Office 97 and Vista


G

Guest

I have read through all the previous posts and find myself quite confused:
Just purchased a new laptop with Vista Home Premium and tried to install
Office 97 which appeared to install correctly. However when I try to install
SR1 patch, I receive an error message: Failed to register IE Safe Key --and
then it lists three applications (Power Point Show.8, Excel Sheet.8, Word
Document.8) in successive click throughs. Trying to move onto SR2 patch
gives message that it is unable to install...

Any help with this would be appreciated.
 
Ad

Advertisements

A

Adam Albright

I have read through all the previous posts and find myself quite confused:
Just purchased a new laptop with Vista Home Premium and tried to install
Office 97 which appeared to install correctly. However when I try to install
SR1 patch, I receive an error message: Failed to register IE Safe Key --and
then it lists three applications (Power Point Show.8, Excel Sheet.8, Word
Document.8) in successive click throughs. Trying to move onto SR2 patch
gives message that it is unable to install...

Any help with this would be appreciated.

I have Office 97 Pro happily running on Vista Business. I did NOT
install any patches. The ones you mentioned are likey written for
Windows vintage Windows 95-98 and perhaps XP, not Vista.

What do these patches do? I tried to Goggle and I'm having a problem
connecting there now.
 
G

Guest

Adam Albright said:
I have Office 97 Pro happily running on Vista Business. I did NOT
install any patches. The ones you mentioned are likey written for
Windows vintage Windows 95-98 and perhaps XP, not Vista.

What do these patches do? I tried to Goggle and I'm having a problem
connecting there now.


I honestly don't remember what they do... I do recall they were a big deal
at the time. I'm thinking they may have been security related back then. On
my old XP laptop they installed just fine.

If I don't receive any other suggestions, I will give your idea a shot.
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
 
C

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)

[/QUOTE]

Are these SR1 and SR2 for Office 97?
I honestly don't remember what they do... I do recall they were a big deal
at the time. I'm thinking they may have been security related back then.

They were needed to get an MS Office 97 install to "stick", else it
would fail right at the end. I also can't recall the details, but it
involved renaming away two registry references to Outlook 97
components that were prolly defended against changes by XP.

You'd have to apply these registry changes before installing Office
97, ten the installation would work.

Vista may not need these changes, and in fact may break if they're
applied, for some reason... as Adams's post suggests.

It may also be that the SR's are trying to whitelist MS Office file
types as "safe to open" in IE, which Vista may disallow, or be
attempting the reverse (i.e. plug a risk by not allowing them to
"open" without being saved first, or whatever, or maybe it's about
Office components being marked "safe for scripting") and Vista is
blocking this just as it always blocks changes to that settings area.


--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -
Saws are too hard to use.
Be easier to use!
 
G

Guest

Office XP is the oldest Office reported to work well with Vista.

There is no concern taken from Microsofts part that an out of date/support
product should work on Vista.

I would recommend you to upgrade your Office suite to prefereble Office 2007.
 
B

BSchnur

Older versions of Office work OK (aside from Outlook).

As to the recommendation to move to Office 2007 two queries probably
are appropriate:

1) Does the cost to purchase both the new OS and the new application
suite matter to you? (the cost of the OS and application suite
approximate the cost of many new PC's these days).

2) How much 'keyboard memory' do you have from the existing
Office 95 - to Office 2003 series of the suite? If you have
a lot 'invested' in that aspect of actually using the suites,
you might consider staying with those versions for a while
pending the availability of training time to get used to
an entirely different work metaphor.
 
Ad

Advertisements

G

Guest

BSchnur said:
Older versions of Office work OK (aside from Outlook).

As to the recommendation to move to Office 2007 two queries probably
are appropriate:

1) Does the cost to purchase both the new OS and the new application
suite matter to you? (the cost of the OS and application suite
approximate the cost of many new PC's these days).

2) How much 'keyboard memory' do you have from the existing
Office 95 - to Office 2003 series of the suite? If you have
a lot 'invested' in that aspect of actually using the suites,
you might consider staying with those versions for a while
pending the availability of training time to get used to
an entirely different work metaphor.


Thanks to everyone for responding.

The bottom line for me is that Office 97 allows me to do everything I need.
I don't mind paying for useful applications but when something meets all my
requirements I resent being forced to buy the latest program with all its
bells and whistles and the resultant learning curve...

I have no objection to MS no longer supporting Office 97 - from a business
perspective this makes perfect sense but I think I should have the ability to
run an older application if that's all I need...
 
C

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 08:48:20 -0700, John Bryntze
Office XP is the oldest Office reported to work well with Vista.
There is no concern taken from Microsofts part that an out of date/support
product should work on Vista.
I would recommend you to upgrade your Office suite to prefereble Office 2007.

I wouldn't - I'd use Open Office instead:
- free
- richer feature set than MS Office 97
- as easy to default it to MS Office 97 file formats
- UI will be more familiar than that of MS Office 2007

The only compatability chain will be Outbreak, but you're likely to
sweat with every MS Office version upgrade. It's a mess best avoided
by never using it for anything that matters in the first place.


--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -
Saws are too hard to use.
Be easier to use!
 
T

thor

cquirke said:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 08:48:20 -0700, John Bryntze




I wouldn't - I'd use Open Office instead:
- free
- richer feature set than MS Office 97
- as easy to default it to MS Office 97 file formats
- UI will be more familiar than that of MS Office 2007

The only compatability chain will be Outbreak, but you're likely to
sweat with every MS Office version upgrade. It's a mess best avoided
by never using it for anything that matters in the first place.



Saws are too hard to use.
Be easier to use!

What a crock!!
 
T

Thor

cquirke,

No, the crock is that Open Office has more features than Office 97 - or is
better integrated.
You must not know much about Office 97.

The reason a database isn't automatically included with OpenOffice is
because the database isn't a fully-integrated relational database.

The reason OpenOffice is included with Linux distributions is beacause Corel
can't sell their products in the mainstream (Windows or Mac) markets. That
is also the reason CorelSuite (OpenOffice) has 8% of their original
userbase.

If you don't use Office components, that's fine. If you don't know a great
deal about them, that's fine, too.

But please refrain from making statements about products you know so little
about -- it isn't fair to people who may want to make intelligent decisions
about their choices.

Otherwise. have a great day :)

Thor
 
Ad

Advertisements

C

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)

No, the crock is that Open Office has more features than Office 97 - or is
better integrated. You must not know much about Office 97.

I used MS Office 97 for quite a while, and enjoyed it; as Outlook
hadn't gone HTML yet, it was still relatively safe. I didn't use
Outlook, but made fairly heavy use of Word, Excel and PPoint.
The reason a database isn't automatically included with OpenOffice is
because the database isn't a fully-integrated relational database.

There is a database in Open Office, but I don't know how effective it
is as yet. Star Office used to come with a blank space where the
database used to be; for some reason, it wasn't part of the install.
The reason OpenOffice is included with Linux distributions is beacause Corel
can't sell their products in the mainstream (Windows or Mac) markets. That
is also the reason CorelSuite (OpenOffice) has 8% of their original
userbase.

Corel? What do they have to do with Open Office?
But please refrain from making statements about products you know so little
about -- it isn't fair to people who may want to make intelligent decisions
about their choices.

Well, I have to wonder how well you know Open Office 2.10... at least
in its Windows incarnation - I don't know if the version for Linux is
substantially different. My own heavy usage (since MS Office 97) was
a few years of MS Office 97, then a few years of Open Office 1.xx, and
now a year or so of MS Office 2003 with some Open Office 2.x (mainly
to output .PDF, which Open Office does natively).

I've found that since email and webbing have taken hold, I rarely do
the intense DTP-style wordsmithing in word processors anymore. So I'm
prolly not stretching the feature sets as much as I did in the really
old fax-and-print days of Word 5, Ventura 1.1 on GEM, etc.


------------ ----- --- -- - - - -
Drugs are usually safe. Inject? (Y/n)
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top