User Name
Password

Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
Word 98
Thread Tools
MCSE+I-Turncoat
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
 
2007-03-01, 12:17

I loaded Word 98 for the iMac onto my new Intel based imac and it don’t run. What gives?
  quote
rollercoaster375
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UIllinois (Champaign, IL)
Send a message via AIM to rollercoaster375 Send a message via MSN to rollercoaster375 Send a message via Yahoo to rollercoaster375 Send a message via Skype™ to rollercoaster375 
2007-03-01, 12:18

Might have something to do with the fact that it's 9 year old software written for another architecture.


Just a guess.
  quote
chucker
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: near Bremen, Germany
Send a message via ICQ to chucker Send a message via AIM to chucker Send a message via MSN to chucker Send a message via Yahoo to chucker Send a message via Skype™ to chucker 
2007-03-01, 12:27

That's a Classic app. It's not only PowerPC-specific (meaning you'd need Rosetta); it also requires, at newest, Mac OS 9.2.2 (meaning Rosetta won't be an option).

Unless you want to use SheepShaver to emulate Mac OS 9, you're out of luck. Getting a halfway recent version of it might be an idea.
  quote
Fahrenheit
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Send a message via ICQ to Fahrenheit  
2007-03-01, 12:35

OpenOffice would be much more suitable if you are looking a for a decent (free) document app.
  quote
MCSE+I-Turncoat
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
 
2007-03-01, 12:48

I new the "it’s old so upgrade" was coming. In actuality I use WORD 7 for Office 95. I purchased a copy of Word 98 for the Mac because the Office 95 install is extremely convoluted. My current version of word occupies 5.67 MB and loads in .3 seconds. There is no way I will go to Office 2000 or later. I would go back to Word Perfect 6 from 1993 first.

I will be running Parallels and XP in any case. It sounds like installing the stand alone Word 95 and putting a link on the Mac to Word running out of XP will be easier than ding this SheepShaver OS 9 thing?

I wave been using Word 7 (Office 95) for 12 years. I don’t plan on switching to anything new any time soon.

http://theappleblog.com/2006/07/01/c...of-sheepshaver

It’s been 12 years. When is Microsoft going to make a browser that works?
  quote
chucker
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: near Bremen, Germany
Send a message via ICQ to chucker Send a message via AIM to chucker Send a message via MSN to chucker Send a message via Yahoo to chucker Send a message via Skype™ to chucker 
2007-03-01, 13:38

Okay, so… why exactly did you buy a new machine?
  quote
Fahrenheit
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Send a message via ICQ to Fahrenheit  
2007-03-01, 13:50

Quote:
Originally Posted by chucker View Post
Okay, so… why exactly did you buy a new machine?
Exactly, I don't like working with people who aren't willing to give new things a try. Why bother coming and asking. Trust me, working with Sheepshaver is going to be a lot more hassle and hard work than installing OpenOffice or what not.
  quote
MCSE+I-Turncoat
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
 
2007-03-01, 18:22

Why buy a new machine.

1: To get away from the ternary of learning a new OS every few years.

2. To get a system that does not crash all the time.

3. To get a browser that works.

4. To get an operating system that is not annoying and that does not bug me all the time.

5. To get an operating system that is designed to do artistic type things like music and art from the ground up.

6. To get a box that I don’t have to spend time building. I build my own windows boxes from the mother board on up.

7. To get an OS that does not need major fix (service) packs.

8. To not have to go to Vista which from what I hear is even less secure that XP.
http://www.forbes.com/2007/02/10/mic...0212vista.html

9. The get a browser that does not break all the time. Just now my Internet Explorer broke with the message "If you were in the middle of something, the information you were working on might be lost. Restart Microsoft Internet Explorer."

New Things! I started on a PDP 8 with two 8 in floppy drives. Then a $2000 box with DOS 5 and Windows 3.1 and no apps. Then it was Windows 3.11 for Workgroups on DOS 6.22 with Qemm 8. Then it was Windows 95/3.11 dual boot on a new box. Then it was Original Equipment Manufactures service release two ((OSR2)) (AKA Windows 95 with service pack 1 built in. Then in was NT 3.51. Then it was Windows NT 4.0. Then it six service packs ending with 6a. There was no 6b. Then it was Window Millennium. Then it was Windows 2000. Then it was Windows XP. I am tired of trying new things. I just want stuff that works and runs fast.

By the way my Internet Explorer just broke so I have to install it again over the top and reinstall all the fix pack updates, run my regedit, defrag and do a backup.

PS. To do the full reinstall of IE you need the source files that Microsoft don’t like to give you. Here is a work around.

http://www.petri.co.il/download_the_full_ie_package.htm

"Cdownloads\ie6setup.exe" /c:"ie6wzd.exe /d /s:""#E"

It’s been 12 years. When is Microsoft going to make a browser that works?
  quote
Ebby
Subdued and Medicated
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Over Yander
Send a message via AIM to Ebby  
2007-03-01, 18:48

Up until a few year ago I was using Word 5.1 on a regular basis. That was from 1992! It was a 888K app that loaded faster in Classic than native MS Word 2004 for OS X. When I got my G5, I didn't bother to install classic so I had to get the new version.

EDIT: Read the folder size, not the app size...

^^ One more quality post from the desk of Ebby. ^^
SSBA | SmockBogger | SporkNET

Last edited by Ebby : 2007-03-01 at 20:53.
  quote
rasmits
rams it
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Seattle
 
2007-03-01, 19:12

I can understand that. It's not like Word really changes from version to version.
  quote
rollercoaster375
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UIllinois (Champaign, IL)
Send a message via AIM to rollercoaster375 Send a message via MSN to rollercoaster375 Send a message via Yahoo to rollercoaster375 Send a message via Skype™ to rollercoaster375 
2007-03-01, 19:42

90% of what you described can be solved by running Linux. And might I add that #6 is your fault. There are plenty of people who build Windows boxes.

And why are you using IE if it's that much of a pain? Firefox, Opera, Netscape, Mozilla... All sorts of other options exist for Windows.

I really have nothing to put here, but I feel it's rather strange to not have one.
  quote
MCSE+I-Turncoat
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
 
2007-03-01, 19:56

Quote:
Originally Posted by rasmits View Post
I can understand that. It's not like Word really changes from version to version.
Word and MS office gets bigger hard drive space wise and has more options I don’t need or want with each version.
I have a minimum install of WORD 7 (Office 95) that takes up 5.69 MB. On another computer Word 97 minimum install takes up 10.46 MB.

Smaller is faster and why update if you don’t have to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rollercoaster375 View Post
90% of what you described can be solved by running Linux. And might I add that #6 is your fault. There are plenty of people who build Windows boxes.

And why are you using IE if it's that much of a pain? Firefox, Opera, Netscape, Mozilla... All sorts of other options exist for Windows.
I tried Linux twice in the 90’s. It needed me to replace my vid card to get the GUI to run. Back then they were $100 to $200 dollars. If parallels lets me run two extra OS’s I might give Linux a try. I have to run XP to run some old apps.

I use Fire Fox, Opera and Mozilla in addition to IE. Some sites only look good in IE and one can’t remove IE from a windows box without causing massive problems. You can’t run windows update to get your fix packs or run some really nice free virus scanners without IE. Until people stop writing web sites to look their best on IE I need it around.

It’s been 12 years. When is Microsoft going to make a browser that works?

Last edited by MCSE+I-Turncoat : 2007-03-01 at 19:56. Reason: Posts merged
  quote
rasmits
rams it
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Seattle
 
2007-03-01, 20:07

Quote:
Originally Posted by MCSE+I-Turncoat View Post
Word and MS office gets bigger hard drive space wise and has more options I don’t need or want with each version.
I have a minimum install of WORD 7 (Office 95) that takes up 5.69 MB. On another computer Word 97 minimum install takes up 10.46 MB.

Smaller is faster and why update if you don’t have to.
I know that. I was agreeing with you.

Word 9 (2001) for Mac is roughly 9 MB, Word 11 (2004) is about 19 MB. It's unfortunate, I know.

Also unfortunate is the fact that Word 11 - or 10, if you can find it - is your only option for running office on your Intel Mac. If it's precious milliseconds you wish to save, keep the OS 9 box around.

You had me at asl
.......
  quote
MCSE+I-Turncoat
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
 
2007-03-01, 20:12

Quote:
Originally Posted by rasmits View Post
I know that. I was agreeing with you.

Word 9 (2001) for Mac is roughly 9 MB, Word 11 (2004) is about 19 MB. Unfortunately, Word 11 - or 10, if you can find it - is your only option for running office on your Intel Mac. If it's precious milliseconds you wish to save, keep the OS 9 box around.
Sorry. I thought you meant can’t.

Yes Microsoft ran out of basic features for word by 1995. New they just add bells and whistles and other annoying things like fast find that eats up RAM.

It’s been 12 years. When is Microsoft going to make a browser that works?
  quote
joveblue
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
 
2007-03-02, 03:23

Quote:
Originally Posted by MCSE+I-Turncoat View Post
I use Fire Fox, Opera and Mozilla in addition to IE. Some sites only look good in IE and one can’t remove IE from a windows box without causing massive problems. You can’t run windows update to get your fix packs or run some really nice free virus scanners without IE. Until people stop writing web sites to look their best on IE I need it around.
Just because you can't get rid of IE doesn't mean you need to use it. Apart from some Microsoft sites (which, really, who cares about), 99.9% of sites these days (that I use, at least) work perfectly in Firefox. And you don't need a browser for security patches etc. these days if you have it on auto (but even if you don't I doubt you'll have any problems using the Windows Update site in IE). So my point is that a) Windows does have browsers that work properly, and b) the fact that lots of developers optimise their sites for IE is actually a good reason to stay with Windows, since IE is no longer supported on Mac. Not that I'm discouraging you from getting a Mac
  quote
chucker
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: near Bremen, Germany
Send a message via ICQ to chucker Send a message via AIM to chucker Send a message via MSN to chucker Send a message via Yahoo to chucker Send a message via Skype™ to chucker 
2007-03-02, 03:58

Quote:
Originally Posted by MCSE+I-Turncoat View Post
Yes Microsoft ran out of basic features for word by 1995. New they just add bells and whistles and other annoying things like fast find that eats up RAM.
Microsoft (and any other vendor of word processing applications) "ran out of basic features" to add because there *aren't* any to add. The basic parts of word processing have been perfectioned in the early 1990s, if not before that. You can't blame this on Microsoft.
  quote
MCSE+I-Turncoat
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
 
2007-03-02, 09:59

Quote:
Originally Posted by joveblue View Post
Just because you can't get rid of IE doesn't mean you need to use it. Apart from some Microsoft sites (which, really, who cares about), 99.9% of sites these days (that I use, at least) work perfectly in Firefox. And you don't need a browser for security patches etc. these days if you have it on auto (but even if you don't I doubt you'll have any problems using the Windows Update site in IE). So my point is that a) Windows does have browsers that work properly, and b) the fact that lots of developers optimise their sites for IE is actually a good reason to stay with Windows, since IE is no longer supported on Mac. Not that I'm discouraging you from getting a Mac
I beg to differ. I left my FireFox on auto update and when it loaded the new version of FireFox, version 2.0.02, it caused all kinds of problems.

You are wrong about the updates. You must have IE and use it to get updates manually. Automatic updates is a bad thing and should be avoided. Automatic updates crashed my box this past spring. Thank god for backups!

It’s been 12 years. When is Microsoft going to make a browser that works?
  quote
Banana
is the next Chiquita
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
 
2007-03-02, 10:59

Sounds to me you want a lightweight word processing?

Doesn't Textedit meet the criteria? There's also AppleWorks, OpenOffice and/or Mellel (I can't spell the last one), as well. They have most, if not all, features that Word 95/97 had and they're up to date. Running any of those would be much more effective and faster than running Word 95 in virtual machine via Parallels.

Your objection that latest version takes too much HD space is bit odd. Bondi iMac had 4 GB HD. 20 MB install would represent only 0.005% of entire 4 GB HD. Very very very trivial. And if you're that pressed for space, that's where external HD or other storage media comes in picture. I do understand that you feel that you shouldn't be burdened with unwanted features and they could have at least made it an optional install, though I suspect doing so would mean more work for developing and support and they decided because space on HD is so plentiful, a wasted MB or two isn't going to stop anyone from downloading their latest music tracks. And it hasn't.

Your objection about RAM is understandable, though. You only need to look at other programs, as menioned above since using Word in any circumstance, however you manage it, will cost more resource than running one of those apps.

I hope I'm mistaken, but I'm under the impression that you are a victim of your own old habits and prejudices.

Last edited by Banana : 2007-03-02 at 11:10.
  quote
zippy
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Unknown
 
2007-03-02, 11:11

I use automatic updates to keep an office of about 45 computers up to date. Been doing it for a couple of years, and never a problem.

As for disk space used by an app, that used to concern me when hard drives were only measured in megabytes. Not any more.

I have Office 2004 on my Core 2 Duo iMac, and I don't think it takes more than about 3 seconds to load Word - I don't use it often, so I could be wrong. But even it it takes 6 or so, I'm probably not going to find much else useful to do with that extra 3 seconds.

I do agree that the programs have way more features than I want or need, but as long as I can turn off the automatic ones that bug me, then the others never get in my way. If I really wanted to, I could probably figure out how to re-do the whole menu system to remove things that I will never use, but it's just as easy to ignore them. Fortunately, it looks like Microsoft is starting to shed some of that extra crap in the latest version of Office.

Do you know where children get all of their energy? - They suck it right out of their parents!
  quote
beardedmacuser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: eastmidlandshire
 
2007-03-02, 11:16

Quote:
Originally Posted by Banana View Post
Sounds to me you want a lightweight word processing?

Doesn't Textedit meet the criteria? There's also AppleWorks, OpenOffice and/or Mellel (I can't spell the last one), as well.
And AbiWord too.
  quote
MCSE+I-Turncoat
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
 
2007-03-03, 16:14

Its not a matter of running out of hard drive space at all. The amount of hard drive space an app takes up is very important in terms how fast it will load and even more important with regards to reloading. Hard discs have a cash of RAM. My current computer is three and a half years old. In the PC world that makes it basically obsolete yet it will open Word in .3 seconds. The cash on my hard drive is 8 MG with is larger than the amount of space the program takes up on the hard drive.

Because hard drives are approximately 100,000 times slower than RAM they are the main bottleneck on any computer. Today I can make a shortcut on the desktop to a word document and click on it forcing Word to open and open the document in .3 seconds.

Back in 1991 in college I used the university computer to open Word Perfect for DOS. After spending a minute or so to log in it took perhaps 2 minutes to get the word processor open. Then it took say 15 seconds to pull a small document up off a 3.5 in floppy. There were no shortcuts or any desktop to put them on. I would never consider closing a word processor until I had done all the word processing for that session as it took so long to open the thing.

Another example is Paint Shop Pro 3 vs. 8. Paint Sop Pro 3 occupies 3.51 MG and opens instantaneously. Version 8 takes 9 seconds and occupies 269 MG.

As far as the original issue goes I purchased a copy of Word 7 (from Office 95) for $10.00!

It’s been 12 years. When is Microsoft going to make a browser that works?
  quote
rasmits
rams it
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Seattle
 
2007-03-03, 16:21

Loading a virtual machine just to run Word is going to take much longer, obviously. I assume you'll be using a virtual machine anyway.
  quote
GladToBeHere
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
 
2007-03-03, 16:21

Welcome to 1997.
  quote
chucker
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: near Bremen, Germany
Send a message via ICQ to chucker Send a message via AIM to chucker Send a message via MSN to chucker Send a message via Yahoo to chucker Send a message via Skype™ to chucker 
2007-03-03, 16:24

Quote:
Originally Posted by rasmits View Post
Loading a virtual machine just to run Word is going to take much longer, obviously. I assume you'll be using a virtual machine anyway.
I suppose he could run it with CrossOver.

Still sounds like a ridiculous idea to me, though. Shorter launch time certainly correlates with gained productivity, but there are many more factors to consider. Besides, with OS X's excellent VMM, you might as well just leave the app running if launch time is truly a concern.
  quote
Graphguy
can't type
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
 
2007-03-04, 17:27

I'd stay away from OpenOffice, even if the alternative is Word98. OO is a HD-hog, buggy and slow in my experience, Abiword who somebody mentioned is better.

Or Word 98 of course. Even though its ten years old, it should be more than enough for most people.
  quote
Posting Rules Navigation
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Post Reply

Forum Jump
Thread Tools
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Microsoft Word is an Appalling Application (Part 8,044,454) Hassan i Sabbah Third-Party Products 35 2006-01-24 21:09
Emergency Word doc attachment question AWR Genius Bar 4 2006-01-16 06:36
Help with MS Word SKY Third-Party Products 4 2005-12-12 15:39
converting a picture from a Word doc. Mac+ Genius Bar 4 2005-10-30 10:11
'I Hate Word', with Hassan i Sabbah Hassan i Sabbah Third-Party Products 30 2005-09-21 14:12


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 18:30.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2019, AppleNova