Talk:Microsoft Word/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Word 2007 Link?

Shouldn't there be a link here to Microsoft Office 2007? The beta's out now, and Microsoft has called it the most significant update in a decade. I think this qualifies it for at least a bare mention. Auricfuzz 22:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Info box

I'd like to propose we split the Info box into one for each platform. The reason is that the box is already a little unwieldy, and is missing important information. The current version Microsoft Word for Mac OS X, for instance, is v2004 11.2.5 (2006-07-11). The two products also have different websites, different logos, and different screen designs. Having two infoboxes just makes sense to me. -- Steven Fisher 17:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made this change, plus added some additional details that were too awkward to add before. Note that I appear to have been wrong in my last comment; the 11.2.5 update doesn't seem to have included a new Word. -- Steven Fisher 17:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

TrueType ligatures

I have never used Word in the past, but I have to deal with Word documents now at work. When I found that Word doesn't cope with TrueType ligature glyphs, I at first refused to believe it. I mean, TrueType has been in use since when, 1991? Then I found out that OpenOffice supports them without problem. It is simply beyond me how a $230 application can lack such basic functionality, especially seeing that it is provided byt its $0 competition as a matter of course. Now it appears that Uniscribe has some support for context shaping. It apparently just refuses to apply it to Latin script. Can I conceivably trick Word somehow into using a font's ligature/precomposed glyphs repertoire, e.g. by making it believe the script is not Latin or similar? This may not be straightforward, as the fontforge manual tells us that

Microsoft tries to document what features they apply for which scripts in Uniscribe, but that isn't very helpful since Word and Office have quite different behavior than the default.

That seems to mean that Microsoft documents one thing, and their applications do something entirely different. This reduces me to trial and error. Is there any information available surrounding this? dab (ᛏ) 18:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction in section Word 1983 to 1990

Many concepts and ideas were brought from Bravo, the original GUI word processor developed at Xerox PARC, to the original Mac version, which was the first Word version to use a graphical user interface, and the later Word for Windows. Bravo's creator Charles Simonyi left PARC to work for Microsoft in 1981. Simonyi hired Brodie, who had worked with him on Bravo, away from PARC that summer.

seems to be contradicted by the next paragraph

Word for Macintosh, despite the major differences in look and feel from the DOS version, was ported by Ken Shapiro with only minor changes from the DOS source code,[citation needed] which had been written with high-resolution displays and laser printers in mind although none were yet available to the general public.

The confirmation for the port with only minor changes is also still missing — minor changes would include a rewrite in a different language/ISA. Lars T. 14:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Exporting mediawiki content to MS Word

Is this possible ? tools ? Wizzy…☎ 13:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Why would you want it? The Word format is a proprietary format, you should use open formats instead. "Exporting" MediaWiki content to HTML is simple: simply use the "printable version" link. - Sikon 15:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • in firefox (or ie probbablly but i don't use IE) hit the printable version link then go to file save, make sure web page complete is selected and save it. Then load the result into word. The result will need some cleanup but it at least seems to be readable. Plugwash 01:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Mozilla Firefox and Word Web Pages

Do you know that Mozilla Firefox doesn't show properly web pages, created with Microsoft Word? Example: [1]

When I look at that page in IE the images are not appearing. In Firefox the page displays correctly. Shinobu 17:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

How odd to say I tested it in Internet Explorer, problems also appear in Opera Browser. Perhaps this is down to a mishap with HTML or just that Word isn't suppoted in the browser in know myself front page works sufficiently. Oliver Davison 18:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Complaints in the Word 1981-1990 section

In the second half of the third paragraph of this section, a list of complaints begins with the note that WordPerfect is "a superior program for word processing only," and proceeds to list a number of reasons why. This seems to belong elsewhere, or maybe nowhere considering there are no citations for it. --joeOnSunset 07:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Role in fighting crime

I like this section. However, I think the title for it is extremely lame. Does anyone have a better idea for it? Would "Word in the news" work? --Steven Fisher 05:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Word version 2–2003

In the formats section appears "Word version 2–2003". Is this correct? Shouldn't it be Word version 97-2003? mferreira—Preceding undated comment added 10:40, 13 December 2006.

Almost perfect

Almost perfect has a ton of tiny tidbits about word history: http://www.wordplace.com/ap/ And it's fun read. Fun and tragic. 212.213.204.99 19:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

MS word 07

I made the product and i thought maybe i should add a few more features of ms word 07 in order to make it more informative...

Any Comments ?? Kalivd 06:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This material is very biased and ranting. The default file formats for Word 2007 are the Open XML formats.Rick Jelliffe 14:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

On a personal note, I'd be most pleased to see a small entry about Word 2007's COMPULSORY "new and improved" user interface under the "features and flaws" section. I'm not the only long time served MS Office user who's been alternately baffled and heavily p***ed off by not being able to quickly and easily access certain random features from simple to advanced as they're seemingly not worthy of a place on the "ribbon", prominent or otherwise... and the normal menu bar has been completely done away with... forming a UI design break on the level of moving from DOS to Windows, which from the screenshots would seem to be unprecedented in more than 20 years of the software being in use (even the DOS versions had the menus laid out in a similar way to that in 2003). Except most of the stuff you needed to do in windows was quite obvious and had simple analogues, rather than being the same thing in a jiggered-about and obscured manner (I suppose I could complain similarly about a number of techie or UI based things going from 9x to XP as well, but less seriously - MS are on a campaign of needless dumbing-down, given that I haven't met many people who had serious trouble getting to grips with 9x or Office?). OK, you could argue that I don't have to upgrade my home system in a hurry, but it's coming in rapidly to various corporate establishments (inc. a school I briefly worked at), and without having it at home to practice on, a serious professional disadvantage is engendered. Did anyone in Redmond think this through properly before swapping in one well-worn interface for another barely-tested one wholesale, instead of having it as an option?

It's at LEAST as annoying/crippling/detrimental to productivity as the numbering/bulleting bugs, and those have previously driven me to the brink of total distraction when (to digress further for a moment) having to do some intricate editing on a large number of documents that included complex numbered/lettered lists (duplicating each page to allow printing multiple copies on one sheet where both word and the printer driver didn't offer the right combination of facilities). A job that should be a fifteen-second and entirely keyboard-driven "load, select-all, copy, ctrl-end, insert break, paste, save, print" series being dragged out to several minutes as innumerate corrections have to be instigated via the format\bullets command and double checked, for each document concerned. How can one seemingly simple part of a highly developed professional product operate in such a mind boggling and dislogical fashion?

Also I'd suggest the picture-position handling code for this section as it often goes wandering off into the further fields of logic-defying bizzarity that has one reaching for the vodka, or if fortunate enough to possess it, a better-behaved full-DTP application to format the one or two critical pages --- all for the reason that a simple clipart won't stay sat in the rough area you need it to be in an otherwise simple document, particularly when you wish it to sit at a certain place within flowed text, rather than just inlined HTML-style with a left/right/centre justification.

Granted, the rest of it actually hangs together very well and works pretty efficiently for the feature bloat (all of office 2003 student/teacher edition fitting well within the bounds of a single CD, and installing in about 150mb, and office 2000 running with consummate smoothness on an old 32mb Pentium 60), but these small odds and sods that are regularly buffed up against in daily use of the application are well worthy of inclusion as warnings to the potential user! The devil is in the detail after all...

PS any insinuation that the software is simply balking at my awful use of grammar and punctuation is fair comment, but unlikely to hold water :D

PPS If some of this seems to be missing a point or doesn't hang together well, i've re-opened it to edit an error i spotted, but can't any more identify where it is :-/ 82.46.180.56 (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Too much on Easter Eggs etc.?

I reckon this article has too much on Word's easter eggs - beyond what could be considered encyclopedic. Easter eggs are more of a fad interest - perhaps this section could be summarised? For example, there is one line on 'Bullets and Numbering', but a large section dedicated to how the undocumented =rand(x,y) function works - interesting stuff (I enjoy easter eggs and can see how editors might have been tempted to include this info!) - but probably not appropriate for an encyclopedia? --Christopher 19:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is too much on the rand function. But, since these are no-longer being added to software in my opinion they are encylopeadic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pearce jj (talk • contribs) 10:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Auto-Summary

Could someone please make an article about Auto-Summary? Or insert it into the article? rabmny 19:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason why the MS Word screenshot has been removed?

Well, is there? It used to be there. Have the over-zealous Copyright Enforcer Wikipedians struck again? *rolls eyes* --189.148.84.139 22:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious about this as well...

I added my own screen of 2007 that I took myself...

I hope there aren't any problems with this...

elateral 18:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we have a Vista image?

All other programs have Vista images; this screenshot's caption says its on XP (although it does have that Vista look to it.)–Sidious1701_{(talk • email • todo)} 23:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Who cares? They look the same except for window decorations. - Sikon 15:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't ask, don't tell

Seem that MS Word (I use 2003) spell check has a bit of a Don't ask, don't tell policy on "blue" words. I mean words like fuck. It knows how to spell them and will not flag them as misspelled but I could not make any error that would bring up the blue word in the right-click suggestions. I.e., if I write "shitt", it ignores the obvious and gives me "shift", "shirt", etc. I Googled but could not find any mention of this "feature" though it would make an interesting mention in the article. But not without a source – sigh. --Alfadog (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Suppose they don't want to get into trouble for suggesting these words to younger users, e.g. should an eight year old typist slip up when typing something about their favourite shirt... with an additional rationale that if you can't even spell a curseword properly, then on your own head be it! 82.46.180.56 (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

MS Office games

Has anybody heard about the hidden games included in Word and Excel in Office97 ? Are there a wiki page about these "cheats" ? :) ThanX OK, I discovered the wiki page Easter eggs in Microsoft products. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.240.82 (talk) 12:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Flagship

The first sentence reads "Microsoft Word is Microsoft's flagship word processing software."flagship" is awkward. I don't disagree that it is MS's flagship, it just seems that less colorful language would be better Lloydbudd (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Document exchange section

I deleted most of the document exchange section. The crux of the argument seems to founded on this page, which is basically someone's opinion about why the format should not be used as such. The page basically says, "it's proprietary and I don't like it" and isn't a reliable source. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Bulleting bugs

I've removed "It should also be noted that troublesome bulleting and numbering is endemic to other Word processing applications, especially the Openoffice.org Writer application which is especially poor at handling bullets and outline numbering." because it is not true. I composed my entire diploma using complex numbering and indices with a lot of other formatting throughout the text and never encountered any distortion. Meanwhile, I am a long-term Word user so I can say that Word leaves much to be desired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.246.112.87 (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Online word processors

As everyone here must be aware that there are several online word processors which many of the users have started using and barely few people use MS word. I think that a paragraph about this must be added along the concerning paragraph. Kalivd (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

como desbloquear sites?

muitas escolas bloqueiam os sites como hi5, msn, hotmail, etc. para que os alunos nao possam aceder aos mesmos. algo nas definiçoes da internet consegue alterar-se para que se possa novamente aceder a estes sites. como? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.103.12.157 (talk) 09:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft Office Word to Microsoft Word

I'm sorry to who changed the title of the article to Microsoft Office Word but I think that Microsoft Word suites the wiki better than Microsoft Office Word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Win2000Pro (talk • contribs) 14:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Removing critisism section

Before you jump to conclusions, there is still ample criticism remaining in the in the Features_and flaws section. What I am removing is this recently added edit for several reasons. First it starts out referring to "Numerous Internet articles", but the only reference is a single-author rant site. The referenced site's primarily purpose seems to be to point out the problems with using Word for data exchange. That's a use/misuse issue, not a flaw in the software.

Second, many of the remaining items are redundant or downright false. Macro viruses have already been discussed above. Users are not vendor locked into Word – Open Office can work with Word documents. Word does not mandate users to upgrade to the latest version – Microsoft Word Viewer (admittedly windows-only) is available for those without word, and add-ons are available that allow earlier versions to read files from later versions. I happen to have Word 97 on my computer and can easily read word 2007 .docx files. That latest format also happens to be an open and published standard.

A couple of points might be worth retaining, such as potential access to deleted data, but these need supporting references and need to be written in a more neutral tone. -- Tcncv (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Historical marketshare

Is there any data available to show when word became and kept the position of becoming the major wordprocessor?--78.48.33.168 (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I second this question. I expected to find something in the article intro saying approximately what market share it has. Anyone got any idea of even just it's current market share?? Gronky (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Archiving this talk page

Before I get into other issues, I would rather have this page archived because newer pages need more attention by moving older ones into archiving. The problems are the time, the attention, and the space. I would rather have the messages automatically archived if "no replies after 90 days"; if that doesn't work, I want more ideas. --Gh87 (talk) 06:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 22:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

SVG Icon

I don't see how using a pre-rastered png is better, there is literally NO gain from using the png version instead of the svg, and traditionally all the icons were in svg. I get the feeling that Misterwiki is acting more to protect his contribution than he's willing to improve the article. Killing the svg version for unuse is crazy, specially when all the office 2007 icons are like that.

Seriously, I don't see how a good standard can suddenly become a bad standard for office 2010. Heck, it's not even a Fair Use quarrel as long as we don't use a very large version (SVG benefits smaller renders as well). --217.58.5.50 (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Effectively broken link

I think the reference "Ms Word Files using .net framework" in section "External links",

http://www.tipsdotnet.com/ArticleBlog.aspx?KWID=71&Area=MsWord&PageIndex=0

is (effectively) broken. It does not contain an article of that name. Probably because it has rolled of that page; the title is: "Latest Articles: MsWord".

--Mortense (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

ms word

in ms word :-

            how we create roman number in my document  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.175.195 (talk) 09:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC) 

wwe

Onceapon a time a kuy fell off a roof —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.159.149.197 (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?

is this vandalism?...

"...fatal mistake. It was version 2.0 of Word, however, that firmly established Microsoft Word as the market leader.[11]

call at 225 678 6780 for further help

Word 5.1 for the Macintosh, released in 1992, was a very popular word processor owing to its elegance..."

If so, could an admin please delete it? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.34.194 (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done Lars T. (talk) 02:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Quality of Sources

Hey, somebody has added a couple of sources, great. Too bad that at least one of them Microsoft Word for Mac History at lowendmac.com actually gives this article as its source. Lars T. (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Article Title

Why is this article named Microsoft Office Word, when all the other office apps have the word Office omitted? I think that Office should not be included in the title. Most people know the product as Microsoft Word rather than Microsoft Office Word. Word is, indeed, the name of the application and Office is simply the package within which it is sold. Has anyone else an opinion on this? Ralphy 18:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

MS does now refer to this app as "microsoft offfice word" (look in the about dialog for instance. Is there a policy on what to do when the estabilished name for a product differs from the makers current name? Plugwash 18:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Not all of the other Office applications have the word "Office" ommitted. The article names should be as accurate as possible in its naming. Redirects along with some prose can explain older names like "Word for Windows" and "Microsoft Word". Warrens 19:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of how this particular discussion turns out, the article should be updated to mention the name issue. For instance, the 2004 Mac version is named (in various places) Microsoft Word, Microsoft® Word 2004 for Mac and Word:Mac, but never Microsoft Office Word 2004. --Steven Fisher 22:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree the title should be Microsoft Word -- I've also started a discussion on the Microsoft Excel talk page| Cliffb 01:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, Microsoft Word is not always sold with office. It can be be purchased either by itself, or with Microsoft Works, as not all people want all of the office programs, but still need a word proccessor. So, putting "office" in the title is not neccessary, because although it is technically microsoft office word, it doesn't always come bundled with office. --Kormerant 23:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The "Office" is a form of emphasis of the product's inclusion in Office, not a formal part of the product name; but as it is also sold separately, with Works, and for the Mac, the inclusion of Office in the title is incongruous. Microsoft itself refers to it as "Word" not "Office Word" [2]. I shall rename the article.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 09:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I see we've been moved again.

Needs to get moved back to Microsoft Word. But that won't solve anything, since it'll just get moved back again by someone else who thinks he's the first person to catch on to the official product name on Windows. Time for some level of protection, maybe? --Steven Fisher 18:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hear hear! +Hexagon1 ^(t) 11:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Moving this page and all other Microsoft Office applications to new name as "Microsoft Office Word"

I suggest moving "Microsoft Word" to "Microsoft Office Word" as it's the new name since version 2003 and also moving all other Office applications, i.e. Powerpoint, Excel, etc., since some articles (e.g. Microsoft Outlook) is already named Microsoft Office Outlook on it's infobox.

GeekGod™ 09:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

agree - oahiyeel ^talk 20:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is about all versions of Word, including those never came with any version of Office. - Josh (talk | contribs) 16:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)