Talk:Microsoft Word/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Microsoft Word. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
"Paid" commercial software
I removed the word paid from the opening sentence because I believe it is redundant to commercial. My edit was reverted with the summary: Commercial is an attribute about the use of the software while paid is in regard to price. The two are different. Both of them seem the same to me. Commercial software, or payware, is software produced for sale, according to Dictionary.com.[1] I don't see how this is different to paid software. I invite the editor to discuss the issue. --Joshua Issac (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Redundant and bad writing style. —Ruud 15:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- There is a Microsoft Office Word Starter Edition (part of Office 2010) that isn't paid, but, is still commercial. There are ads on it. This is like saying Google is not a commercial company.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Microsoft Office Starter 2010 comes pre-loaded on computers. The cost to the manufacturer of pre-loading is US$5 per licence ($2 with the discounted licensing programme).[2] Full versions of Office and other commercial software, such as Microsoft Works, may also be pre-loaded on computers this way. Although the customer may not have to pay for these software separately, it does not mean that that they are freeware, because the manufacturer has to pay for them. --Joshua Issac (talk) 11:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Did not know. Agree with you and Ruud now.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Microsoft Office Starter 2010 comes pre-loaded on computers. The cost to the manufacturer of pre-loading is US$5 per licence ($2 with the discounted licensing programme).[2] Full versions of Office and other commercial software, such as Microsoft Works, may also be pre-loaded on computers this way. Although the customer may not have to pay for these software separately, it does not mean that that they are freeware, because the manufacturer has to pay for them. --Joshua Issac (talk) 11:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- There is a Microsoft Office Word Starter Edition (part of Office 2010) that isn't paid, but, is still commercial. There are ads on it. This is like saying Google is not a commercial company.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
The "Features and Flaws" section and the Superscript+Subscript flaw
I believe the article looks kind of... "weirdish" with the subheading Features and Flaws.
I wouldn't object if someone tried this:
1. Change the heading to Features 2. Removed the flaw, since I believe this isn't really noteworthy... and it's not much of a flaw, it's more of a basic limitation of the fact that Superscript and Subscript do not make 2 rows of text within a line, but simply takes the characters and makes them smaller...
I'm kind of a noob, anyone wanna add to this?
--The Tangmeister (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Just a question (re. this definitely "wierdish" section): What does the following actually mean: A Macro is a rule of pattern that specifies how a certain input sequence(often a sequence of characters) should be mapped to an output sequence according to defined process. ...??? Maelli (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
FYI: "OSX" is just a way of abbreviating "OS 10"...
Macintosh OS 10 (or OS X) is in fact a continuation of Macintosh OS. The "X" is the Roman Numeral for "10," with no other special meaning. So, Macintosh OS 10 is simply the 10th and current version of Macintosh OS, despite the Article implying otherwise. (I'm a Mac user and could probably point out my owner's manuals and MacWorld issues as sources, eventually. Although Linex/Unix-based, it is numbered as just another Macintosh version.) So, rather than "last version compatible with Mac OS," it might behoove us to say "last version compatible with Mac OS 9 or earlier." The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
WordStar connection
A few years ago I stumbled across some information on the Web, though I don't remember where, that claimed a programmer who was formerly prominent with the development of WordStar at MicroPro International ended up developing Word at Microsoft, and the two programs, therefore, had a shared heritage when they both ran on MS-DOS, even though their look and feel and file formats were quite different. If this can be verified, it would be an interesting addition to the History section of the article. — QuicksilverT @ 19:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Editing MediaWiki in Word?
MIcrosoft recently came out with an add on for Word that lets it edit MediaWiki files. Should this be included in here somewhere? Andacar 03:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andacar (talk • contribs)
list of bugs ok for encylopedia ?
is it ok to have a list of bugs/flaws, or is that to how to do it for wiki ? for instance, the update TOC with <cntrl A> F9 bug - you have to do this twice to get it to work. another catagory would be features that have vanished; I don't know of any in word (unless you want to include the can't group figures and text box) but in excel, horizontal error bars are gone in 2007, so that is def a feature that was present in an earlier version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.121.54 (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- No, that is not OK. Wikipedia is no HowTo/Bugtracker/ChangeLog. --88.130.102.160 (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Updating 2010 icon to 2013 icon
I hope someone can update the 2010 icon with the new 2013 version when the time is right.
Zywxn | 06:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
The intro year for the Macintosh version is incorrect
Word 1.0 for the Macintosh came out January 22nd, 1985. The article incorrectly has the year 1984 for the Macintosh introduction. It should be 1985. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.206.127 (talk) 17:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Deletion pending images
For whatever reason the images below the MS Word 2013 screenshot are marked for deletion? Because they depict an outdated version of the software? --93.41.203.34 (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hi. If you inspect the deletion notice more carefully, you'll find out. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
"Reception"
I see the "Reception" section only covers reviews from the first few versions of Office (as in the 1980s versions). If anyone would like to fix this? Mackatackastewart (talk) 02:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Mac Word timeline is truncated, incomplete
Under the heading "Word For Mac", the article currently gives the impression that no versions of Mac Word were released until after the formation of the Mac Business Unit in 1997, although the "Origins and growth" section of the article does document the year of shipment and significance of Mac Word 1.0, Mac Word 3.0, and Mac Word 5.1.
Shouldn't there at least be mention made of 1.0,3.0,4.0 and 5.1 under this heading?
Or else should the title of that subhead be "Word for Mac (versions after the formation of the Mac Business Unit)"?
To complete the Mac Word timeline, Mac Word 4.0 shipped in late 1988 and was the first version of Word that allowed WYSIWYG creation and editing of tables in documents.
Would it be of interest to note that Mac Word 3.0, was the beginning of the Win Word code lineage?
Approximately 1/3 of the sources for Win Word was compiled from source files that were shared with the Mac Word 4.0 project. Many other features of Win Word not implemented in the shared code, were modeled directly from features that were already proven in Mac Word. That code and design inheritance from Mac Word constituted a nearly seven year head start (1983 through 1990) on the process of adapting a word processor to a graphical windowing system, when Word Perfect finally joined the competition to launch the best word processor on Windows, after Windows 3.1 shipped.
Source: personal testimony of David Luebbert, who was a developer on the Mac Word 1.0, 3.0, and 4.0 projects and the end of the Win Word 1.0 project
DLuebbert (talk) 23:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)DLuebbert
BOUCHRA El hajji
NAME: Bouchra El hajji Address: Wadi-Khaled Age: 23 years old Educational attainment : bachelor in English literature at Lebanese university Status : single previous work: French and English teacher at Danish refugee council, save children and Nerwigian refugee council — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.108.162.50 (talk) 11:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Versions of the Word file format
Currently, the article doesn't refer to the different versions of the Word file format (i.e. 2.0, 6.0/95, etc.) that have been used by Microsoft Word. The format was developed for and is integral to the product. If only for the sake of completeness, it might be informative if the article at least gave the 'native' Word file format for each version of Word. Pololei (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Some coverage of long-standing bugs?
How about some coverage of things like the footnote placement bug, which has been a "feature" of Word from (at least) the earliest Windows versions to (at least) the 2011 Mac version? Or the fact that, while typographical quotation marks are language-dependent on typing, they aren't if you search-and-replace them? I'm sure there are more classics that I can't think of right now. These are just as much a part of Word's history and character as all the Nice Things, and should be in the article. Wegesrand (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
ownrfuiHRT7YUIOE FGIUREGHVFG UFfig*gh bfdjvOhijyegfjidyfudg Kifu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.155.196.117 (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Standard "Version history" codes for ongoing software
Since it is already used very elegantly, for slightly lesser known software Articles considering Microsoft Word is probably the most famous (workflow) application software in the world, I am implementing Template:Version here. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Implemented! The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Readability
Out of curiosity - what is the earliest version of Word that is still readable (even if 'spurious characters and line breaks etc)? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
UWP and Mobile versions.
Should the UWP version of Word be added to the article and also other versions from like the Pocket PC versions of word to Windows 8.1 mobile office? because the mobile versions of Pocket PC even included a different type of file format. (also Word 2003 was able to read the file extension.) Dre~ (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Microsoft Word. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511074037/http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/help/HA101996251033.aspx to http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/help/HA101996251033.aspx
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090528002301/http://www.historyofbranding.com/microsoft.html to http://www.historyofbranding.com/microsoft.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:43, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Microsoft Word. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090721062335/http://software.silicon.com/applications/0%2C39024653%2C39230395%2C00.htm to http://software.silicon.com/applications/0%2C39024653%2C39230395%2C00.htm
- Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=07715
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Can someone change the version table,because version 12.0 of office is now unsupported,so change it to red. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:22AC:9000:D4EA:C507:52DA:B338 (talk) 19:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Microsoft Word. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090611181719/http://www.odfalliance.org/resources/fact-sheet-Microsoft-ODF-support.pdf to http://www.odfalliance.org/resources/fact-sheet-Microsoft-ODF-support.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100318034328/http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/word/HA102835631033.aspx to http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/word/HA102835631033.aspx
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090721020009/http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-148675.html to http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-148675.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090201042942/http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/26786/118/ to http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/26786/118/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050620082713/http://pubs.logicalexpressions.com/Pub0009/LPMArticle.asp?ID=151 to http://pubs.logicalexpressions.com/Pub0009/LPMArticle.asp?ID=151
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100505105925/http://sbarnhill.mvps.org/WordFAQs/BlankPage.htm to http://sbarnhill.mvps.org/WordFAQs/BlankPage.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- I've checked the archive links and kinda checked the non-archive links. I didn't see any obvious problems. Question I have: I wonder if Microsoft Word ever defined any characters for Unicode blocks:
- Supplementary Private Use Area-A
- Supplementary Private Use Area-B - 6-digit Unicode hex codepoints
- I sort of have evidence that Word may have defined characters in the Supplementary Private Use Area-B Unicode block range. See the "Unicode block" article at https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Unicode_block. --User123o987name (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
The "Word for Windows" section
The "Word for Windows" section is in dire need of an update. The quality and quantity of information quickly drops off after Microsoft Word 6 and there is absolutely no mention of Word 2007, its drastic UI overhaul, or its change of default file formats (though this mentioned in the section about file formats). The only mention of the re-imagined ribbon is in the brief description of Word 2010, which strikes me as out of place and something that was written when the software was first released. I will add the Expand section template for now and may come back to expand it myself later, though some research will be required since I am not a frequent user of Word. RampantLeaf (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- I have added some information for Word 2007 --93.42.71.16 (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Abcd
Microsoft Word is a word processing software developed by Microsoft. It was first released on October 25, 1983,[6] under the name Multi-Tool Word for Xenix systems.[7][8][9] Subsequent versions were later written for several other platforms including IBM PCs running DOS (1983), Apple Macintosh running the Classic Mac OS (1985), AT&T UNIX PC (1985), Atari ST (1988), OS/2 (1989), Microsoft Windows (1989), SCO Unix (1990), and macOS (2001). 2402:3A80:1BD6:D54A:B90A:1F45:64D7:BC3B (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Izanmubarak.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
"Microsoft® Office Word 2007" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Microsoft® Office Word 2007 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 15#Microsoft® Office Word 2007 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BD2412 T 04:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)