Talk:Microsoft Word/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Alternatives

I think we should create a list of alternatives for Word, we could use the List_of_word_processors as a starting point.

Ooh and what is the difference between word processor and List_of_word_processors?

There has been some talk about this: --seweso 12:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

There are some free alternatives, like KWord, AbiWord, TeX and Openoffice.

I removed this, as this is an article about MS Word. Adding free alternatives is quite close to advocating free software. Also, none of the programs listed is a true alternative to Word. TeX is a typesetting system, not a wordprocessor. Kword and AbiWord are nowhere near Word's functionality, and OpenOffice is incomplete (last I checked, it had no spellchecker, as Sun did not hold the copyright on StarOffice's spellchecker code). A better approach would be to list other wordprocessing programs (not just open source ones!) in a "see also" section. --Stephen Gilbert

The release versions (1.0+) of OpenOffice.org do have a spell checker, though some early developer's releases did not. --Brion

"I think that MS Word is one of the best applications I used if not the best of all." 82.114.178.3 19:15, 18 May 2006

MS-DOS Ruler?

Question: Did Microsoft Word for MS-DOS have a "ruler", or did that feature appear first in the Macintosh version?

Yes it did (I used WordDOS from 1.0 onward), and it looked something like this:

|----|----|----|----|

I think there was a numerical option as well:

0....5....10....15....20

...as it was a character-based display. Later DOS versions had a graphical version as well, depending on what kind of a graphics card you had. (Mine wasn't supported...) --ProhibitOnions 21:44, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)

Photo IBM PC running Word

FYI: for a photo of original IBM PC running Word, see here. --tyomitch 21:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Other ramblings

Stephen Gilbert: Ok, better let them be listed in word processor (tuxisuau)

---

A side-thought: it'd be nice for someone to develop a discussion on the Microsoft Mouse and its history. Compare its development with that of the one-button Apple mouse. No contest.

---

Word and MS' first spreadsheet program MultiPlan both shared a very similar look when they came out, using the same two-line command interface at the bottom of the screen; the 'feel' of the two programs was very similar, implying that Word was first developed by Bill's MultiPlan team. MultiPlan was boosted by Bill Gates who envied Lotus 1-2-3, but was disappointed by MultiPlan's inability to compete. Buoyed by his successes in writing early programs for the Macintosh, I think Bill gritted his teeth and resolved to bring out graphically based versions of Word and Excel/MultiPlan to leapfrog Lotus. An early sign of this resolve was the introduction of the Microsoft Mouse (which, btw, worked with the text version of Word). Other attempts at mouse products for the PC were unsuccessful. Bill's resolve to make Excel and Word probably motivated the development of Windows.

MultiPlan predates 1-2-3, if I recall correctly. An early version of Multiplan was even available for CP/M machines. --Robert Merkel

Most of Microsoft's products have been bought from other companies. Anyone know the origin of Word and whether this is true for it?

• On the Microsoft Mac Business Unit [1] website, it says that "In 1984, Microsoft releases Word 1.0 and it becomes one of the world’s most popular word processing programs." It doesn't say they actually developed it so I do not know. 1189 19:40, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This PDF [2] states that BravoX, a predecessor to the Star it's Document Editor, was the direct predecessort of MS Word. You do not always need to buy such products as you can simply hire the orginal developers.

---

Removed (in reference to Word 6 for Windows) numbered to indicate that it also superceded Word 5 for DOS because it is obviously untrue. Word 5 for DOS was replaced by Word 6 for DOS. Replaced it with an explanation that fits much better with the observable facts. Tannin

I don't think 'numbered "6" to imply a superiority to Word Perfect 5.1' in the Word 6 for Windows bullet is NPOV. Microsoft claims they numbered it 6 to line up its versioning numbers with the Mac version of Word. Word 6 for Windows had a modified file format that, for the first time, matched Word for the Mac. I don't really care if we include the file-format info or not, but the statement as it stands doesn't seem NPOV. Anyone else? -Frecklefoot

AFAIK it was to bring Win / DOS / Mac version into line. DOS was up to 5.5, so the first combined version was 6 -- Tarquin 19:22 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, the version 6 was to bring the Windows version number to parity with the DOS and Mac version numbers. This should be changed. -- Talk:Fireball1244 4:07 Nov 2, 2003 (CST)

And if you'll believe that, I've got a bridge I want to sell to you....it's not NPOV just because that was the justification MS advanced: that was only what MS was claiming. Nobody at the time actually believed it 203.206.162.148 (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Wrom: WIGYOKSTTZRCLBD

While the article may be considered correct in terms of sequence, it is my perception that the original Word for Macintosh was an independently created program with a different set of features than that of Word for DOS. So, considering Word for the Mac as a 'port' is not actually correct. My (biased!) interpretation & recollection is that the current Word is based on Word for the Mac, at least as comes to features and user interface. Cannot comment on code (!) but at the time of Word for the Mac 1.x, Pascal (MPW) was the dominating programming language for the Macintosh.

I'm going from memory too, but as I recall the sequence was:

1: Word written and marketed for the Mac by a non-Microsoft company

2: Microsoft buy them out

3: Microsoft produce a DOS version

4: Microsoft produce a Windows version

5: DOS version is dropped

6: Mac version is dropped, restored, ignored, forgotten about until no-one cares anymore

Tannin

Future versions

The article contained this:

• Word 2004, also known as Word 12 and officially titled Microsoft Office Word 2004
• Word 2005, also known as Word 13 and officially titled Microsoft Office Word 2005

I wondered if they should really be in that list - are they speculative, confirmed, or what? Certainly you can't buy them, can you? If not, I think it makes the list misleading. Maybe, if someone feels they are good and accurate content, they should be reintroduced under a separate subhead? Or something?? Nevilley 00:50, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I would guess it was a newbie test. It's 217.81.175.4 sole contribution. --Mrwojo 03:04, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ah. Good point, thank you. Nevilley 07:45, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

meta data

Someone with a better knowledge of the history than I have should perhaps write a section on how the 'meta data' (I believe it's called) stored in .doc files has occasionally been newsworthy: aspects of the Hutton Inquiry became public when Downing Street documents were searched for older-version information, and a similar thing happened with SCO's plan for their lawsuit against UNIX-derivatives.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aziraphale (talk • contribs) 05:45, 2 June 2004

advice

However, this capability can also be used to embed viruses in documents, as was demonstrated by the Melissa worm. Because of this, users having Microsoft Word installed should refrain from having it configured to open Microsoft Word documents received -- by email or otherwise -- from untrusted sources. Are we in any position to say this? I would say it should be rephrased with a thing saying "Most analysts agree that users having Microsoft Word installed should refrain..." [maestro] 09:44, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Better advice would be to adjust your security settings in such a way that only macros from trusted sources can be executed. Shinobu 03:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Headings

Would anyone be in favor of the occasional heading or title in this article? Ojw 19:13, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Books

A book has been newly listed at the end of this article

Amazon lists 1404 books about MS-Word, what's special about this one? Ojw 13:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I suggest that if any books are linked from here, they should be general books on the development of office, office interoperability, and/or the history of the office suite (assuing we can't get books on Word specifically) -- I don't see what's special about the book either, and suggest deletion unless someone substantiates it. EggplantWizard 19:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Of course, the ideal type of book to link to would be a WikiBook... Ojw 20:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Format and Headings

This article badly needs more segregation -- I've added some headings with my most recent revision, and I feel that the article is now better -- however, it still needs a lot more work, and I don't think that the categories I chose are the best way to approach this in the long run. I'd like to start a dialogue about how best to format the article, and then ideally get the right pieces moved into the right sections based on consensus opinion of what's easiest to follow. EggplantWizard 19:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Office 6

I wonder if it should be mentioned that on the Mac, Office 2001 wasn't actually smaller or faster than Office 6, just that the hardware had improved over 5 years or whatever it was. --Steven Fisher 06:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Determining the Word Version of a Document

I'm not sure but I think this link would be interesting. Should I add it?

Don't know how useful it is. I also wonder wether it is the kind of information you'd expect in an encyclopedia. External link? Shinobu 03:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

"Features" section?

Doing a parallel read between the entry for MS Word and Apple's Pages I noticed that the former lacks a proper "Features" section while the latter has one. While the difficulty of working with the .doc format is thoroughly discussed, there is no mentioning in the actual capabilities of the program (like for example the ability to automatically generate a contents table or "accept data from Excel, Powerpoint or Access") nor are any shortcomings mentioned that make it's use uncomfortable (like it's instability as a program or the heavy requirements given that it is a word processor).

212.205.234.7 22:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Mac Word history

I've updated the history of Word for the Macintosh based on personal involvement with the project. Sorry I don't have as much detail on the other versions.

The code history:

DOS Word 2 was the basis of Mac Word 1

So DOS Word 2 was written in Pascal? Lars T. 22:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Mac Word 4 was the basis for Windows Word 1 (they actually shared about half the Mac Word code; that was a disaster)

Mac Word 5 and Windows Word 2 were the bases for Pyramid, which was cancelled

Mac Word 6 was Windows Word 6 running on a Windows emulator for the Mac

de facto standard

I snip the part about "de facto standard" because it reveals nothing about the program. Here it is:

Microsoft Word is the dominant word processor in current use, making Word's proprietary document file format (DOC) the de facto standard which competing products must support to interoperate in an office environment.

Word 2006??

The article says: "Versions for Microsoft Windows include ... Word 2006, known as Word 12."

I see no hint of the existence of such a product at http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/FX010857991033.aspx or elsewhere on the MS site. —Urielw 20:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Try Office 2007. It's unoffically called Office 12. See http://www.microsoft.com/office/preview/default.mspx --Jkonrath 19:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually that is its BETA Release name before it was named Office 2007--Oliver Davison 23:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge "The present" and "File format"

A proposal. Atatncnu 02:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a bit of discontent

Word's Thesaurus has a slight problem, which is that it doesn't realize that if A is a synonym of B then B is a synonym of A. Anyone know why this is? (I am having difficulty maintaining NPOV - my copy of MSWord crashes after you have typed three characters or so)88.109.15.239 19:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that putting the adjective "crash-prone" in the lead of this article would in fact be NPOV. A fact isn't POV when it's just an everyday fact of life for millions of people. I know I'd get shot down if I tried to actually implement this idea. "The emperor has no clothes" is POV in the emperor's eyes. — ¾-10 16:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Will the real Word guru please stand up?

... and message me on my talk. I want to do a weird customization of Word for Mac 2001; I want to change the "Backup of" string but I don't know where this is stored. John Reid 10:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

RTF

This is incorrect: "RTF remains an optional format for Word that retains all formatting and content of the original document."

AFAIK, many things like diagrams and charts are lost through RFT conversion. Layout is also not faithfully maintained. (columns are broken etc.) --Espoo 08:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

RTF was the native format of which versions of Word? Probably Word 3.x.

It was also used briefly as a compatibility format between which two versions of Word? Probably 95 and 6. 203.206.162.148 (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Nav bar

Why does the navbar at the bottom not include Entourage or Messenger? - ElAmericano (dímelo) 02:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)