D.M.Chapman wrote:
In article ,
The Medway Handyman wrote:
John Rumm wrote:

(not got a copy of word 97 here to check - but I think the option
existed in that version)

It does - I just get a blank scren.

What, once you have opened the file that way? If that option
recovers no text from the file, then there is a fair chance it is
corrupt or not even a doc file. If its non sensitive, email it to
me and I will have a look at it.

Will do, thanks.


Try the word reader from MS - that usually lets you read it. If it
won't open it then I suspect it's corrupt and you won't get anything
to open it correctly.

http://tinyurl.com/2007viewer

Thanks - alas no good. I think you are right - FUBAR.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

The Medway Handyman wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics) wrote:
In article ,
The Medway Handyman
wrote:
Someone known to me has sent a Word Doc as an e-mail attachment.


Nobody has yet suggested the obvious....


The sender should be asked to send it again in a standard format,
rather than some proprietry file. It may be no issue to the
BillyGoat brigade (although clearly it is here) but how about those
who use real operating systems?

Plain text is for email, if the "pretties" are essential, then PDF
is the answer

I am afraid I have to say you are IMHO completely right.


The only excuse for sending something in word processor format, is so
that it may be subsequently edited.

Or that you don't know of any alternatives...

Like most users.


A simple e-mail saying 'please export that as a PDF' suffices there..

I cant off hand think of any 2D drawing or word processing package that
cant do that these days.

The Medway Handyman wrote:
D.M.Chapman wrote:
In article ,
The Medway Handyman wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
(not got a copy of word 97 here to check - but I think the option
existed in that version)
It does - I just get a blank scren.
What, once you have opened the file that way? If that option
recovers no text from the file, then there is a fair chance it is
corrupt or not even a doc file. If its non sensitive, email it to
me and I will have a look at it.
Will do, thanks.

Try the word reader from MS - that usually lets you read it. If it
won't open it then I suspect it's corrupt and you won't get anything
to open it correctly.

http://tinyurl.com/2007viewer

Thanks - alas no good. I think you are right - FUBAR.


silly bugger probably saved a template or something instead of a document.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics) wrote:
In article ,
The Medway Handyman
wrote:
Someone known to me has sent a Word Doc as an e-mail attachment.


Nobody has yet suggested the obvious....


The sender should be asked to send it again in a standard format,
rather than some proprietry file. It may be no issue to the
BillyGoat brigade (although clearly it is here) but how about those
who use real operating systems?

Plain text is for email, if the "pretties" are essential, then PDF
is the answer

I am afraid I have to say you are IMHO completely right.


The only excuse for sending something in word processor format, is
so that it may be subsequently edited.

Or that you don't know of any alternatives...

Like most users.


A simple e-mail saying 'please export that as a PDF' suffices there..

I cant off hand think of any 2D drawing or word processing package
that cant do that these days.

MS Word can't AIUI.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 11:43:10 +0000, The Medway Handyman wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics) wrote:
In article , The
Medway Handyman wrote:
Someone known to me has sent a Word Doc as an e-mail attachment.


Nobody has yet suggested the obvious....


The sender should be asked to send it again in a standard format,
rather than some proprietry file. It may be no issue to the
BillyGoat brigade (although clearly it is here) but how about those
who use real operating systems?

Plain text is for email, if the "pretties" are essential, then PDF
is the answer

I am afraid I have to say you are IMHO completely right.


The only excuse for sending something in word processor format, is so
that it may be subsequently edited.

Or that you don't know of any alternatives...

Like most users.


A simple e-mail saying 'please export that as a PDF' suffices there..

I cant off hand think of any 2D drawing or word processing package that
cant do that these days.

MS Word can't AIUI.

Modern versions can.



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

The Medway Handyman wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics) wrote:
In article ,
The Medway Handyman
wrote:
Someone known to me has sent a Word Doc as an e-mail attachment.

Nobody has yet suggested the obvious....


The sender should be asked to send it again in a standard format,
rather than some proprietry file. It may be no issue to the
BillyGoat brigade (although clearly it is here) but how about those
who use real operating systems?

Plain text is for email, if the "pretties" are essential, then PDF
is the answer

I am afraid I have to say you are IMHO completely right.


The only excuse for sending something in word processor format, is
so that it may be subsequently edited.
Or that you don't know of any alternatives...

Like most users.


A simple e-mail saying 'please export that as a PDF' suffices there..

I cant off hand think of any 2D drawing or word processing package
that cant do that these days.

MS Word can't AIUI.


Only Word here is MAC word, and it seems you are correct. It can send to
a PDF file 'printer' though..

What utter crap Word is..

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 09:03:21 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:


Personally I've not Microsoft Office installed on any of my machines for
well over five years, and I produce and receive documents from many
customers, I can think of a few that needed minor tweaking (of the sort
that would happen when changing printer or paper size) but can't think
of any documents that were a write-off.

You've been lucky. The one time I tried to use OO writer on a word
document it was well messed up. Simple table that was in the wrong
place and size. Alignment and style of text within cells of said
table incorrect. I couldn't find away to get these errors sorted out
all the normal things like highlight the text click bold (the text
was bold and shouldn't have been) didn't work. This would probably
have been a word .doc orginating on a modern version of word, maybe
if you only have stuff from older vesrions of MS Word compatibilty is
better.

OO doesn't have an equivalent of Publisher either.

--
Cheers
Dave.

dennis@home wrote:


"Bob Minchin dangling via a dongle" wrote in
message ...


I've wondered about open office for a while but as an avid user of
excel, I'm curious to know how the OO version compares to M$ Excel
which I find extremely versatile and capable.
Anyone care to comment please?

Its different, it doesn't support office applications (vba, macros,
etc.), it works well enough to be useful, its free as opposed to the £18
office costs nhs workers.



Thanks Dennis
I can't imagine having to use a spreadsheet without Macros so it will be
M$ for me then.

Cheers

Bob

In message o.uk, Dave
Liquorice writes
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 09:03:21 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:


Personally I've not Microsoft Office installed on any of my machines for
well over five years, and I produce and receive documents from many
customers, I can think of a few that needed minor tweaking (of the sort
that would happen when changing printer or paper size) but can't think
of any documents that were a write-off.

You've been lucky. The one time I tried to use OO writer on a word
document it was well messed up. Simple table that was in the wrong
place and size. Alignment and style of text within cells of said
table incorrect. I couldn't find away to get these errors sorted out
all the normal things like highlight the text click bold (the text
was bold and shouldn't have been) didn't work. This would probably
have been a word .doc orginating on a modern version of word, maybe
if you only have stuff from older vesrions of MS Word compatibilty is
better.

OO doesn't have an equivalent of Publisher either.

I've got nothing against OO, I've used it in different versions over the
years but I have to say I prefer MS Office.

Then again, I rather like the interface on Office 2007.

I know it's not relevant now, but my suggestion to opening an Office doc
in a format you can#t open, would be to use Google docs or some such.
--
Chris French

In message , The Medway
Handyman writes
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:


A simple e-mail saying 'please export that as a PDF' suffices there..

I cant off hand think of any 2D drawing or word processing package
that cant do that these days.

MS Word can't AIUI.


Office 2007 can (well, with a little add-in from MS)
--
Chris French

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 09:03:21 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:


OO doesn't have an equivalent of Publisher either.

Thank god...

--
Rod

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 17:12:52 +0100, Rod wrote:

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 09:03:21 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:


OO doesn't have an equivalent of Publisher either.

Thank god...

Seconded... but if you do want a DTP package maybe Scribus (http://
www.scribus.net/) will fit the bill.

BW

"chris French" wrote in message
...
In message , The Medway
Handyman writes
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:


A simple e-mail saying 'please export that as a PDF' suffices there..

I cant off hand think of any 2D drawing or word processing package
that cant do that these days.

MS Word can't AIUI.


Office 2007 can (well, with a little add-in from MS)

Well that's due to licensing issues which M$ has to obey unlike OSS which
does what it likes.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...


To save too much more collective brain racking, with everyone trying to
think of ever more exotic programs to open it with, I can confirm that the
document is knackered beyond recovery. Its only 162 bytes in length, and
most of those are nulls!

Maybe its a link to the real file somewhere on his computer?
It wouldn't be the first time someone has mailed a shortcut although i think
they are usually more readable.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
news
dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...


To save too much more collective brain racking, with everyone trying to
think of ever more exotic programs to open it with, I can confirm that
the document is knackered beyond recovery. Its only 162 bytes in length,
and most of those are nulls!

Maybe its a link to the real file somewhere on his computer?
It wouldn't be the first time someone has mailed a shortcut although i
think they are usually more readable.

Links tend to include path references and file names etc. This does not.

It might if its in unicode from say a Chinese version of windows.
They have two bytes per character so looking at one is gibberish.

dennis@home wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
news
dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...


To save too much more collective brain racking, with everyone
trying to think of ever more exotic programs to open it with, I
can confirm that the document is knackered beyond recovery. Its
only 162 bytes in length, and most of those are nulls!

Maybe its a link to the real file somewhere on his computer?
It wouldn't be the first time someone has mailed a shortcut
although i think they are usually more readable.

Links tend to include path references and file names etc. This does
not.

It might if its in unicode from say a Chinese version of windows.
They have two bytes per character so looking at one is gibberish.

The e-mail only came from Reading :-)


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

The Medway Handyman wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
news
dennis@home wrote:

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...


To save too much more collective brain racking, with everyone
trying to think of ever more exotic programs to open it with, I
can confirm that the document is knackered beyond recovery. Its
only 162 bytes in length, and most of those are nulls!
Maybe its a link to the real file somewhere on his computer?
It wouldn't be the first time someone has mailed a shortcut
although i think they are usually more readable.
Links tend to include path references and file names etc. This does
not.
It might if its in unicode from say a Chinese version of windows.
They have two bytes per character so looking at one is gibberish.

The e-mail only came from Reading :-)


Well the BNP haven't banned Chinese from Reading yet..

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
news dennis@home wrote:

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...


To save too much more collective brain racking, with everyone
trying to think of ever more exotic programs to open it with, I
can confirm that the document is knackered beyond recovery. Its
only 162 bytes in length, and most of those are nulls!
Maybe its a link to the real file somewhere on his computer?
It wouldn't be the first time someone has mailed a shortcut
although i think they are usually more readable.
Links tend to include path references and file names etc. This does
not.
It might if its in unicode from say a Chinese version of windows.
They have two bytes per character so looking at one is gibberish.

The e-mail only came from Reading :-)


Well the BNP haven't banned Chinese from Reading yet..

Give them time...


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk