On 2026-03-14 17:25, micky wrote:
I went to visit a friend in NJ and someone in his family brought up
Google Docs, and recommended it for him I thought the major feature of
Google Docs was that files were stored in the cloud but the wikip
article doesn't even mention that (or barely if I missed it).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Docs
Okay "while collaborating with users in real-time." implies that it's
online, at least during editing.
Doesn't one have to learn at least a few things about google docs to use
it. My friend, 83 yo, can learn new things, but doesn't really want to.
If someone only works at home or at work or when he takes his laptop
with him, and when none of that is true, he wants to be "on vacation"
and free of computer chores, there is no point to google docs, is there?
I use google docs solely for one purpose: documents that I want to
access on my phone. Like a spreadsheet of car expenses. I also access
the same docs on the computer.
Once I used a text document, a list of things to do, me in Europe, my
cousin in Canada. It was curious when we both were writing, we could
chat using it.
You can export the file to local storage, too.
For normal usage on the computer, I use Libre Office alone.
Not a pending problem, just FYI: I've copied about 35,000 files that he wrote, he downloaded, or which have a user extension, and every one of
35,000 copied fine on the first try except the only two .doc files,
which, strangely enough, worked fine when I clicked on them on his
harddrive (which I removed from the laptop with the broken screen). (He
wrote those two files too, with the same name, found in a directory and
its sub-directory, only 4 short lines long.)
I am curious what would make a file NOT copy with XXCopy (which I
think uses Xcopy for the actual copy step), whether or not it could
actually be read, especially since it could be read with no problem.
I've been copying my friend's old hard drive to a flash drive...
Not a pending problem, just FYI: I've copied about 35,000 files that he wrote, he downloaded, or which have a user extension, and every one of
35,000 copied fine on the first try except the only two .doc files,
which, strangely enough, worked fine when I clicked on them on his
harddrive (which I removed from the laptop with the broken screen)...
In alt.comp.os.windows-10 micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
I've been copying my friend's old hard drive to a flash drive...
Not a pending problem, just FYI: I've copied about 35,000 files that he
wrote, he downloaded, or which have a user extension, and every one of
35,000 copied fine on the first try except the only two .doc files,
which, strangely enough, worked fine when I clicked on them on his
harddrive (which I removed from the laptop with the broken screen)...
What was the flash drive formatted with? My guess would be copying from
NTFS to FAT,
and finding different restrictions between them. There's a
pile of file naming issues that can confuse tools (are you comfortable >sharing file names?)
- M
In alt.comp.os.windows-10 micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
I've been copying my friend's old hard drive to a flash drive...
Not a pending problem, just FYI: I've copied about 35,000 files that he
wrote, he downloaded, or which have a user extension, and every one of
35,000 copied fine on the first try except the only two .doc files,
which, strangely enough, worked fine when I clicked on them on his
harddrive (which I removed from the laptop with the broken screen)...
What was the flash drive formatted with? My guess would be copying from
NTFS to FAT,
and finding different restrictions between them. There's a
pile of file naming issues that can confuse tools (are you comfortable >sharing file names?)
- M
My thoughts about using Google Docs would centre around the fact that
once Google has your Docs, Google HAS your Docs.
Mind you, that's just MY assumption (and you know what they say about
people who ASSUME!!).
--
Daniel70
In alt.comp.os.windows-11, on Sun, 15 Mar 2026 22:46:01 +1100, Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:I would second the previously made suggestion of the free Libre Office.
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.
--
Daniel70
The menu of Libreoffice is a lot easier to use that the labyrinth that
MS calls a menu.ÿ With Libreoffice, if you search for the function it
shows you where the function is located in the menu.ÿ With MS Office it gives you an active link to the functions.ÿ Great for one time use, but
the searching becomes burdensome in you are using the function all in
the document
On 03/15/2026 3:34 PM, micky wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-11, on Sun, 15 Mar 2026 22:46:01 +1100, Daniel70I would second the previously made suggestion of the free Libre Office.
<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.
--
Daniel70
In my experience it is completely compatible with MS office documents.
It is simpler to use than both MS Office and Google Docs. I takes a
lot to save a Google doc to your personal drive. If you send a
document to some one, you have to do a lot of playing with the file to
be able to read it. (I only use Google Docs if my grandson send one to me.)
The menu of Libreoffice is a lot easier to use that the labyrinth that
MS calls a menu. With Libreoffice, if you search for the function it
shows you where the function is located in the menu. With MS Office it gives you an active link to the functions. Great for one time use, but
the searching becomes burdensome in you are using the function all in
the document
knuttle <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> wrote:[]
I would second the previously made suggestion of the free Libre Office.
In my experience it is completely compatible with MS office documents.
Only the simplest text documents or spreadsheets. Any special formatting is difficult to maintain between office and libreoffice. Excel macros often don't work at all.
Powerpoint compatibility is just terrible.
It is simpler to use than both MS Office and Google Docs. I takes a
lot to save a Google doc to your personal drive. If you send a
document to some one, you have to do a lot of playing with the file to
be able to read it. (I only use Google Docs if my grandson send one to me.)
Obviously, using an unfamiliar system may seem complicated especially if
you force it to work in not the best way.
Googledocs aren't meant to be "sent" to people, but rather shared via
google. No saving nor playing required. The permissions can be a bit
fiddly, mind.
If you do want to save the file then you can save it as native Libre Office format pretty simply. Not sure what you mean by "lots of playing".
The menu of Libreoffice is a lot easier to use that the labyrinth that
MS calls a menu. With Libreoffice, if you search for the function it
shows you where the function is located in the menu. With MS Office it
gives you an active link to the functions. Great for one time use, but
the searching becomes burdensome in you are using the function all in
the document
On 03/15/2026 3:34 PM, micky wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-11, on Sun, 15 Mar 2026 22:46:01 +1100, Daniel70I would second the previously made suggestion of the free Libre Office.
<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.
--
Daniel70
In my experience it is completely compatible with MS office documents.
It is simpler to use than both MS Office and Google Docs. I takes a
lot to save a Google doc to your personal drive. If you send a
document to some one, you have to do a lot of playing with the file to
be able to read it. (I only use Google Docs if my grandson send one to me.)
The menu of Libreoffice is a lot easier to use that the labyrinth that
MS calls a menu. With Libreoffice, if you search for the function it
shows you where the function is located in the menu. With MS Office it
gives you an active link to the functions. Great for one time use, but
the searching becomes burdensome in you are using the function all in
the document
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???
I'll have to check that out. I really should use LO more often instead
of notepad or ++. Plus-plus has a really wierd method of new lines, paragraphs, etc.
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, Daniel70I would second the previously made suggestion of the free Libre Office.
<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.
--
Daniel70
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???
It is simpler to use than both MS Office and Google Docs. I takes a
lot to save a Google doc to your personal drive. If you send a
document to some one, you have to do a lot of playing with the file to
be able to read it. (I only use Google Docs if my grandson send one to me.) >>
The menu of Libreoffice is a lot easier to use that the labyrinth that
MS calls a menu. With Libreoffice, if you search for the function it
shows you where the function is located in the menu. With MS Office it
I'll have to check that out. I really should use LO more often instead
of notepad or ++. Plus-plus has a really wierd method of new lines, paragraphs, etc.
gives you an active link to the functions. Great for one time use, but
the searching becomes burdensome in you are using the function all in
the document
On 2026/3/18 19:39:57, micky wrote:
[]
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?
I would always save as .doc; that can be read by old versions of Word,
new versions of Word, LibreOffice, and most other WPs (not sure about WordPerfect, if that still exists).
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, Daniel70I would second the previously made suggestion of the free Libre Office.
<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.
--
Daniel70
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???
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
On 2026/3/18 19:39:57, micky wrote:
[]
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?
I would always save as .doc; that can be read by old versions of Word,
new versions of Word, LibreOffice, and most other WPs (not sure about
WordPerfect, if that still exists).
I wouldn't. .doc is a dead proprietary format that has been reverse engineered. There's no guarantee of interoperability between different versions. Plus it can be vector for malware . Microsoft, for example, is dropping support for it.
.docx is an open standard which is readable by pretty much all applications that need to.
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
On 2026/3/18 19:39:57, micky wrote:
[]
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?
I would always save as .doc; that can be read by old versions of Word,
new versions of Word, LibreOffice, and most other WPs (not sure about
WordPerfect, if that still exists).
I wouldn't. .doc is a dead proprietary format that has been reverse engineered. There's no guarantee of interoperability between different versions. Plus it can be vector for malware . Microsoft, for example, is dropping support for it.
.docx is an open standard which is readable by pretty much all applications that need to.
On 2026/3/19 7:51:25, Chris wrote:
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
On 2026/3/18 19:39:57, micky wrote:
[]
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?
I would always save as .doc; that can be read by old versions of Word,
new versions of Word, LibreOffice, and most other WPs (not sure about
WordPerfect, if that still exists).
I wouldn't. .doc is a dead proprietary format that has been reverse
engineered. There's no guarantee of interoperability between different
versions. Plus it can be vector for malware . Microsoft, for example, is
dropping support for it.
Oh, typical Microsoft.
.docx is an open standard which is readable by pretty much all applications >> that need to.Except older versions of Word. Yes, there are patches (now harder to
find) for at least Word/Office 2003 (not sure about earlier) that will
let them read (not sure about save) the *x versions.
On Thu, 3/19/2026 3:51 AM, Chris wrote:
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
On 2026/3/18 19:39:57, micky wrote:
[]
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?
I would always save as .doc; that can be read by old versions of Word,
new versions of Word, LibreOffice, and most other WPs (not sure about
WordPerfect, if that still exists).
I wouldn't. .doc is a dead proprietary format that has been reverse
engineered. There's no guarantee of interoperability between different
versions. Plus it can be vector for malware . Microsoft, for example, is
dropping support for it.
.docx is an open standard which is readable by pretty much all applications >> that need to.
There are two five hundred page documents that cover office.
One of them was used by Sun Microsystems, to build the framework
for opening Office documents. LibreOffice fork, continues with
the "fleshing out" of the <cough> "minor details". That's why
the document opening step worked at all, in the FOSS side of
the ecosystem. That wasn't reverse engineering. There's a document.
If you know what the attack surface is on a document type
(executable macros), you can shut that off.
document contains an attack surface, and one of the first
things you do when installing Reader is you shut that off.
It's the source of a document that matters as much as
the attack surfaces or potential attack surfaces.
How a .docx differs, is it uses a ZIP container for
a series of files. But the one file that contains
the DTP core of the document, that and the .doc need
to have similar information inside. That doesn't mean
that the documents are "divergent on intent". They do
the same things, and plus or minus, there's no reason
for the content portion of .doc and .docx to be different.
Microsoft seldom removes attack surfaces, no matter
what the consequences. Notice how widgets appeared,
disappeared, and appeared again. Once they get an idea
in their heads, it can take "basic exhaustion" of an
idea, to get rid of it again. Common sense won't remove it :-)
Paul
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:[]
On 2026/3/19 7:51:25, Chris wrote:
versions. Plus it can be vector for malware . Microsoft, for example, is >>> dropping support for it.
Oh, typical Microsoft.
It's quite funny because in order to read older word docs you need to use Libreoffice.
.docx is an open standard which is readable by pretty much all applications >>> that need to.Except older versions of Word. Yes, there are patches (now harder to
find) for at least Word/Office 2003 (not sure about earlier) that will
let them read (not sure about save) the *x versions.
You can't expect legacy software to be forwards compatible with standards that post date them.
As I said above just use LibreOffice. Why bother with such an old version
of word at all?
micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:.....
In alt.comp.os.windows-11, on Sun, 15 Mar 2026 16:53:59 -0400, knuttle
<keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> wrote:
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?
In theory, newer versions of Word can read .odt format files.
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???
Yes. Don't worry about that. You can set LO to save files as .docx by
default if you want.
In alt.comp.os.windows-11, on Thu, 19 Mar 2026 07:59:51 -0000 (UTC),[]
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes. Don't worry about that. You can set LO to save files as .docx by
default if you want.
I didn't know that. I'm sort of overwhelmed by the sum of all the
options in all the programs I use. I will set it that way, and then I
don't have to think every time..
I didn't know that. I'm sort of overwhelmed by the sum of all the
options in all the programs I use. I will set it that way, and then I
don't have to think every time.
On 2026/4/14 15:53:5, micky wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-11, on Thu, 19 Mar 2026 07:59:51 -0000 (UTC),[]
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes. Don't worry about that. You can set LO to save files as .docx by
default if you want.
I didn't know that. I'm sort of overwhelmed by the sum of all the
options in all the programs I use. I will set it that way, and then I
don't have to think every time..
I've never used LO, but I always set Word to save as .doc (not .docx) by default; that way virtually all recipients can open what I save.
Yes, in
theory there may be features in the newer versions that the old can't
use, and it should tell me when saving if I've used any of them; it
never has so far.
I've never used LO, but I always set Word to save as .doc (not .docx) by default; that way virtually all recipients can open what I save.
On Tue, 4/14/2026 10:53 AM, micky wrote:
I didn't know that. I'm sort of overwhelmed by the sum of all the
options in all the programs I use. I will set it that way, and then I
don't have to think every time.
We write all these additional new formats, just to make
your brain swell and explode.
Is it working ? :-)
Paul
On 4/14/2026 9:30 AM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
I've never used LO, but I always set Word to save as .doc (not .docx) by
default; that way virtually all recipients can open what I save.
Just an fyi...
The recipients can still experience issues with opening .doc file.
To ensure full .doc compatibility, Word's Trust Center
File/Options/Trust Center/Trust Center Settings/File Block Settings
- should be configured properly to Open and Save .doc files
Uncheck 'Open', Uncheck 'Save' for Word Binary Documents and Templates
for each version(95, 97, 2000, 2003, and 2007 and later)
"Microsoft began phasing out support for older .doc files, particularly those from Word 97-2003, with the introduction of the Office Open XML (.docx) format in Word 2007, and enhanced this restriction significantly
in newer Microsoft 365 versions (around 2021-2025) to mitigate security vulnerabilities. While many versions still allow opening them, default
"File Block" settings often prevent opening or editing them without
manual security changes."
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
On 2026/4/14 15:53:5, micky wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-11, on Thu, 19 Mar 2026 07:59:51 -0000 (UTC),[]
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes. Don't worry about that. You can set LO to save files as .docx by
default if you want.
I didn't know that. I'm sort of overwhelmed by the sum of all the
options in all the programs I use. I will set it that way, and then I
don't have to think every time..
I've never used LO, but I always set Word to save as .doc (not .docx) by
default; that way virtually all recipients can open what I save.
If that's all you want, then pdf is better.
Yes, in
theory there may be features in the newer versions that the old can't
use, and it should tell me when saving if I've used any of them; it
never has so far.
Problem is .doc isn't one standard. It is many. Roundtripping with .doc is
a recipe for problems.
Ah, so you mean it's the people opening them that need to do that,
rather than me saving them.
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.
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.
Oh for the days when a document meant text (maybe a bit of fonts
& formatting) without embedding a full-blown script backdoor vulnerability.
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 08:58:22 -0400rsion
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 ve
(review before save) that some other
tool can use.
It's like planning a transit bus trip.
Oh for the days when a document meant text (maybe a bit of fontsity.
& formatting) without embedding a full-blown script backdoor vulnerabil
On 2026/4/14 22:28:6, ...w¤?ñ?¤ wrote:
On 4/14/2026 9:30 AM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
I've never used LO, but I always set Word to save as .doc (not .docx) by >>> default; that way virtually all recipients can open what I save.
Just an fyi...
The recipients can still experience issues with opening .doc file.
To ensure full .doc compatibility, Word's Trust Center
File/Options/Trust Center/Trust Center Settings/File Block Settings
- should be configured properly to Open and Save .doc files
Uncheck 'Open', Uncheck 'Save' for Word Binary Documents and Templates
for each version(95, 97, 2000, 2003, and 2007 and later)
I was going to say "thanks, done that".
But my Word (2003) doesn't have Options under File. There's an Options
under Tools, but nothing that looks like what you describe there.
Ah, so you mean it's the people opening them that need to do that,
"Microsoft began phasing out support for older .doc files, particularly
those from Word 97-2003, with the introduction of the Office Open XML
(.docx) format in Word 2007, and enhanced this restriction significantly
in newer Microsoft 365 versions (around 2021-2025) to mitigate security
vulnerabilities. While many versions still allow opening them, default
"File Block" settings often prevent opening or editing them without
manual security changes."
rather than me saving them.
On 2026/4/15 16:17:2, Kerr-Mudd, John 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.
I'm not familiar with that expression. (Not sure what a "transit bus" is.)
Oh for the days when a document meant text (maybe a bit of fonts
& formatting) without embedding a full-blown script backdoor vulnerability.
That - the bit of fonts and formatting - is mostly what I use; for
longer, I do use the section numbering (and cross-referencing, e. g.
table of contents) features. but they're available from before the
version I use.
I _do_ use the table formatting properties, but I know I'm unusual in
that: most people think "table: that means I must use Excel" [or more >generally, a spreadsheet], whereas really you only need a spreadsheet if >you're going to do sums on the contents (or in extremis, use sorting >features); IMO the table formatting features in Word are more versatile,
if you only want a grid presentation.
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 19:26:49 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:[]
On 2026/4/15 16:17:2, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 08:58:22 -0400
It's like planning a transit bus trip.
I'm not familiar with that expression. (Not sure what a "transit bus" is.)
You must be posh.
;-)
Oh for the days when a document meant text (maybe a bit of fontsI _do_ use the table formatting properties, but I know I'm unusual in
& formatting) without embedding a full-blown script backdoor vulnerability. []
that: most people think "table: that means I must use Excel" [or more
generally, a spreadsheet], whereas really you only need a spreadsheet if
you're going to do sums on the contents (or in extremis, use sorting
features); IMO the table formatting features in Word are more versatile,
if you only want a grid presentation.
A big difference, AFAIK, is that the cells in Excel are addressable via
VBA. I don't think Word can do the same.
On 2026/4/16 2:38:43, Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 19:26:49 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>[]
wrote:
On 2026/4/15 16:17:2, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 08:58:22 -0400
You must be posh.It's like planning a transit bus trip.
I'm not familiar with that expression. (Not sure what a "transit bus" is.) >>
;-)
Not really! I think it's just that what you call a "transit bus" is
something we call by another name.
On 2026/4/16 2:38:43, Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 19:26:49 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>[]
wrote:
On 2026/4/15 16:17:2, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 08:58:22 -0400
You must be posh.It's like planning a transit bus trip.
I'm not familiar with that expression. (Not sure what a "transit bus" is.) >>
;-)
Not really! I think it's just that what you call a "transit bus" is
something we call by another name.
[]
Oh for the days when a document meant text (maybe a bit of fonts
& formatting) without embedding a full-blown script backdoor vulnerability.
Probably not - since I'm only hazy about what "addressable via VBA"I _do_ use the table formatting properties, but I know I'm unusual in
that: most people think "table: that means I must use Excel" [or more
generally, a spreadsheet], whereas really you only need a spreadsheet if >>> you're going to do sums on the contents (or in extremis, use sorting
features); IMO the table formatting features in Word are more versatile, >>> if you only want a grid presentation.
A big difference, AFAIK, is that the cells in Excel are addressable via
VBA. I don't think Word can do the same.
means, I'm pretty sure I don't use that feature. Visual Basic something?
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???
VBA in Excel has a variety of capabilities, the most common use is
creation of a macro(uses VBA to address variables like cell(s) or range
of cell locations including columns, rows etc.) and perform actions on
those variables when the macro is run.
VBA(Visual Basic Application) is not a stand-alone component, but
included in Office.
VBA is possible in Word, one of the most common uses is creating macros
in Word for formatting, but as Char noted it's not cell specific.
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.
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.
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.
Oh for the days when a document meant text (maybe a bit of fonts
& formatting) without embedding a full-blown script backdoor vulnerability.
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:When using LO, save in .odt, and then, if you need to send it to a
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. >>>>>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?
In my experience it is completely compatible with MS office documents. >>>>
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??? >>>
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.
Paul
On Thu, 4/16/2026 5:15 AM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2026/4/16 2:38:43, Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 19:26:49 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>[]
wrote:
On 2026/4/15 16:17:2, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 08:58:22 -0400
You must be posh.It's like planning a transit bus trip.
I'm not familiar with that expression. (Not sure what a "transit bus" is.) >>>
;-)
Not really! I think it's just that what you call a "transit bus" is
something we call by another name.
You can take a Greyhound cross-country bus trip, or you can
take a city transit system diesel bus.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
On Thu, 16 Apr 2026 09:25:45 -0700, ...w¤?ñ?¤ <winstonmvp@gmail.com>
wrote:
VBA in Excel has a variety of capabilities, the most common use is
creation of a macro(uses VBA to address variables like cell(s) or range
of cell locations including columns, rows etc.) and perform actions on
those variables when the macro is run.
VBA(Visual Basic Application) is not a stand-alone component, but
included in Office.
VBA is possible in Word, one of the most common uses is creating macros
in Word for formatting, but as Char noted it's not cell specific.
Excellent summary, thanks.
On 17/04/2026 10:42 am, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Thu, 16 Apr 2026 17:50:38 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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>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.
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?
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
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:When using LO, save in .odt, and then, if you need to send it to a
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. >>>>>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?
In my experience it is completely compatible with MS office documents. >>>>
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??? >>>
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.
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.
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.)
Interesting. Do you actually use the extras that .docx offers?RTF does that, and most word processors can handle it.
Oh for the days when a document meant text (maybe a bit of fonts
& formatting) without embedding a full-blown script backdoor vulnerability. >>
I use LibreOffice for .docx, Word97 for .doc.
If you save what had been .docx as .doc in LibreOffice, does it tell you which features you've used that will be lost?
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?
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.Interesting. Do you actually use the extras that .docx offers?
I use LibreOffice for .docx, Word97 for .doc.
If you save what had been .docx as .doc in LibreOffice, does it tell you which features you've used that will be lost?
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.
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.
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:When using LO, save in .odt, and then, if you need to send it to a
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. >>>>>>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?
In my experience it is completely compatible with MS office documents. >>>>>
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??? >>>>
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.
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:When using LO, save in .odt, and then, if you need to send it to a
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. >>>>>>>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?
In my experience it is completely compatible with MS office documents. >>>>>>
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??? >>>>>
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?
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 think .docx came in with 2007, though I don't know if that
could read odt.
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.
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
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 fontsRTF does that, and most word processors can handle it.
& formatting) without embedding a full-blown script backdoor vulnerability. >>
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.
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.
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).
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
On 2026/4/18 20:52:10, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2026-04-18 16:52, J. P. Gilliver wrote:Agreed, though it needs a fair admin. staff to do that.
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 >>
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.
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
}
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").
ÿÿÿ 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
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:
Word 2003 needs a patch - not quite the same as a plugin - to readBoth 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.
.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?
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").
ÿÿÿ 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
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:
Word 2003 needs a patch - not quite the same as a plugin - to readBoth 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.
.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.
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:
Word 2003 needs a patch - not quite the same as a plugin - to readBoth 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.
.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?
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:
Word 2003 needs a patch - not quite the same as a plugin - to readBoth 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.
.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.
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 13 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 58:26:11 |
| Calls: | 211 |
| Files: | 21,502 |
| Messages: | 81,622 |
