Linked by Amjith Ramanujam on Wed 23rd Jul 2008 14:32 UTC, submitted by ahz1
Thread beginning with comment 324201
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I have to agree with you on those points. Don't get me wrong, I think that Office 97 was leaps and bounds better then any office to that point I think Office really hit the mark with 2003. I have 2003 on one machine and 2007 on the other, and I still prefer 2003 to the ui and clutter that is 2007. I really do prefer the menus and toolbars versus the no menus and ribbon of 2k7. I guess that is what you get from being a long time Office user... ;-)






Member since:
2007-02-17
Office 97 is very weak for long documents.
Office 97 has a strictly limited "style store". Once you explicitly format something, every time you make a change that new format gets stored in the file. There is apparently a list of these "explicit formats used" kept with the file that can only ever be added to ... removing stuff from your document does not remove the entries in that list. There is no way to reduce the size of this list in a given document ... as you add stuff, and change formatting, the list just grows and grows.
Once the list hits 65,000 entries, the document is permanently corrupted. No recovery is possible. Not even saving to another format and re-importing will recover the document.
You cannot use Office 97 for a longish document for which sections get replaced on a regular basis.
Even for a short document ... say a newsletter which you edit each week but leave certain bits in place ... Office 97 is guaranteed to eventually corrupt such a file beyond all repair.
Far from "perfected".