Re: [WinMac] Re: Office version terminology question
jeff thorstad(thorstadj[at]macconnect.com)
Tue, 1 Sep 1998 08:52:51 -0000
> 4. The previous version of Microsoft Office for Windows was properly called
> "Microsoft Office for Windows 95" -- NOT "Microsoft Office 95."
> Not sure of the proper name. The version prior to Office 97 was Office 95,
>but it was not a Win95 product. It was a 3.1 product. Generally it was
>version 5 of Excel and Version 6 of Word.
> 5. The principal applications in Office for Windows 95 (Excel, Word,
> Powerpoint) were version 7. The principal applications in Office 97 are
> version 8.
> See above answer.
>
This is incorrect, slightly. There's some confusion between the older
versions of Office in this answer. Office 95 was version 7 of all the
programs. Office 4.x was version 5 of Excel and 6 of Word and 4 (I think)
of PowerPoint. Also, Office 4.x was Win 3.1 programs, but Office 95 was
Win95 programs. Office 95 did not really give much of an upgrade to
Office 4.x, other than updating it a little for Win95. There were almost
zero new functions in this upgrade. This is when Office started being
32bit.
Officially, on the box and in splash screens, it was called "Office for
Windows 95", as asked in the first post. But I don't know anybody who
doesn't refer to it as "Office 95".
> I would also like to know if anybody is still using Office for Windows 95.
> I can find almost no references to it on Microsoft's web site and as far as
> I can tell, PC Connection isn't selling it... >>
>The version before Office 97 was not for Win95. It will not be available any
>longer.. at least by regular retail avenues. Why would you want it? It does
>not make use of calls to the Win95 operating system. I like how you can
>rename or delete files from the OpenFile dialog box of Win95 compliant apps.
>Office 95 apps would not let you do this. You would have to do file
>maintenance from the Explorer. Also, with Office 95 you would have to use
>file names of the 8.3 format. In Office97 you have 256.3 that you can use.
This was the problem with Office 95. It didn't upgrade enough to make it
a real 32bit set of programs. The file naming WAS still 8.3, along with
other mistakes. One of the stupidest things Microsoft ever did was
"kinda" upgrading Office.
One possible reason for still needing Office 95 over Office 97 is
compatibility. Some other programs need a specific version to work
properly. My company uses mainframes running Oracle software. Some of the
add-on software to communicate between Windows and Oracle needs a
specific version of Excel or Access to even function. I am sure this must
be the situation for others, as well. However, I doubt you can still buy
it off the shelf. Software companies don't usually have two versions
sitting next to each other on the shelf at stores.(or sitting on the web
page)
As for wondering if anyone still uses the old versions, YES. Lots of
people are even still on Windows 3.1 and use Office 4.x on 386, 486
computers. And many are on Office 95 as well. Not everyone can afford
outlandish upgrade prices, even as a business expense. There's even a
whole lot of people on DOS.
Jeff T
thorstadj@macconnect.com
* Windows-MacOS Cooperation List *
* FAQ: <http://www.darryl.com/winmacfaq/> *
* Archives: <http://www.darryl.com/winmac/> *
* Subscribe: <mailto:winmac-on@xerxes.frit.utexas.edu> *
* Subscribe Digest: <mailto:winmac-digest@xerxes.frit.utexas.edu> *
* Unsubscribe: <mailto:winmac-off@xerxes.frit.utexas.edu> *
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2
on Tue Sep 01 1998 - 06:53:29 PDT
|