had with LO, was how they treated people in
their forums, but I guess that is also water under the bridge.
Anyone who has been there, knows what I'm talking about,
the "gong show behavior" ("thread closed").

-a-a-a Paul

I've always preferred usenet to fora - if nothing else, their
labyrinthine structure usually beats me (i. e. which sub-sub-sub-forum
to look/post in with my query).

In a well managed forum it doesn't matter. The administrators will tell you are in the wrong subforum and just move the post to the correct subforum

A "neat freak" on the staff went into the forum and
closed threads. If you cannot withstand interaction
with customers, if you're that thin-skinned, the solution
is simple. Don't offer a forum. Don't play games with
us by closing a thread, mid-stream. These are not people
swearing at you. They're using normal voice and the
content is topical.

Indeed.

Above, I am not familiar with the LO forums. Only once I needed help
with a database issue, and I asked in a forum. I was helped, mostly by a single individual that had the knowledge. I was happy.

<https://ask.libreoffice.org/t/lo-base-i-created-a-form-to-handle-a-table-but-can-not-create-new-record/83532>

Notice that for unresolved feature requests, Mozilla
will keep a Bugzilla entry open for 24 years. And that's useful,
because when someone asks "can Thunderbird do this?", you
can point them to the 24 year old thread. Perfect. Serves
a purpose. Doesn't take all that much storage space. There
are some signs they may actually fix the 24 year old issue.
Not detected in the thread itself, unfortunately, but someone
presented a datapoint which indicates they're finally working
on something there that previously had, um, stumped them.
When they finish the work, we'll find out whether it sinks
under its own weight, back into the swamp :-)

Paul

Right.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
ESEfc-Efc+, EUEfc-Efc|;
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2026-04-19 10:33, Chris wrote:

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2026/4/18 14:38:8, Chris wrote:

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2026-04-18 00:40, Chris wrote:

[]

Both docx and odt are open standards and can be read by most uptodate >>>>> software. Either is a good choice.

Word doesn't need a plugin?

Nope. Maybe in the very early days in 2013 or so it did, but not now. I
checked. It works transparently.

Word 2003 needs a patch - not quite the same as a plugin - to read
.docx; I don't know if it can read odt at all. I think there _may_ have
been such a patch for the previous Word (2000?), and I don't think
earlier Words could read anything but .doc, .txt, and RTF (and possibly
.wri). I think .docx came in with 2007, though I don't know if that
could read odt.

Something being an open standard doesn't mean it's widely supported,
though I'm pleased to hear odt is. I'm surprised to hear .docx is -
surely M$ have kept some traps/features to themselves?

Wouldn't be much of an open standard if they did. MS were forced into a corner by various european countries writing into law that governmental documents must be saved in an open standard. At the time odt was the only option available. MS fast-tracked the creation of docx to avoid falling
foul of the law.

But is docx the default now?
--
Cheers, Carlos.
ESEfc-Efc+, EUEfc-Efc|;
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2026-04-19 10:33, Chris wrote:

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2026/4/18 14:38:8, Chris wrote:

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2026-04-18 00:40, Chris wrote:

[]

Both docx and odt are open standards and can be read by most uptodate >>>>>> software. Either is a good choice.

Word doesn't need a plugin?

Nope. Maybe in the very early days in 2013 or so it did, but not now. I >>>> checked. It works transparently.

Word 2003 needs a patch - not quite the same as a plugin - to read
.docx; I don't know if it can read odt at all. I think there _may_ have
been such a patch for the previous Word (2000?), and I don't think
earlier Words could read anything but .doc, .txt, and RTF (and possibly
.wri). I think .docx came in with 2007, though I don't know if that
could read odt.

Something being an open standard doesn't mean it's widely supported,
though I'm pleased to hear odt is. I'm surprised to hear .docx is -
surely M$ have kept some traps/features to themselves?

Wouldn't be much of an open standard if they did. MS were forced into a
corner by various european countries writing into law that governmental
documents must be saved in an open standard. At the time odt was the only
option available. MS fast-tracked the creation of docx to avoid falling
foul of the law.

But is docx the default now?

Yeah, I'd say so. I do very occasionally get odt docs from some EU administrative orgs.

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2026-04-20 00:14, Chris wrote:

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2026-04-19 10:33, Chris wrote:

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2026/4/18 14:38:8, Chris wrote:

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2026-04-18 00:40, Chris wrote:

[]

Both docx and odt are open standards and can be read by most uptodate >>>>>>> software. Either is a good choice.

Word doesn't need a plugin?

Nope. Maybe in the very early days in 2013 or so it did, but not now. I >>>>> checked. It works transparently.

Word 2003 needs a patch - not quite the same as a plugin - to read
.docx; I don't know if it can read odt at all. I think there _may_ have >>>> been such a patch for the previous Word (2000?), and I don't think
earlier Words could read anything but .doc, .txt, and RTF (and possibly >>>> .wri). I think .docx came in with 2007, though I don't know if that
could read odt.

Something being an open standard doesn't mean it's widely supported,
though I'm pleased to hear odt is. I'm surprised to hear .docx is -
surely M$ have kept some traps/features to themselves?

Wouldn't be much of an open standard if they did. MS were forced into a
corner by various european countries writing into law that governmental
documents must be saved in an open standard. At the time odt was the only >>> option available. MS fast-tracked the creation of docx to avoid falling
foul of the law.

But is docx the default now?

Yeah, I'd say so. I do very occasionally get odt docs from some EU administrative orgs.

No, I mean. When you are in Word, and click "save", does it save as docx without asking?
--
Cheers, Carlos.
ESEfc-Efc+, EUEfc-Efc|;
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2026-04-20 00:14, Chris wrote:

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2026-04-19 10:33, Chris wrote:

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2026/4/18 14:38:8, Chris wrote:

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2026-04-18 00:40, Chris wrote:

[]

Both docx and odt are open standards and can be read by most uptodate >>>>>>>> software. Either is a good choice.

Word doesn't need a plugin?

Nope. Maybe in the very early days in 2013 or so it did, but not now. I >>>>>> checked. It works transparently.

Word 2003 needs a patch - not quite the same as a plugin - to read
.docx; I don't know if it can read odt at all. I think there _may_ have >>>>> been such a patch for the previous Word (2000?), and I don't think
earlier Words could read anything but .doc, .txt, and RTF (and possibly >>>>> .wri). I think .docx came in with 2007, though I don't know if that
could read odt.

Something being an open standard doesn't mean it's widely supported, >>>>> though I'm pleased to hear odt is. I'm surprised to hear .docx is -
surely M$ have kept some traps/features to themselves?

Wouldn't be much of an open standard if they did. MS were forced into a >>>> corner by various european countries writing into law that governmental >>>> documents must be saved in an open standard. At the time odt was the only >>>> option available. MS fast-tracked the creation of docx to avoid falling >>>> foul of the law.

But is docx the default now?

Yeah, I'd say so. I do very occasionally get odt docs from some EU
administrative orgs.

No, I mean. When you are in Word, and click "save", does it save as docx without asking?

Oh right, Yes.

If you've opened a .doc, it'll save as that.

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 4/19/2026 5:27 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2026-04-20 00:14, Chris wrote:

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

But is docx the default now?

Yeah, I'd say so. I do very occasionally get odt docs from some EU
administrative orgs.

No, I mean. When you are in Word, and click "save", does it save as docx without asking?

Word(since 2007) default setting unless user changed is .docx
File/Options/Save/Save Files in this format/<dialog/choice option box>
Multiple choices(15 total) - .odt is one of them
--
...w-i|#-o-#-n|#
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2026/4/20 16:34:8, Chris wrote:

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

[]

No, I mean. When you are in Word, and click "save", does it save as docx
without asking?

Oh right, Yes.

If you've opened a .doc, it'll save as that.

You can set what format you'd like to be the default save format, but
yes, unless you change it, Word has defaulted to .docx since it became
able to handle it natively (2007 I think).

Last time I used 2007 or later, I changed the default format to .doc; I
don't _think_ it ever told me I'd used any feature .doc couldn't
support. (Now back to my 2003-with-plugins.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Look out for #1. Don't step in #2 either.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 4/20/2026 3:38 PM, ...w-i|#-o-#-n|# wrote:

On 4/19/2026 5:27 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2026-04-20 00:14, Chris wrote:

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

But is docx the default now?

Yeah, I'd say so. I do very occasionally get odt docs from some EU
administrative orgs.

No, I mean. When you are in Word, and click "save", does it save as
docx without asking?

Word(since 2007) default setting unless user changed is .docx
-aFile/Options/Save/Save Files in this format/<dialog/choice option box>
-aMultiple choices(15 total) - .odt is one of them

I see StackSocial has Office 2019 selling for $16.97 today. Version
2021 is usually about $15 more. I have one 2019 and two 2021 copies.
For $17 for version 2019, I don't know why using an old version like
2003 makes any sense any more. Too much wasted time and too many things
you can't do. My $0.02
--
Science DoesnrCOt Support Darwin. Scientists Do

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 4/22/2026 8:19 AM, sticks wrote:

On 4/20/2026 3:38 PM, ...w-i|#-o-#-n|# wrote:

On 4/19/2026 5:27 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2026-04-20 00:14, Chris wrote:

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

But is docx the default now?

Yeah, I'd say so. I do very occasionally get odt docs from some EU
administrative orgs.

No, I mean. When you are in Word, and click "save", does it save as
docx without asking?

Word(since 2007) default setting unless user changed is .docx
-a-aFile/Options/Save/Save Files in this format/<dialog/choice option box> >> -a-aMultiple choices(15 total) - .odt is one of them

I see StackSocial has Office 2019 selling for $16.97 today.-a Version
2021 is usually about $15 more.-a I have one 2019 and two 2021 copies.
For $17 for version 2019, I don't know why using an old version like
2003 makes any sense any more.-a Too much wasted time and too many things you can't do.-a My $0.02

If you've three devices, the one 2019 and two 2021 sounds right. One
license for each device.

2003 still works, but with less features and for some folks preference,
it doesn't have the newer 'Ribbon' or other integration features(e.g. OneDrive). Note: Support for 2003 ended 12 yrs. ago(2014)
--
...w-i|#-o-#-n|#
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 4/22/2026 11:47 AM, ...w-i|#-o-#-n|# wrote:

On 4/22/2026 8:19 AM, sticks wrote:

On 4/20/2026 3:38 PM, ...w-i|#-o-#-n|# wrote:

On 4/19/2026 5:27 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2026-04-20 00:14, Chris wrote:

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

But is docx the default now?

Yeah, I'd say so. I do very occasionally get odt docs from some EU
administrative orgs.

No, I mean. When you are in Word, and click "save", does it save as
docx without asking?

Word(since 2007) default setting unless user changed is .docx
-a-aFile/Options/Save/Save Files in this format/<dialog/choice option box> >>> -a-aMultiple choices(15 total) - .odt is one of them

I see StackSocial has Office 2019 selling for $16.97 today.-a Version
2021 is usually about $15 more.-a I have one 2019 and two 2021 copies.
For $17 for version 2019, I don't know why using an old version like
2003 makes any sense any more.-a Too much wasted time and too many
things you can't do.-a My $0.02

If you've three devices, the one 2019 and two 2021 sounds right. One
license for each device.

Yes. I had 2003 for a long time. 2007 on one, and 2010 on another. I upgraded them all as I found the price worth it.

2003 still works, but with less features and for some folks preference,
it doesn't have the newer 'Ribbon' or other integration features(e.g. OneDrive).-a Note: Support for 2003 ended 12 yrs. ago(2014)

One of the problems was in the additional conditional formatting
options. They're greatly expanded and I wanted them. The other issue I
ran into all the time was in the available functions. I just couldn't
do some of the things I wanted to with the older versions, and from 2019 version on those tasks were simple.

If all you want to do is use the programs for basic things, the old ones
still work. But as I said above, you end up wasting time because so
many documents, spreadsheets, etc. are of the newer formats you have to convert and possibly lose functionality. I tired of that.
--
Science DoesnrCOt Support Darwin. Scientists Do

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2026/4/22 18:41:35, sticks wrote:

On 4/22/2026 11:47 AM, ...w-i|#-o-#-n|# wrote:

On 4/22/2026 8:19 AM, sticks wrote:

On 4/20/2026 3:38 PM, ...w-i|#-o-#-n|# wrote:

On 4/19/2026 5:27 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2026-04-20 00:14, Chris wrote:

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

But is docx the default now?

Yeah, I'd say so. I do very occasionally get odt docs from some EU >>>>>> administrative orgs.

No, I mean. When you are in Word, and click "save", does it save as >>>>> docx without asking?

Word(since 2007) default setting unless user changed is .docx
-a-aFile/Options/Save/Save Files in this format/<dialog/choice option box> >>>> -a-aMultiple choices(15 total) - .odt is one of them

I see StackSocial has Office 2019 selling for $16.97 today.-a Version
2021 is usually about $15 more.-a I have one 2019 and two 2021 copies.
For $17 for version 2019, I don't know why using an old version like
2003 makes any sense any more.-a Too much wasted time and too many
things you can't do.-a My $0.02

Those are indeed good prices. However, using 2003 actually _saves_ me
time, in that I have "muscle memory" for how to do many things. Yes, I
could _learn_ how to do them in the new(er) versions. And I rarely feel
the lack of the "things I can't do" - I can't think of the last time one
such arose.

There is also the matter of requiring activation; not sure when that
came in, but I think before 2019. I object to that, more or less on
principle. (OK, I'm running Windows - but that was already installed on
the machine, and activated [or whatever is this year's term] when I
bought it.)

If you've three devices, the one 2019 and two 2021 sounds right. One
license for each device.

Yes. I had 2003 for a long time. 2007 on one, and 2010 on another. I upgraded them all as I found the price worth it.

It isn't entirely the price - as I say, the above seem good; it's the _in_convenience. I don't _think_ I'd upgrade if free (I could to 2007,
as I have a licence for that).

2003 still works, but with less features and for some folks preference,
it doesn't have the newer 'Ribbon' or other integration features(e.g.

The "ribbon" is one of the things old users didn't like (I am not alone)!

OneDrive).-a Note: Support for 2003 ended 12 yrs. ago(2014)

I don't think I have ever sought support for any version, in-date or not
- at least, not from Microsoft (isn't the "support" included - if any! - limited to a very small number of calls?). I have sought - and received
- it from newsgroups.

(And I've turned off OneDrive as far as possible.)

One of the problems was in the additional conditional formatting
options. They're greatly expanded and I wanted them. The other issue I

Fair enough: if you wanted them, that's fine.

ran into all the time was in the available functions. I just couldn't
do some of the things I wanted to with the older versions, and from 2019 version on those tasks were simple.

If all you want to do is use the programs for basic things, the old ones still work. But as I said above, you end up wasting time because so
many documents, spreadsheets, etc. are of the newer formats you have to convert and possibly lose functionality. I tired of that.

I have the patches MS released for 2003 to read (and possibly save,
though I don't) the x formats. So far, I'm not aware of receiving a
document from anybody that lost anything (in terms of my understanding
of it, and even being able to edit it) when imported.

YMMV - it obviously does; however, different people have different
preferences.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

[What's your guilty pleasure?] Why should you feel guilty about
pleasure? - Michel Roux Jr in Radio Times 2-8 February 2013
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 23/04/2026 12:02 pm, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2026/4/22 18:41:35, sticks wrote:

On 4/22/2026 11:47 AM, ...w-i|#-o-#-n|# wrote:

On 4/22/2026 8:19 AM, sticks wrote:

On 4/20/2026 3:38 PM, ...w-i|#-o-#-n|# wrote:

On 4/19/2026 5:27 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2026-04-20 00:14, Chris wrote:

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

But is docx the default now?

Yeah, I'd say so. I do very occasionally get odt docs from some EU >>>>>>> administrative orgs.

No, I mean. When you are in Word, and click "save", does it save as >>>>>> docx without asking?

Word(since 2007) default setting unless user changed is .docx
File/Options/Save/Save Files in this format/<dialog/choice option box> >>>>> Multiple choices(15 total) - .odt is one of them

I see StackSocial has Office 2019 selling for $16.97 today.-a Version
2021 is usually about $15 more.-a I have one 2019 and two 2021 copies. >>>> For $17 for version 2019, I don't know why using an old version like
2003 makes any sense any more.-a Too much wasted time and too many
things you can't do.-a My $0.02

Those are indeed good prices. However, using 2003 actually _saves_ me
time, in that I have "muscle memory" for how to do many things.

Hey, if 2003 still does whatever you want ... why bother to re-train
your muscles??
--
Daniel70
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2026-04-23 12:53, Daniel70 wrote:

On 23/04/2026 12:02 pm, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2026/4/22 18:41:35, sticks wrote:

Those are indeed good prices. However, using 2003 actually _saves_ me
time, in that I have "muscle memory" for how to do many things.

Hey, if 2003 still does whatever you want ... why bother to re-train
your muscles??

In the Libre Office world, we are constantly updating and getting new features, slowly, not abruptly :-)
--
Cheers, Carlos.
ESEfc-Efc+, EUEfc-Efc|;
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 23/04/2026 9:18 pm, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2026-04-23 12:53, Daniel70 wrote:

On 23/04/2026 12:02 pm, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2026/4/22 18:41:35, sticks wrote:

Those are indeed good prices. However, using 2003 actually _saves_ me
time, in that I have "muscle memory" for how to do many things.

Hey, if 2003 still does whatever you want ... why bother to re-train
your muscles??

In the Libre Office world, we are constantly updating and getting new features, slowly, not abruptly :-)

But, Carlos, if I don't use those new features, etc, how would I ever
learn about them??
--
Daniel70
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 4/22/2026 7:02 PM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2026/4/22 18:41:35, sticks wrote:

On 4/22/2026 11:47 AM, ...w-i|#-o-#-n|# wrote:

On 4/22/2026 8:19 AM, sticks wrote:

On 4/20/2026 3:38 PM, ...w-i|#-o-#-n|# wrote:

On 4/19/2026 5:27 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2026-04-20 00:14, Chris wrote:

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

But is docx the default now?

Yeah, I'd say so. I do very occasionally get odt docs from some EU >>>>>>> administrative orgs.

No, I mean. When you are in Word, and click "save", does it save as >>>>>> docx without asking?

Word(since 2007) default setting unless user changed is .docx
-a-aFile/Options/Save/Save Files in this format/<dialog/choice option box>
-a-aMultiple choices(15 total) - .odt is one of them

I see StackSocial has Office 2019 selling for $16.97 today.-a Version
2021 is usually about $15 more.-a I have one 2019 and two 2021 copies. >>>> For $17 for version 2019, I don't know why using an old version like
2003 makes any sense any more.-a Too much wasted time and too many
things you can't do.-a My $0.02

Those are indeed good prices. However, using 2003 actually _saves_ me
time, in that I have "muscle memory" for how to do many things. Yes, I
could _learn_ how to do them in the new(er) versions. And I rarely feel
the lack of the "things I can't do" - I can't think of the last time one
such arose.

There is also the matter of requiring activation; not sure when that
came in, but I think before 2019. I object to that, more or less on principle. (OK, I'm running Windows - but that was already installed on
the machine, and activated [or whatever is this year's term] when I
bought it.)

If you've three devices, the one 2019 and two 2021 sounds right. One
license for each device.

Yes. I had 2003 for a long time. 2007 on one, and 2010 on another. I
upgraded them all as I found the price worth it.

It isn't entirely the price - as I say, the above seem good; it's the _in_convenience. I don't _think_ I'd upgrade if free (I could to 2007,
as I have a licence for that).

2003 still works, but with less features and for some folks preference,
it doesn't have the newer 'Ribbon' or other integration features(e.g.

The "ribbon" is one of the things old users didn't like (I am not alone)!

OneDrive).-a Note: Support for 2003 ended 12 yrs. ago(2014)

I don't think I have ever sought support for any version, in-date or not
- at least, not from Microsoft (isn't the "support" included - if any! - limited to a very small number of calls?). I have sought - and received
- it from newsgroups.

(And I've turned off OneDrive as far as possible.)

One of the problems was in the additional conditional formatting
options. They're greatly expanded and I wanted them. The other issue I

Fair enough: if you wanted them, that's fine.

ran into all the time was in the available functions. I just couldn't
do some of the things I wanted to with the older versions, and from 2019
version on those tasks were simple.

If all you want to do is use the programs for basic things, the old ones
still work. But as I said above, you end up wasting time because so
many documents, spreadsheets, etc. are of the newer formats you have to
convert and possibly lose functionality. I tired of that.

I have the patches MS released for 2003 to read (and possibly save,
though I don't) the x formats. So far, I'm not aware of receiving a
document from anybody that lost anything (in terms of my understanding
of it, and even being able to edit it) when imported.

YMMV - it obviously does; however, different people have different preferences.

Office 2003 did not require online activation. Just entry of the product
key.
Office 2000 was the first version(retail, academic, SR-1) requiring
online activation...some time after support ended, the online actiation
server was shut down, resorting to the same(product key entry,
activation not required)
Office 2007/2010 required entry of the product key, 2013 and later
product key/key card 'placeholder'[1] and both requiring online activation.

2013(non-volume licenses) and thereafter required a Microsoft account
for activation.

[1] the product key placeholder was/is for access to the activation
server by identifying a licensed version, edition and final installation
and setup. For 2013 and later the edition was linked to the Microsoft
account and the 'real' product key available in the online Microsoft
account's subscription feature. Also available, after linkage, was an
option to download the edition's installer(s) - Default(installed
version 64 or 32 bit) and Offline installer. Upon reinstallation,
activation due to linkage is automatic(no key required, just like
Windows 8x and later).
--
...w-i|#-o-#-n|#
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 4/23/2026 1:33 PM, ...w-i|#-o-#-n|# wrote:

On 4/22/2026 7:02 PM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2026/4/22 18:41:35, sticks wrote:

On 4/22/2026 11:47 AM, ...w-i|#-o-#-n|# wrote:

On 4/22/2026 8:19 AM, sticks wrote:

On 4/20/2026 3:38 PM, ...w-i|#-o-#-n|# wrote:

On 4/19/2026 5:27 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2026-04-20 00:14, Chris wrote:

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

But is docx the default now?

Yeah, I'd say so. I do very occasionally get odt docs from some EU >>>>>>>> administrative orgs.

No, I mean. When you are in Word, and click "save", does it save as >>>>>>> docx without asking?

Word(since 2007) default setting unless user changed is .docx
-a-a-aFile/Options/Save/Save Files in this format/<dialog/choice
option box>
-a-a-aMultiple choices(15 total) - .odt is one of them

I see StackSocial has Office 2019 selling for $16.97 today.-a Version >>>>> 2021 is usually about $15 more.-a I have one 2019 and two 2021 copies. >>>>> For $17 for version 2019, I don't know why using an old version like >>>>> 2003 makes any sense any more.-a Too much wasted time and too many
things you can't do.-a My $0.02

Those are indeed good prices. However, using 2003 actually _saves_ me
time, in that I have "muscle memory" for how to do many things. Yes, I
could _learn_ how to do them in the new(er) versions. And I rarely feel
the lack of the "things I can't do" - I can't think of the last time one
such arose.

There is also the matter of requiring activation; not sure when that
came in, but I think before 2019. I object to that, more or less on
principle. (OK, I'm running Windows - but that was already installed on
the machine, and activated [or whatever is this year's term] when I
bought it.)

If you've three devices, the one 2019 and two 2021 sounds right. One
license for each device.

Yes.-a I had 2003 for a long time.-a 2007 on one, and 2010 on another.-a I >>> upgraded them all as I found the price worth it.

It isn't entirely the price - as I say, the above seem good; it's the
_in_convenience. I don't _think_ I'd upgrade if free (I could to 2007,
as I have a licence for that).

2003 still works, but with less features and for some folks preference, >>>> it doesn't have the newer 'Ribbon' or other integration features(e.g.

The "ribbon" is one of the things old users didn't like (I am not alone)!

OneDrive).-a Note: Support for 2003 ended 12 yrs. ago(2014)

I don't think I have ever sought support for any version, in-date or not
- at least, not from Microsoft (isn't the "support" included - if any! -
limited to a very small number of calls?). I have sought - and received
- it from newsgroups.

(And I've turned off OneDrive as far as possible.)

One of the problems was in the additional conditional formatting
options.-a They're greatly expanded and I wanted them.-a The other issue I >>

Fair enough: if you wanted them, that's fine.

ran into all the time was in the available functions.-a I just couldn't
do some of the things I wanted to with the older versions, and from 2019 >>> version on those tasks were simple.

If all you want to do is use the programs for basic things, the old ones >>> still work.-a But as I said above, you end up wasting time because so
many documents, spreadsheets, etc. are of the newer formats you have to
convert and possibly lose functionality.-a I tired of that.

I have the patches MS released for 2003 to read (and possibly save,
though I don't) the x formats. So far, I'm not aware of receiving a
document from anybody that lost anything (in terms of my understanding
of it, and even being able to edit it) when imported.

YMMV - it obviously does; however, different people have different
preferences.

Office 2003 did not require online activation. Just entry of the product key.
Office 2000 was the first version(retail, academic, SR-1) requiring
online activation...some time after support ended, the online actiation server was shut down, resorting to the same(product key entry,
activation not required)
Office 2007/2010 required entry of the product key, 2013 and later
product key/key card 'placeholder'[1] and both requiring online activation.

2013(non-volume licenses) and thereafter required a Microsoft account
for activation.

[1] the product key placeholder was/is for access to the activation
server by identifying a licensed version, edition and final installation
and setup.-a For 2013 and later the edition was linked to the Microsoft account and the 'real' product key available in the online Microsoft account's subscription feature. Also available, after linkage, was an
option to download the edition's installer(s) - Default(installed
version 64 or 32 bit) and Offline installer. Upon reinstallation,
activation due to linkage is automatic(no key required, just like
Windows 8x and later).

By using my Microsoft account, I know I can eventually deactivate my
2019 version on an older windows 10 laptop that will become too
frustrating to use, and then when I get the new one reinstall and
activate it once again on the new hardware.
--
Science DoesnrCOt Support Darwin. Scientists Do

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2026-04-23 16:10, Daniel70 wrote:

On 23/04/2026 9:18 pm, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2026-04-23 12:53, Daniel70 wrote:

On 23/04/2026 12:02 pm, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2026/4/22 18:41:35, sticks wrote:

Those are indeed good prices. However, using 2003 actually _saves_ me
time, in that I have "muscle memory" for how to do many things.

Hey, if 2003 still does whatever you want ... why bother to re-train
your muscles??

In the Libre Office world, we are constantly updating and getting new
features, slowly, not abruptly :-)

But, Carlos, if I don't use those new features, etc, how would I ever
learn about them??

There is a "what's new" popup :-)
--
Cheers, Carlos.
ESEfc-Efc+, EUEfc-Efc|;
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 4/23/2026 11:52 AM, sticks wrote:

On 4/23/2026 1:33 PM, ...w-i|#-o-#-n|# wrote:

On 4/22/2026 7:02 PM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2026/4/22 18:41:35, sticks wrote:

On 4/22/2026 11:47 AM, ...w-i|#-o-#-n|# wrote:

On 4/22/2026 8:19 AM, sticks wrote:

On 4/20/2026 3:38 PM, ...w-i|#-o-#-n|# wrote:

On 4/19/2026 5:27 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2026-04-20 00:14, Chris wrote:

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

But is docx the default now?

Yeah, I'd say so. I do very occasionally get odt docs from some EU >>>>>>>>> administrative orgs.

No, I mean. When you are in Word, and click "save", does it save as >>>>>>>> docx without asking?

Word(since 2007) default setting unless user changed is .docx
-a-a-aFile/Options/Save/Save Files in this format/<dialog/choice >>>>>>> option box>
-a-a-aMultiple choices(15 total) - .odt is one of them

I see StackSocial has Office 2019 selling for $16.97 today.-a Version >>>>>> 2021 is usually about $15 more.-a I have one 2019 and two 2021 copies. >>>>>> For $17 for version 2019, I don't know why using an old version like >>>>>> 2003 makes any sense any more.-a Too much wasted time and too many >>>>>> things you can't do.-a My $0.02

Those are indeed good prices. However, using 2003 actually _saves_ me
time, in that I have "muscle memory" for how to do many things. Yes, I
could _learn_ how to do them in the new(er) versions. And I rarely feel
the lack of the "things I can't do" - I can't think of the last time one >>> such arose.

There is also the matter of requiring activation; not sure when that
came in, but I think before 2019. I object to that, more or less on
principle. (OK, I'm running Windows - but that was already installed on
the machine, and activated [or whatever is this year's term] when I
bought it.)

If you've three devices, the one 2019 and two 2021 sounds right. One >>>>> license for each device.

Yes.-a I had 2003 for a long time.-a 2007 on one, and 2010 on another.-a I >>>> upgraded them all as I found the price worth it.

It isn't entirely the price - as I say, the above seem good; it's the
_in_convenience. I don't _think_ I'd upgrade if free (I could to 2007,
as I have a licence for that).

2003 still works, but with less features and for some folks
preference,
it doesn't have the newer 'Ribbon' or other integration features(e.g.

The "ribbon" is one of the things old users didn't like (I am not
alone)!

OneDrive).-a Note: Support for 2003 ended 12 yrs. ago(2014)

I don't think I have ever sought support for any version, in-date or not >>> - at least, not from Microsoft (isn't the "support" included - if any! - >>> limited to a very small number of calls?). I have sought - and received
- it from newsgroups.

(And I've turned off OneDrive as far as possible.)

One of the problems was in the additional conditional formatting
options.-a They're greatly expanded and I wanted them.-a The other
issue I

Fair enough: if you wanted them, that's fine.

ran into all the time was in the available functions.-a I just couldn't >>>> do some of the things I wanted to with the older versions, and from
2019
version on those tasks were simple.

If all you want to do is use the programs for basic things, the old
ones
still work.-a But as I said above, you end up wasting time because so
many documents, spreadsheets, etc. are of the newer formats you have to >>>> convert and possibly lose functionality.-a I tired of that.

I have the patches MS released for 2003 to read (and possibly save,
though I don't) the x formats. So far, I'm not aware of receiving a
document from anybody that lost anything (in terms of my understanding
of it, and even being able to edit it) when imported.

YMMV - it obviously does; however, different people have different
preferences.

Office 2003 did not require online activation. Just entry of the
product key.
Office 2000 was the first version(retail, academic, SR-1) requiring
online activation...some time after support ended, the online
actiation server was shut down, resorting to the same(product key
entry, activation not required)
Office 2007/2010 required entry of the product key, 2013 and later
product key/key card 'placeholder'[1] and both requiring online
activation.

2013(non-volume licenses) and thereafter required a Microsoft account
for activation.

[1] the product key placeholder was/is for access to the activation
server by identifying a licensed version, edition and final
installation and setup.-a For 2013 and later the edition was linked to
the Microsoft account and the 'real' product key available in the
online Microsoft account's subscription feature. Also available, after
linkage, was an option to download the edition's installer(s) -
Default(installed version 64 or 32 bit) and Offline installer. Upon
reinstallation, activation due to linkage is automatic(no key
required, just like Windows 8x and later).

By using my Microsoft account, I know I can eventually deactivate my
2019 version on an older windows 10 laptop that will become too
frustrating to use, and then when I get the new one reinstall and
activate it once again on the new hardware.

Yes, that is the usual process for transferring a licensed edition of
Office to another device with the same Microsoft account(MSA).
- iirc the option for doing so for 2019 is the online MSA in same or
similar location(subscriptions or purchases)as well as the
online/offline installer. As notede earlier, activation should be
automatic.
--
...w-i|#-o-#-n|#
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 4/23/2026 2:15 PM, ...w-i|#-o-#-n|# wrote:

On 4/23/2026 11:52 AM, sticks wrote:

By using my Microsoft account, I know I can eventually deactivate my
2019 version on an older windows 10 laptop that will become too
frustrating to use, and then when I get the new one reinstall and
activate it once again on the new hardware.

Yes, that is the usual process for transferring a licensed edition of
Office to another device with the same Microsoft account(MSA).
-a- iirc the option for doing so for 2019 is the online MSA in same or similar location(subscriptions or purchases)as well as the online/
offline installer.-a As notede earlier, activation should be automatic.

Yep. I was not expecting this, to be honest, when I started trying to
figure out if I would continue with this windows 10 machine or get a new
one. I started a list of everything on it, what I would have to get off
of it, and what programs I would have to install on the new one. For
some reason I thought when I bought it (Office 2019) I could only use it
on one machine. Turns out it was only one machine at a time, and the transferring process was painless. That made me smile.
--
Science DoesnrCOt Support Darwin. Scientists Do

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 24/04/2026 5:06 am, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2026-04-23 16:10, Daniel70 wrote:

On 23/04/2026 9:18 pm, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2026-04-23 12:53, Daniel70 wrote:

On 23/04/2026 12:02 pm, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2026/4/22 18:41:35, sticks wrote:

Those are indeed good prices. However, using 2003 actually _saves_ me >>>>> time, in that I have "muscle memory" for how to do many things.

Hey, if 2003 still does whatever you want ... why bother to re-train
your muscles??

In the Libre Office world, we are constantly updating and getting new
features, slowly, not abruptly :-)

But, Carlos, if I don't use those new features, etc, how would I ever
learn about them??

There is a "what's new" popup :-)

WHAT?? Do you expect ME to go looking up all those newbie bits and
pieces?? ;-P Even IF I don't need them!! ;-)
--
Daniel70
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2026-04-24 11:55, Daniel70 wrote:

On 24/04/2026 5:06 am, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2026-04-23 16:10, Daniel70 wrote:

On 23/04/2026 9:18 pm, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2026-04-23 12:53, Daniel70 wrote:

On 23/04/2026 12:02 pm, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2026/4/22 18:41:35, sticks wrote:

Those are indeed good prices. However, using 2003 actually _saves_ me >>>>>> time, in that I have "muscle memory" for how to do many things.

Hey, if 2003 still does whatever you want ... why bother to re-
train your muscles??

In the Libre Office world, we are constantly updating and getting
new features, slowly, not abruptly :-)

But, Carlos, if I don't use those new features, etc, how would I ever
learn about them??

There is a "what's new" popup :-)

WHAT?? Do you expect ME to go looking up all those newbie bits and
pieces?? ;-P Even IF I don't need them!! ;-)

:-)

I don't look at all of them, just some. Then I forget about them.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
ESEfc-Efc+, EUEfc-Efc|;
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2026/4/23 19:33:45, ...w-i|#-o-#-n|# wrote:
[]

Office 2007/2010 required entry of the product key, 2013 and later
product key/key card 'placeholder'[1] and both requiring online activation.

2013(non-volume licenses) and thereafter required a Microsoft account
for activation.

[_Another_ reason to stick with my 2003! :-) ]
So even if you purchase it, you still require a Microsoft account to
actually _use_ it? Is that fact made clear at point of sale?

[1] the product key placeholder was/is for access to the activation
server by identifying a licensed version, edition and final installation
and setup. For 2013 and later the edition was linked to the Microsoft > account and the 'real' product key available in the online Microsoft
account's subscription feature. Also available, after linkage, was an
option to download the edition's installer(s) - Default(installed
version 64 or 32 bit) and Offline installer. Upon reinstallation,
activation due to linkage is automatic(no key required, just like
Windows 8x and later).

Does that mean the Offline installer still needs a Microsoft account,
just the activation process is invisible?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On Fri, 24 Apr 2026 13:10:48 +0100
"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2026/4/23 19:33:45, ...wi+o#n+ wrote:
[]

Office 2007/2010 required entry of the product key, 2013 and later
product key/key card 'placeholder'[1] and both requiring online activation.

2013(non-volume licenses) and thereafter required a Microsoft account
for activation.

[_Another_ reason to stick with my 2003! :-) ]
So even if you purchase it, you still require a Microsoft account to
actually _use_ it? Is that fact made clear at point of sale?

[1] the product key placeholder was/is for access to the activation
server by identifying a licensed version, edition and final installation and setup. For 2013 and later the edition was linked to the Microsoft account and the 'real' product key available in the online Microsoft account's subscription feature. Also available, after linkage, was an option to download the edition's installer(s) - Default(installed
version 64 or 32 bit) and Offline installer. Upon reinstallation, activation due to linkage is automatic(no key required, just like
Windows 8x and later).

Does that mean the Offline installer still needs a Microsoft account,
just the activation process is invisible?

Sounds like more and more reasons to ditch MS and go to LibreOffice
But it's your choice.
--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 4/24/2026 5:10 AM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

[_Another_ reason to stick with my 2003! :-) ]
So even if you purchase it, you still require a Microsoft account to actually_use_ it? Is that fact made clear at point of sale?

Wrong question. 2019 has been out of support and Microsoft selling
Office 2019 editions discontinued.

Third party resellers(retail consumer/business editions) and discounted
sales by third party resellers(retail consumer/business
versions/editions from inventory or volume licensed edition/versions)
are not, nor have they ever been required to indicate a MSA is necessary
at point of sale.

Microsoft, though has made the MSA requirement clear for Microsoft 365
and Office versions since Office 2013 release.

See: How to redeem your product (applies to 365 and any edition/version
since 2013)

<https://setup.office.com/?source=microsoft365?>
--
...w-i|#-o-#-n|#
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2