Anyone care to recommend a converter; docx compatible with Word 97?

XP service pack 3 and I would prefer to avoid open office!
--
Tim Lamb

"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
...
Anyone care to recommend a converter; docx compatible with Word 97?

XP service pack 3 and I would prefer to avoid open office!
--
Tim Lamb

I thought I was the only one left using Word 97!
MS do a docx- Word 97 converter. Google should help. I installed it 2-3
years back and no longer have the file or link. IIRC it was for a later
version of Word, but works perfectly for me.
HTH
Nick.

On Oct 11, 4:45*pm, Tim Lamb wrote:
Anyone care to recommend a converter; docx compatible with Word 97?

XP service pack 3 and I would prefer to avoid open office!
--
Tim Lamb

AVS document converter.

On Oct 11, 4:45*pm, Tim Lamb wrote:
Anyone care to recommend a converter; docx compatible with Word 97?

XP service pack 3 and I would prefer to avoid open office!
--
Tim Lamb

BTW, why don't you like Open Office?

Well yet to find one, but cannot you find an old copy of Word XP or
something that can be used. There are file format convertors for that.
doxillion says it works even in the free version but I've found it wanting
quite often.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
...
Anyone care to recommend a converter; docx compatible with Word 97?

XP service pack 3 and I would prefer to avoid open office!
--
Tim Lamb

One way out of course is to install Lotus Symphony, which is free and can be
used for editing them as well.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
...
Anyone care to recommend a converter; docx compatible with Word 97?

XP service pack 3 and I would prefer to avoid open office!
--
Tim Lamb

Or Libra Office. Lotus Symphony does not need Java.

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"harry" wrote in message
...
On Oct 11, 4:45 pm, Tim Lamb wrote:
Anyone care to recommend a converter; docx compatible with Word 97?

XP service pack 3 and I would prefer to avoid open office!
--
Tim Lamb

BTW, why don't you like Open Office?

In message
,
harry writes
On Oct 11, 4:45*pm, Tim Lamb wrote:
Anyone care to recommend a converter; docx compatible with Word 97?

XP service pack 3 and I would prefer to avoid open office!
--
Tim Lamb

BTW, why don't you like Open Office?

Because I don't know anything about it.

--
Tim Lamb

In message , Nick
writes

"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
.. .
Anyone care to recommend a converter; docx compatible with Word 97?

XP service pack 3 and I would prefer to avoid open office!
--
Tim Lamb

I thought I was the only one left using Word 97!
MS do a docx- Word 97 converter. Google should help. I installed it 2-3
years back and no longer have the file or link. IIRC it was for a later
version of Word, but works perfectly for me.

I looked at the MS site and found it only offered converters for 2000
and up.

I'm happy to try if you reckon it will work.

Bloody DEFRA wants farmers to join the Internet revolution and expects
them to be up to date!
--
Tim Lamb

Tim Lamb wrote:
In message
,
harry writes
On Oct 11, 4:45 pm, Tim Lamb wrote:
Anyone care to recommend a converter; docx compatible with Word 97?

XP service pack 3 and I would prefer to avoid open office!
--
Tim Lamb

BTW, why don't you like Open Office?

Because I don't know anything about it.

It's well worth having a look. It's more compatible with new and old MS
office data than most versions of office.

It's a relatively small download. The only major problems I've found are
the lack of a decent database capability and some glitches with
Powerpoint presentations.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Nick
writes

"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
...
Anyone care to recommend a converter; docx compatible with Word 97?

XP service pack 3 and I would prefer to avoid open office!
--
Tim Lamb

I thought I was the only one left using Word 97!
MS do a docx- Word 97 converter. Google should help. I installed it
2-3 years back and no longer have the file or link. IIRC it was for
a later version of Word, but works perfectly for me.

I looked at the MS site and found it only offered converters for 2000
and up.

I'm happy to try if you reckon it will work.

Bloody DEFRA wants farmers to join the Internet revolution and expects
them to be up to date!

Tim, if that doesn't work for you, would anything in this link help?
http://preview.tinyurl.com/8vf3y8j

BTW, I'm still using Office 97 Pro

Cash

On 11/10/2012 19:17, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Nick
writes

"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
...
Anyone care to recommend a converter; docx compatible with Word 97?

XP service pack 3 and I would prefer to avoid open office!
--
Tim Lamb

I thought I was the only one left using Word 97!
MS do a docx- Word 97 converter. Google should help. I installed it 2-3
years back and no longer have the file or link. IIRC it was for a later
version of Word, but works perfectly for me.

I looked at the MS site and found it only offered converters for 2000
and up.

AFAICR doesn't Word 97 use the same file format (.doc) as Word 2003? It
only changed (to .docx) with Word 2007

David

In message , Tim Lamb
writes
In message , Nick
writes

"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
. ..
Anyone care to recommend a converter; docx compatible with Word 97?

XP service pack 3 and I would prefer to avoid open office!
--
Tim Lamb

I thought I was the only one left using Word 97!
MS do a docx- Word 97 converter. Google should help. I installed it 2-3
years back and no longer have the file or link. IIRC it was for a later
version of Word, but works perfectly for me.

I looked at the MS site and found it only offered converters for 2000
and up.

I'm happy to try if you reckon it will work.

Bloody DEFRA wants farmers to join the Internet revolution and expects
them to be up to date!
I wasn't sure if the MS compatibility pack went back as far as Word97,
but this Ehow article alleges it does:

http://www.ehow.com/how_6834996_open-docx-windows-97.html
--
Nick (=----)

Brian Gaff wrote:

Lotus Symphony does not need Java.

There's precious little in Libre/Open Office than needs it either, and
they get quietly disabled if you haven't got java installed.

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 19:31:16 +0100, Lobster wrote:

On 11/10/2012 19:17, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Nick
writes

"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
...
Anyone care to recommend a converter; docx compatible with Word 97?

XP service pack 3 and I would prefer to avoid open office!
--
Tim Lamb

I thought I was the only one left using Word 97!
MS do a docx- Word 97 converter. Google should help. I installed it
2-3 years back and no longer have the file or link. IIRC it was for a
later version of Word, but works perfectly for me.

I looked at the MS site and found it only offered converters for 2000
and up.

AFAICR doesn't Word 97 use the same file format (.doc) as Word 2003? It
only changed (to .docx) with Word 2007

Well, the *name* is the same...



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

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

I've just tried it with Libre Office (‰ˆ OpenOffice).
The conversion is trivial:
1. Open docx document.
2. Save as doc document.

Simples.

In message ,
writes
I've just tried it with Libre Office (0 The conversion is trivial:
1. Open docx document.
2. Save as doc document.

Simples.

Huh!

The MS converter pack is 35Mb

Just about to try it..... I may be gone some time..

--
Tim Lamb

On 11/10/2012 21:02, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message ,
writes
I've just tried it with Libre Office (0 The conversion is trivial:
1. Open docx document.
2. Save as doc document.

Simples.

Huh!

The MS converter pack is 35Mb

Just about to try it..... I may be gone some time..


It works fine. Been there, T-shirt, etc

In message , GB
writes
On 11/10/2012 21:02, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message ,
writes
I've just tried it with Libre Office (0 The conversion is trivial:
1. Open docx document.
2. Save as doc document.

Simples.

Huh!

The MS converter pack is 35Mb

Just about to try it..... I may be gone some time..


It works fine. Been there, T-shirt, etc


Yes. After a bit of fumbling around (file handling is not my favourite
activity) it opens OK.

Thanks all.
--
Tim Lamb

On 11/10/2012 20:20, Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 19:31:16 +0100, Lobster wrote:

On 11/10/2012 19:17, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Nick
writes

"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
...
Anyone care to recommend a converter; docx compatible with Word 97?

XP service pack 3 and I would prefer to avoid open office!
--
Tim Lamb

I thought I was the only one left using Word 97!
MS do a docx- Word 97 converter. Google should help. I installed it
2-3 years back and no longer have the file or link. IIRC it was for a
later version of Word, but works perfectly for me.

I looked at the MS site and found it only offered converters for 2000
and up.

AFAICR doesn't Word 97 use the same file format (.doc) as Word 2003? It
only changed (to .docx) with Word 2007

Well, the *name* is the same...

Yeah obviously; but isn't the file format too? ISTR using the two
interchangeably at one time (but I could be confusing it with two
*other* versions...)

David

On 11/10/2012 21:38, Tim Lamb wrote:


Yes. After a bit of fumbling around (file handling is not my favourite
activity) it opens OK.

Thanks all.

Good you've got the converter working.

You might want to investigate Libre Office too.
It's pretty good (like upgrading to Office 2003) and, in my view, better
than Open Office. For one thing, it gives you the ability to edit PDFs,
which is worth having (I don't think OO does that).

In article , OG
scribeth thus
On 11/10/2012 21:38, Tim Lamb wrote:


Yes. After a bit of fumbling around (file handling is not my favourite
activity) it opens OK.

Thanks all.

Good you've got the converter working.

You might want to investigate Libre Office too.
It's pretty good (like upgrading to Office 2003) and, in my view, better
than Open Office. For one thing, it gives you the ability to edit PDFs,
which is worth having (I don't think OO does that).


Yes use it here no complaints. Sometimes saving in the wrong format by
accident can cause some interesting things but otherwise does all we
need...
--
Tony Sayer

On Thursday, October 11, 2012 4:45:37 PM UTC+1, Tim Lamb wrote:
Anyone care to recommend a converter; docx compatible with Word 97?



XP service pack 3 and I would prefer to avoid open office!

--

Tim Lamb

I've heard this site is quite useful, haven't tried it myself.

http://www.zamzar.com/

In message ,
whisky-dave writes
On Thursday, October 11, 2012 4:45:37 PM UTC+1, Tim Lamb wrote:
Anyone care to recommend a converter; docx compatible with Word 97?



XP service pack 3 and I would prefer to avoid open office!

--

Tim Lamb

I've heard this site is quite useful, haven't tried it myself.

http://www.zamzar.com/

I was encouraged to use the MS download which has solved the problem.

A worry for us non adepts is the plethora of dodgy sites out there just
waiting for an unwary click!

Thanks

--
Tim Lamb

On Friday, October 12, 2012 12:40:44 PM UTC+1, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message ,

whisky-dave writes

On Thursday, October 11, 2012 4:45:37 PM UTC+1, Tim Lamb wrote:

Anyone care to recommend a converter; docx compatible with Word 97?







XP service pack 3 and I would prefer to avoid open office!



--



Tim Lamb



I've heard this site is quite useful, haven't tried it myself.



http://www.zamzar.com/



I was encouraged to use the MS download which has solved the problem.

That's good, and news too MS actually solving a problem.




A worry for us non adepts is the plethora of dodgy sites out there just

waiting for an unwary click!

That's one good reason to use a Mac.




Thanks



--

Tim Lamb

On 12/10/2012 16:36, whisky-dave wrote:

A worry for us non adepts is the plethora of dodgy sites out there just
waiting for an unwary click!

That's one good reason to use a Mac.


You seriously think that macs are not attackable?

GB wrote:
On 12/10/2012 16:36, whisky-dave wrote:

A worry for us non adepts is the plethora of dodgy sites out there just
waiting for an unwary click!

That's one good reason to use a Mac.


You seriously think that macs are not attackable?


There are an order of magnitude less macs out there, and there are an
order of magnitude less exploits in them, and two orders of magnitude
less malware that affects them as a result.

Why write malware for a few macs, when you can attack a far easier
target that exists in huge numbers?

Macs are attackable, but there is not a lot to be gained - or hasn't
been for many years past. And its a lot harder. You have to get past the
inherent protection of *nix which has always held that the person using
the computer is not to be trusted, and that the person changing its
configuration must jump through many hoops to do so.






--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

GB wrote:
On 12/10/2012 16:36, whisky-dave wrote:
A worry for us non adepts is the plethora of dodgy sites out
there just
waiting for an unwary click!

That's one good reason to use a Mac.

You seriously think that macs are not attackable?

There are an order of magnitude less macs out there, and there are an
order of magnitude less exploits in them, and two orders of magnitude
less malware that affects them as a result.

Oh much more than that, Shirley? Last time I looked, which is at least 4
years ago now, there were more than 140,000 PC viruses.

And what is your point?

By my reckoning that would mean 1400 mac viruses at most.

But whilst I have experienced 20-30 PC malware events known to me
personally - either on machines I have had, machines I have had to fix,
or machines that have sent me mail that their owners did not initiate,
not one of those events had anything to do with Linux or OSX.
Or indeed the OS9 that preceded it.

So MY point is that "You seriously think that macs are not attackable?"
is a straw man. Of course they are attackABLE. But they are not ATTACKED
in practice.

Which makes a mac a safer bet security wise.
Or Linux.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

In article , Tim Lamb
writes

I was encouraged to use the MS download which has solved the problem.

It was news to me that it worked on '97 too so that was nice to find
out.

A worry for us non adepts is the plethora of dodgy sites out there just
waiting for an unwary click!

Agreed, and common searches like MS file converters are a prime target
for malware exploiters and rip off payware merchants alike.

Looking back in the archives I see we were speaking about this back in
May, have you really been sitting on those files that long ;-?
--
fred
it's a ba-na-na . . . .

On 12/10/2012 19:25, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

GB wrote:
On 12/10/2012 16:36, whisky-dave wrote:
A worry for us non adepts is the plethora of dodgy sites out
there just
waiting for an unwary click!

That's one good reason to use a Mac.

You seriously think that macs are not attackable?

There are an order of magnitude less macs out there, and there are an
order of magnitude less exploits in them, and two orders of magnitude
less malware that affects them as a result.

Oh much more than that, Shirley? Last time I looked, which is at least
4 years ago now, there were more than 140,000 PC viruses.

And what is your point?

By my reckoning that would mean 1400 mac viruses at most.

But whilst I have experienced 20-30 PC malware events known to me
personally - either on machines I have had, machines I have had to fix,
or machines that have sent me mail that their owners did not initiate,
not one of those events had anything to do with Linux or OSX.
Or indeed the OS9 that preceded it.

So MY point is that "You seriously think that macs are not attackable?"
is a straw man. Of course they are attackABLE. But they are not ATTACKED
in practice.

Which makes a mac a safer bet security wise.
Or Linux.



Whereas my experience was seeing a number of Mac "items of malware" long
before I ever encountered anything on a PC. That was back many years - I
know I was using Word 2 for Mac at the time. but cannot remember which
OS version.

--
Rod

On Oct 11, 7:19*pm, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message
,
harry writes

On Oct 11, 4:45 pm, Tim Lamb wrote:
Anyone care to recommend a converter; docx compatible with Word 97?

XP service pack 3 and I would prefer to avoid open office!
--
Tim Lamb

BTW, why don't you like Open Office?

Because I don't know anything about it.

--
Tim Lamb

I bought a "reconditioned" computer. It has open office on it. Seems
to be almost the same as MSoffice. And can open docx and save as doc.

On Oct 11, 7:28*pm, John Williamson
wrote:
Tim Lamb wrote:
In message
,
harry writes
On Oct 11, 4:45 pm, Tim Lamb wrote:
Anyone care to recommend a converter; docx compatible with Word 97?

XP service pack 3 and I would prefer to avoid open office!
--
Tim Lamb

BTW, why don't you like Open Office?

Because I don't know anything about it.

It's well worth having a look. It's more compatible with new and old MS
office data than most versions of office.

It's a relatively small download. The only major problems I've found are
the lack of a decent database capability and some glitches with
Powerpoint presentations.


Yes. I found that with PP also.

In message , fred writes
In article , Tim Lamb
writes

I was encouraged to use the MS download which has solved the problem.

It was news to me that it worked on '97 too so that was nice to find
out.

A worry for us non adepts is the plethora of dodgy sites out there just
waiting for an unwary click!

Agreed, and common searches like MS file converters are a prime target
for malware exploiters and rip off payware merchants alike.

Looking back in the archives I see we were speaking about this back in
May, have you really been sitting on those files that long ;-?

No.

I think I used the on line service for that one. Occasionally I have
asked the sender to re-send in doc. This was from a govt. agency dealing
with an environmental agreement so I decided to get tooled up.

Difficult to ask advice here on computers without triggering some inter
adept spat:-)

--
Tim Lamb

harry wrote:
I bought a "reconditioned" computer.
It has open office on it.
Seems to be almost the same as MSoffice.
And can open docx and save as doc.

Yes. OpenOffice and LibreOffice can both do that.
OpenOffice is the older sister of LibreOffice.
Both are open source.
Both can open docx and 'save as' doc.
Both are free and well respected.
Both are 'me too' products designed to target MSoffice users.

If you're happy with OpenOffice, you'll be happy with LibreOffice. LibreOffice is better supported and more popular. Many people (and organisations) that had OpenOffice have switched to LibreOffice. There's nothing to stop you trying both at the same time - it has no affect on your files.

Of the two, I recommend LibreOffice.

wrote:
harry wrote:
I bought a "reconditioned" computer.
It has open office on it.
Seems to be almost the same as MSoffice.
And can open docx and save as doc.

Yes. OpenOffice and LibreOffice can both do that.
OpenOffice is the older sister of LibreOffice.
Both are open source.
Both can open docx and 'save as' doc.
Both are free and well respected.
Both are 'me too' products designed to target MSoffice users.

If you're happy with OpenOffice, you'll be happy with LibreOffice. LibreOffice is better supported and more popular. Many people (and organisations) that had OpenOffice have switched to LibreOffice. There's nothing to stop you trying both at the same time - it has no affect on your files.

Of the two, I recommend LibreOffice.

Any especial reason why?
I have open office because libre office didn't exist when I installed it..

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 13:28:19 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

wrote:
harry wrote:
I bought a "reconditioned" computer.
It has open office on it.
Seems to be almost the same as MSoffice.
And can open docx and save as doc.

Yes. OpenOffice and LibreOffice can both do that.
OpenOffice is the older sister of LibreOffice.
Both are open source.
Both can open docx and 'save as' doc.
Both are free and well respected.
Both are 'me too' products designed to target MSoffice users.

If you're happy with OpenOffice, you'll be happy with LibreOffice.
LibreOffice is better supported and more popular. Many people (and
organisations) that had OpenOffice have switched to LibreOffice.
There's nothing to stop you trying both at the same time - it has no
affect on your files.

Of the two, I recommend LibreOffice.

Any especial reason why?
I have open office because libre office didn't exist when I installed
it..

I find it faster!

LibreOffice vame into being because Oracle faffed around for about a
year, declining to release it an an independent project. By the time they
did, LibreOffice was well under way.



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

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

In message , Cash
?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?@?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.? .?.?.?.?.//.com.invalid
writes
Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Nick
writes

"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
...
Anyone care to recommend a converter; docx compatible with Word 97?

XP service pack 3 and I would prefer to avoid open office!
--
Tim Lamb

I thought I was the only one left using Word 97!
MS do a docx- Word 97 converter. Google should help. I installed it
2-3 years back and no longer have the file or link. IIRC it was for
a later version of Word, but works perfectly for me.

I looked at the MS site and found it only offered converters for 2000
and up.

I'm happy to try if you reckon it will work.

Bloody DEFRA wants farmers to join the Internet revolution and expects
them to be up to date!

Tim, if that doesn't work for you, would anything in this link help?
http://preview.tinyurl.com/8vf3y8j

BTW, I'm still using Office 97 Pro


Same here, expert at removing htmlocc in the registry now

Cash



--
geoff

Bob Eager wrote:
Of the two, I recommend LibreOffice.

Any especial reason why?

I find it faster!

It's certainly fast and appears to be better supported. I just followed the crowd of people, manufacturers, and reviewers. In the grand scheme of things, I'm sure the differences are small. But I've put it on more than one computer because it's free and more capable than the old version of MSOffice I had.

Try it (LibreOffice). If you don't like it, just delete it.

In message ,
writes
harry wrote:
I bought a "reconditioned" computer.
It has open office on it.
Seems to be almost the same as MSoffice.
And can open docx and save as doc.

Yes. OpenOffice and LibreOffice can both do that.
OpenOffice is the older sister of LibreOffice.
Both are open source.
Both can open docx and 'save as' doc.
Both are free and well respected.
Both are 'me too' products designed to target MSoffice users.

If you're happy with OpenOffice, you'll be happy with LibreOffice.
LibreOffice is better supported and more popular. Many people (and
organisations) that had OpenOffice have switched to LibreOffice.
There's nothing to stop you trying both at the same time - it has no
affect on your files.

Of the two, I recommend LibreOffice.
And OpenOffice enables the conversion to pdf.
--
hugh