Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    New Lounger
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    6
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    2000 to 97 (Word 97 SR 2)

    We are in the process of "merging" a smaller firm into ours, at which they had users on 97 and 2000. Yesterday, I heard through the grapevine that one of the 2000 users would be unwilling to take our standard 97 on the basis of problems with "repagination" when 2000 docs were opened in 97. Now, this was second-hand info, so I'm not positive of what the user specifically said, and I suspect the implication there was not that the background repagination in Page Layout view occurred but that the layout of the document changed (causing some text to shift on what page it appeared) or something like that, where it didn't look exactly as it did in 2000.

    Now, I know there are feature in 2000 that are not supported in 97, but I seriously doubt any of those would be used in these documents. However, in general, there's no reason that a document would intrinsically change its layout just because it was opened in the previous version, is there? Obviously there are things that could happen specifically because of something set up in a document, or by opening it on a different machine, or by attaching a new template, etc., but other than the unsupported new features, are there any major issues involving the 2000-97 interaction? I'm mostly just looking for either insight into what obstacles we may discover or ammunition for convincing the reluctant.

    Thanks.

  2. #2
    Silver Lounger Charles Kenyon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Sun Prairie, Wisconsin, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,049
    Thanks
    124
    Thanked 119 Times in 116 Posts

    Re: 2000 to 97 (Word 97 SR 2)

    The biggest problem I've seen has to do with Tables. Take a look (while using Word 2000) at the samples in the Nested Tables demo on <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.addbalance.com/word/download/index.htm> my downloads page</A>.

    There can also be problems with macros that are not backwards compatible.

    Word 2000 does have an option that turns off non-compatible features that should help. Why would the new person have to accept Word 97 if he/she already has Word 2000 installed? Word 2000 is at least marginally better than Word 97. Why not simply have those who have Word 2000 set their versions to restrict them to Word 97 features?

    Finally, with any complex or long document, chances of it opening and appearing the same on two different computers are very iffy. This is true, regardless of differences in version of Word.
    Charles Kyle Kenyon
    Madison, Wisconsin

  3. #3
    New Lounger
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    6
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: 2000 to 97 (Word 97 SR 2)

    I doubt the user in question is having trouble with tables. Something others have suggested is differences in printer drivers on different machine could be behind the problem, not the version of Word, striking me as more likely. However, you have helped confirm what I suspected. Thanks very much for your input.
    Oh, and the reason they'd have to go to 97 is to be in-line with our standard setup, not because 97 necessarily is better than 2000. That's another issue, however.

  4. #4
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    12,560
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts

    Re: 2000 to 97 (Word 97 SR 2)

    "is to be in-line with our standard setup" is the first step in a TAKE OVER, telling them that their way is NOT the way things are going to be done. You will NEVER get ALL machines to be in the "standard setup" anyway. Give these new employees a break, and support them until the standard is upgraded to 2000, which you will be better of in doing anyway.

    Now running HP Pavilion a6528p, with Win7 64 Bit OS.

  5. #5
    Silver Lounger Charles Kenyon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Sun Prairie, Wisconsin, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,049
    Thanks
    124
    Thanked 119 Times in 116 Posts

    Re: 2000 to 97 (Word 97 SR 2)

    If someone is doing serious word processing in Word (even correspondence) and not using tables, something is wrong with the training and the "standard" setup. While are not as important as <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.addbalance.com/usersguide/styles.htm> Styles in using Word, they are a major formatting tool and doing without them is a mistake.

    Unless the pool of good clerical help where you are is very different from here, I would expect your newly acquired assistants to tell you to take a hike (or other more colorful language). Around here, secretaries who would know enough to believe that there was a problem between the two versions, and voice that concern, are difficult to find at any price. Like others, I would urge you to have whoever is making such policy decisions to do some real thinking about making the merger smoother.

    In my area, people know who the good assistants are and they would be snapped up in a minute by competing firms or government offices if given the chance. Last year one of our secretaries walked across the street for a $10,000 raise.

    BTW, once such an exodus starts, don't think it can't spread to the home office.
    Charles Kyle Kenyon
    Madison, Wisconsin

  6. #6
    New Lounger
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    6
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: 2000 to 97 (Word 97 SR 2)

    Well, Dave and Charles, I would say I'm only a cog in the machine, but that sounds like a cop-out; I shall merely note that these decisions are not mine.

    I would feel worse about "forcing" our setup on them were it not for the fact that our setup is extensively customized to make Word better than out-of-the-box way they had things. (It's likely we'll be going to 2002 (XP) in the not-too-distant future, so the step back is only temporary.)

    And I didn't say that the user didn't USE tables, I said I didn't think there was a problem with tables as regards to their expressed concern, that's all.

    However, we've more or less concluded that what the user thought was the problem is not actually a problem at all, as I suspected and you've confirmed. If we didn't care about trying to assuage their concerns to smooth the transition, we needn't have bothered asking at all. If the user in question (an attorney, for the record) has a good argument that can prove the problem to be with the version of Word and not attributable to the printer driver (rather than merely assuming that to be the case), I'm sure the powers that be (other attorneys) would allow him or her to keep 2000.

    I was just trying to get the facts (inasmuch as we can) without jumping to conclusions.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •