Worried About Word In New Computer

[grizzletoad1]

I have an 11 year old computer that has Word 2000 in it. Needless to say, I have written my manuscript and other important Word Documents using that version. Now that I'm finally planning the retirement of "Old Reliable" here, I'm worried that I may not be able to access my Word documents and my ms with the later versions of Word. Right now, everything is saved with the suffix, ".doc" I believe that new Word programs save everything as ".docx" This smacks of complete incompatability and probable loss of all my Word documents. Is there a way for newer Word programs to continue to access and edit older Word 2000 files saved as a ".doc", or am I really screwed here? Please advise.

[Adam]

It's fine. The new Word will open .doc. :-)

You'll be able to edit them as normal, and save in either .doc, or convert to .docx.

[Roger J Carlson]

Word 2010 will work just find with .doc files. You can even continue to save them in that format.

Just be prepared for User Interface Shock. The new Ribbon is much different than the old Menus and Toolbars.

[grizzletoad1]

That's a relief! Thanks guys!

[Clair Dickson]

Also, there is a compatibility pack that allows older versions of Word (2003 and 2000 for certain) to open the new files, though, since few people have any clue it's out there, make sure you save files you're sending off to others in the old format.

The interface IS hugely different. I suggest that you approach it as if it was an entirely new program and not look for where things "used to be." Explore as you would if it wasn't called Word. =)

[movieman]

It's fine. The new Word will open .doc. :-)

Depends on how old the files are. I have a bunch of Word files from the early 90s, and modern versions of Word wouldn't open them; I had to find the install disks for a Windows 3.1 version and install that in order to open the files.

I've actually found Open Office to be more compatible with old Word documents than Word.

[jimbro]

...
I've actually found Open Office to be more compatible with old Word documents than Word.

Me too.

And I say that as a former Microsoft Certified Partner.

I have had a few compatibility problems with both Open Office and Microsoft. These problems were rare for both but obviously very annoying when they popped up. In every case, there was a work-around, but still...

I have recently dumped Microsoft completely in favor of LibreOffice - no problems so far.

[Clair Dickson]

There really should be no problems with Word2000 files. Pre-1997, maybe, as the last major file-format change in Office was in Office97 (IIRC), but I've never had problems opening files from within Word (rather than just double-clicking to open.)

[Jamesaritchie]

Word is more compatible than OpenOffice ever thought about being. Old Word files are still Word files, and they work perfectly in every new version of Word. OpenOffice is good, but it screws up old word files, and often new Word files as well. OpenOffice does not always convert any word file perfectly.

Seriously, the format of old Word files works perfectly in Word, and even in most cheap ass freeware word processors. It's the new formats that have changed, not the old.

And Word 2000 files are NOT old files.

[Maryn]

You don't consider Word files which are ten or eleven years old to be old?

Interesting.

At any rate, I've never had an issue with either Open Office or my current (and admittedly out of date) version of Word being unable to open what I'd consider 'old' Word files, like from 1993, which seems to be the oldest one I can readily identify.

Maryn, shrugging

[kuwisdelu]

In software years, 2000 is pretty damn old.

[Xelebes]

1950s: Sea-goop
1960s: Protozoans
1970s: Sea-fish
1980s: Dimetrodons & Trilobites
1990s: Tyrannosaurus & Pterodons
2000s: Sabre-toothed Tigers & Mastodons
2010s: Human & Whales

[AmericaMadeMe]

In software years, 2000 is pretty damn old.

Yes....and no. The biggest advances came in the mid-90s with the switch from 16-bit to 32-bit operating systems and the final victory of the GUI over the command prompt. Basically, backward compatibility with a Word .doc from 2000 isn't a problem.

[kuwisdelu]

Yes....and no. The biggest advances came in the mid-90s with the switch from 16-bit to 32-bit operating systems and the final victory of the GUI over the command prompt. Basically, backward compatibility with a Word .doc from 2000 isn't a problem.

Well, that's why I said old, not ancient.

We're not talking punch cards here.

[alleycat]

We're not talking punch cards here.

Showing my age . . . the first computer programming I ever did was writing Fortran code using punch cards and an IBM 360. It were NOT the "good old days".

[kuwisdelu]

Showing my age . . . the first computer programming I ever did was writing Fortran code using punch cards and an IBM 360. It were NOT the "good old days".

My father was the same. The other day, he told me about fighting over the card punch machine.

[alleycat]

My father was the same. The other day, he told me about fighting over the card punch machine.
Yep. And then putting your program in the queue and waiting for the results. There's nothing like waiting four hours and then getting the printout back with "Line 98 Syntax Error".

[AmericaMadeMe]

Word is more compatible than OpenOffice ever thought about being. Old Word files are still Word files, and they work perfectly in every new version of Word. OpenOffice is good, but it screws up old word files, and often new Word files as well. OpenOffice does not always convert any word file perfectly.

Seriously, the format of old Word files works perfectly in Word, and even in most cheap ass freeware word processors. It's the new formats that have changed, not the old.



I disagree with your assessment. As far as backward compatibility, the open source community has been meticulous with the former OpenOffice and the current LibreOffice. In contrast, Microsoft likes to hide file extensions in Windows, as a horribly mistaken default Windows setting. Microsoft lacks an essential commercial motivation for meticulous backward compatibility. Microsoft has a product cycle to maintain, despite the inexplicable delays on just about every release.

And Word 2000 files are NOT old files.

As I recollect, Word 2000 substantially predates XP - very old in terms of normal OS development, although Microsoft has failed to maintain a normal release cycle in the last decade.

[Clair Dickson]

Um, if Microsoft is against backwards compatibility, then they wouldn't have released a Compatibility Pack for the new Office formats at least within weeks of the launch date for Office 2007... it may be been earlier than that. I can only verify that soon after the commercial release, Microsoft made sure that people using old versions of Office could handle the new files (not that people have a clue, or even read the stupid dialogue box that pops up when you try to open a .docx file in an un-patched Word 2003 that SAYS that you need to get the compatibility pack to open it.)

With anything, some people will have trouble with Word corrupting files, others will have trouble with OpenOffice causing problems. Some people drive Fords because they last forever, others will never drive a Found-on-Roadside-Dead car. I have opened files created in Word 2000 on Word 2010. (I've also opened Word Perfect 6 files with Word2010 just last month. And recently opened Works files with Word2010, too.) YMMV.

[misslissy]

As far as how old newer office versions would open, I would assume it would be 1997-2003, (at least for 2007) because that's what it says when you're saving anything in compatibility mode. I would assume anything older than 1997 would not open (or open well or right at least).

[Matera the Mad]

I've never seen much backward incompatibility with the MS Office basics. One Note is a notable exception, and a real stinker. But that's why I only use it for OCR. Everything else can open older files, one way or another. Forward compatibility is, of course, another pile of dead fish altogether.