Microsoft Word Document Compatibility

On 14/9/2006 8:34 AM, "Geoffrey Odhner" <GeoffreyOdhner.net> spake thus:

> If I get Word 2004 for Mac, will documents come out looking identical on Word
> for Windows 2003 or 2000?

Hah! Don't bet on it. I've seen documents fail to look identical in two
different copies of Word 2003 on Windows. I don't hold out much hope of it
working cross-platform, especially if someone decides to use some weird-ass
font. (This is why I now insist that all my students submit work in PDF.)

Ironically, I've found that OpenOffice (even v1.x) generally does a better
job of reading Windows Word files than Word 2004 does. Go figure.

--
Nigel Stanger, Dunedin, NEW ZEALAND.
http://xri.net/=nigel.stanger

On Sep 13, 2006, at 4:34 PM, Geoffrey Odhner wrote:

> Are there people on the list who've had experience with similar
> compatibility requirements regarding Word 2004? I'd really
> appreciate hearing your stories of compatibility or incompatibility.

I've had no problems using Office 2004 Mac to create documents and
templates for use with Win Word, and also for Excel and Powerpoint,
although I'm far from a power user in Office. The only problem I've
run into in Word has been with a document sent to me for polishing
(made by a client on a Mac), in which he had placed several images
scanned as TIFF with LZW compression - the document printed correctly
on the Mac, but the images would not print on WinWord, until I re-
saved them without LZW.

YMMV, but I haven't used Virtual PC/WinOffice since buying O'2004/Mac.

Roger

Roger Henriques
rdh at rhen dot com

On Sep 13, 2006, at 4:34 PM, Geoffrey Odhner wrote:

> I've come to the conclusion that I have to break down and get Micro
> $oft Word in order to be able to produce documents that are usable by
> the unenlightened masses who won't accept anything else. My question
> is, how far do I need to go in compromising? If I get Word 2004 for
> Mac, will documents come out looking identical on Word for Windows
> 2003 or 2000? If not, then I'll have to get Word 2003, and run it
> under Parallels, but I'd prefer the former if the compatibility is
> good. When I used Word X on my PowerBook and transfered files to
> Windows, the formatting didn't come out right, or in at least one
> case, they couldn't be read. And now on my Core Duo Mini Word X
> won't even run, so I have to upgrade to 2004 or 2003. Of course I
> can use OpenOffice.org (or NeoOffice), but there the formatting
> discrepancies are even worse, since, for a start, it won't use the
> same fonts at all.
>
> Are there people on the list who've had experience with similar
> compatibility requirements regarding Word 2004? I'd really
> appreciate hearing your stories of compatibility or incompatibility.

Hi,
I personally avoid using anything MS if at all possible. I've had
good results using Pages then exporting as a Word Document. I am
running last years version but nothing I've seen indicates the
current won't do the same. Likewise I have my Finder settings to open
any Word document with Pages. I've only once had a problem (opening)
and that was due to some strange table settings.
Hope this helps,
Jean

On 9/13/06 1:34 PM, "Geoffrey Odhner" <GeoffreyOdhner.net> wrote:

> Are there people on the list who've had experience with similar
> compatibility requirements regarding Word 2004? I'd really
> appreciate hearing your stories of compatibility or incompatibility.

First of all, Word document format is changing, on Windows with Office 2007;
and on the Mac with the next version of Office, whatever it is. On the Mac,
all versions from Office 2004 on use the same ".doc" file format that is
readable by all Windows versions as well.

However, that said, you can produce Word documents using the lowly TextEdit,
which comes free with your Mac OS X. Just use the Save As item on the File
menu. It offers both Word format and Word XML format (which will be the new
standard), beating Word for Mac to the punch in offering the XML format.

--
<watson.allencomcast.net>
Scripts for OE and Entourage:
<http://homepage.mac.com/allen_a_watson/AppleScripts_For_You>
Entourage questions: <http://www.entourage.mvps.org/>

Geoffrey Odhner said:

>I've come to the conclusion that I have to break down and get Micro
>$oft Word in order to be able to produce documents that are usable by
>the unenlightened masses who won't accept anything else. My question
>is, how far do I need to go in compromising? If I get Word 2004 for
>Mac, will documents come out looking identical on Word for Windows
>2003 or 2000?

All Word documents have used the same binary format since Word 98 (which
includes Word 2001, Word v.X and Word 2004 for the Mac, and several
versions of Word for Windows) (though some documents that use features
present in newer versions of Word won't work 100% correctly when opened
in older versions of Word, because these versions don't understand the
newer features.) More recent versions of Word have translators that
usually work perfectly with documents created in newer versions of Word.
Of course, much older versions of Word may not be able to understand
documents created by recent versions of Word.

Both the Macintosh and Windows versions of Word have created
cross-platform binary compatible documents for years. That is one of the
biggest features of Word.

<http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/office/office2003/operate/o03
flshr.mspx>

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;234300

Keep in mind that not having the same fonts installed on different
computers or platforms can screw up formatting.

Word 2004 for the Macintosh has a built in compatibility checker that can
help you avoid and compatibility issues.


I should point out that there is a coming word processing file format
war. Microsoft wants to use a proprietary XML-based format that they
have patented. Others are pushing for an open standard, including some
state governments who don't want to authorize the purchase of any
products that aren't based on open standards. As a reponse, Microsoft is
pushing their own "open standard."

http://www.govtech.net/news/news.php?id=97021

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172063,00.html

http://www.mass.gov/eoaf/open_formats_comments.html




Randy B. Singer
Co-Author of: The Macintosh Bible (4th, 5th and 6th editions)

MACINTOSH OS X ROUTINE MAINTENANCE
http://www.macattorney.com/ts.html

Geoffrey Odhner said:

>On Sep 13, 2006, at 9:44 PM, Randy B. Singer wrote:
>> Word 2004 for the Macintosh has a built in compatibility checker
>> that can
>> help you avoid and compatibility issues.
>
>That's just the thing I needed to hear! Thanks!


I should have given you this reference originally:

"Are your documents compatible? Check for it!"

<http://www.microsoft.com/mac/products/office2004/using.aspx?pid=usingoffic
e2004&type=howto&article=/mac/LIBRARY/how_to_articles/office2004/of_compati
bility.xml>





Randy B. Singer
Co-Author of: The Macintosh Bible (4th, 5th and 6th editions)

MACINTOSH OS X ROUTINE MAINTENANCE
http://www.macattorney.com/ts.html

On 13 Sep 2006, at 14:34 , Geoffrey Odhner wrote:
> I've come to the conclusion that I have to break down and get Micro
> $oft Word in order to be able to produce documents that are usable by
> the unenlightened masses who won't accept anything else.

Depends on what you mean by "useable". For most uses, rtf works
fine,a nd windows lusers-- er, users, see them as "Word" documents.
Then there's pages, which cna save into Word format (.doc) or even
textEdit.


> If I get Word 2004 for Mac, will documents come out looking
> identical on Word for Windows 2003 or 2000?

Of course not. But given two identical copies of Word 2000 or 2003
on two different PCs the documents won't be identical either. For
certain values of 'identical'. They will be 'identical enough'.


--
And, while it was regarded as pretty good evidence of criminality to
be living in a slum, for some reason owning a whole street of them
merely got you invited to the very best social occasions.

On Sep 14, 2006, at 3:48 PM, Google Kreme wrote:
> Depends on what you mean by "useable". For most uses, rtf works
> fine,a nd windows lusers-- er, users, see them as "Word" documents.
> Then there's pages, which cna save into Word format (.doc) or even
> textEdit.

Thanks again to all who responded. Unfortunately, Pages and TextEdit
don't support many of the features that I look for in preparing my
documents, and as I mentioned before, Open Office gives too many
incorrect renderings when documents are transferred to Word for
Windows. It doesn't seem able to use the fonts that are standard in
Word! (At least I was unable to figure out how to set it up that
way.) No wonder it can't give decent compatibility. This is why I'm
resorting to MS-Word. Preparing a document as RTF has not yet
provided any more consistency than (or even as much as) those
programs that save as "Word format". Waiting for newer versions of
Word means not being able to provide adequate documents to people for
many or years to come, so I figure it's time to bite the bullet now,
even if I have to deal with another one in the future. Randy's
pointing me to the compatibility check gives me confidence that I can
manage with Word 2004 for Mac knowing when my documents will look
right on Windows.

Geoff Odhner

On Sep 15, 2006, at 5:11 AM, <tidbits-talktidbits.com> wrote:

> Posted by: Lewis Butler Date: Sep 14, 2006.
> On 13 Sep 2006, at 14:34 , Geoffrey Odhner wrote:

> > I've come to the conclusion that I have to break down and get Micro
> > $oft Word in order to be able to produce documents that are usable
> by
> > the unenlightened masses who won't accept anything else.

> Depends on what you mean by "useable". For most uses, rtf works
> fine,a nd windows lusers-- er, users, see them as "Word" documents.
> Then there's pages, which cna save into Word format (.doc) or even
> textEdit.

Do your users need to edit the documents you send or just read/print
them? If they don't need to edit, or you don't want them to edit them,
then you can use PDF format and generate the document with any tool you
like. This isn't completely foolproof but provides pretty easy
compatibility.

On Sep 15, 2006, at 10:07 PM, Eliza Gaul wrote:
> Do your users need to edit the documents you send or just read/print
> them? If they don't need to edit, or you don't want them to edit them,
> then you can use PDF format and generate the document with any tool
> you
> like. This isn't completely foolproof but provides pretty easy
> compatibility.

I definitely prefer PDF when all they need to do is view them or
print them, but if they need to edit them, then I'm in a bind.
That's the reason for this discussion. I've now taken the plunge and
ordered it, so thanks all who contributed to the discussion.

Geoff Odhner

Geoff
I've been using Microsoft Office for several years now and they have
come a long way. Your docs should look fine on the windows side as
long as you stick to the basic fonts and the ones that Word installs
on your system (Arial, Times New Roman, Helvetica, Verdana and
Trebuchet MS); otherwise, Word will revert to it's font substitution
causing the text to re-flow and throw a monkey wrench to your
formatting.

On 15 Sep 2006, at 20:07 , Eliza Gaul wrote:
> Do your users need to edit the documents you send or just read/print
> them? If they don't need to edit, or you don't want them to edit them,
> then you can use PDF format and generate the document with any tool
> you
> like. This isn't completely foolproof but provides pretty easy
> compatibility.

Not to mention is you use something like LaTeX you will produce pdf's
that look much much better than anything Word can produce, .doc or not.

--
"I'm just like every modern woman trying to have it all. A loving
husband, a family. I only wish I had more time to seek out the dark
forces and join their hellish crusade."