dr_kromm | How freakin' hard is it to support your own product, Bill?

SJ Games has always demanded Word 6.0/95 files from its authors and editors. The reasons boil down to "This version is compatible with any PC or Mac that still runs." That's okay, I guess. I formerly used Word 2000, and then 2003, but it was never a problem to warp back to 1995 . . . shoot, Descent was pretty cool back in the day, too.

Anyway, my new PC has Word 2007. Which is awesome, incidentally. It's many times faster and more stable than Word 2000 or 2003 ever was, and personally, I like the interface. There's just one hitch: It cannot save in Word 6.0/95 format. I don't mean that it's less-than-perfect or requires an add-in -- I mean, you can't do it.

Well, not quite. Apparently, if you've got the volume-licensed Microsoft Office Enterprise 2007 and install a special admin tool, you can, via the Office Configuration Tool, enable a "Save As" option that outputs Word 6.0/95. So it's possible in the sense that the converter is lurking in there somewhere, just not in the sense that plebes like me, with lowlier editions (see here), can use it. Argh.

So now I have to figure out how to fix this headache, which of course Microsoft doesn't want me to do. Argh!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Suggestion: Find out if the version of Quark SJG is currently using requires Word 6/95 format. If not, update to a more recent standard.

Yeah, I was figuring that after trying the impossible, I might try the merely improbable. I have no idea why we're using a 13-year-old format. We publish words. You'd think we'd use the latest word processor. Okay, maybe the second-latest one, while the bugs fall out of the latest. But not something from the Paleolithic.

It's cute that to freelance for the government, I have to have 2007 . . . So much for governments being ossified and behind the times.

I know the reason we were so insistent while I was still there was because Quark 4 couldn't read anything newer than Word 6. That's not an issue anymore, so I suspect this restriction is legacy code no one ever checked. A couple of freelancers might have such old systems that they don't have a newer version of Word, but I'd be surprised if it's more than one or two. Most folks upgrade their systems at least once a decade, right?

Good luck.

I replace my entire PC every three years (Pentium III in 1999, Pentium 4 in 2002, Pentium D in 2005, and Core 2 Quad this year), and I upgrade software rather more often than that. Based on personal experience, that's how long a hard-worked system lasts before you get serious issues that can't be solved simply by reinstalling the OS and wiping off the smudges (and I know from several sources that Macs aren't much better). I'm surprised that businesses don't do that, too. Presumably, when you publish books, you budget for DTP software.

I don't know when the last Quark upgrade was, except that it was after 2004. We went from mostly 3.1 to 4.x during the time I was there. But I'm pretty sure they're on Quark 6 now. Phil or Will could tell you for sure and probably could tell you which versions of Word the program can handle.

Nikki says the lads mostly use QuarkXPress 6 in house, but that she's using Quark 7. I see from the Quark site that not even Quark 8 imports Word 2007/2008 yet. Fortunately, Nikki is the only person I deal with much re: any of this stuff. Now I just have to figure out how to send files to my freelancers who've mostly not updated Word because SJ Games was always happy with 6.0/95 . . .

I have Word X for Mac, which wasn't even listed as an option on the questionnaire I just received from my main client firm. It's copyright 1983-2001, so I'm guessing it's a 2001 version or thereabouts. I know that I occasionally get new format Word files that my system can't read or open.

Word X is some sort of Mac OS X-specific version of Word 2001, which in turn is the Mac flavor of Word 2000 (much as Word 2008 is the Mac port of Word 2007). I was using Word 2000 before I updated to Word 2003 and then 2007, so it's roughly equivalent to the version of Word that I was using two updates back. If some of the offending files were from me, that explains it -- they were Word 2003 or 2007. Anyway, I'll try to get in the habit of saving as "Word 97-2003"; that way, anybody using Word 97 or later can read the files. Too bad for people with Word 6.0/95.

I don't recall ever having a problem with files from you. What I run into trouble with is the occasional file from one of my copy editing clients. Happily, my biggest client uses a template that runs on Word X; in fact, they just sent out a questionnaire assessing what software all their freelancers use, so I'm hoping they'll stay compatible with me.

I may want to upgrade next year, but I need to check compatibility. I'm supposed to be getting OS X.4 today; that's the highest-end OS my machine will ever be able to run, as it's a Power PC system. I may want to look at a Mac Mini next year; I'd rather replace the core unit and keep the Samsung monitor than spend the money for a complete new computer. That would let me go to OS X.6 and more current software. On the other hand, replacing all my software may be a higher ticket item than buying the computer!

(deleted comment)

Word 2007 does great right out of the box when it comes to saving as anything but Word 6.0/95. Don't do extra work on my behalf unless your macro magically lets me save Word 2007 files as Word 6.0/95 . . . in which case I'd love to see it!

*Checks the newest version of OpenOffice* Woo, it can still save Word 6.0/95. So I'm set if I ever get time to send any proposals. :)

I was going to suggest that. SJG doesn't use elaborate formatting rules, just basic style applications, so you may be on solid ground with OpenOffice exports.

I haven't actually tried it out myself, I'm happy with my Office Pro 2003 at the moment, but I'm leaning more in that direction every day.

If I can just get WoW, Fallout III, and Diablo III to run under Linux, I may just jump right off that band-wagon entirely.

Sadly, OO munges our style sheet for some reason. I have OO and know that it has an annoying habit of converting a Word style to type that looks identical on the screen but that QuarkXPress can't import as part of a true Word style sheet. Quark imports Word style sheets in some magical way that doesn't quite work when you emulate Word with OO.

Every file I sent in for COTN (I always sent 'em in) was written in OO 2.x. AFAIK, Niki got them, edited them, and then saved them in whatever format she saved 'em in and sent them in for publishing. So I don't think it's that huge of a problem, as long as the editor can save them correctly. :)

Crumples. That's a shame.

How freakin' hard is it to support your own product, Bill?

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject