Scrap PowerPoint 2003 since PowerPoint 97 is much better

[Guest]

Is there any way to convert a PowerPoint 2003 file into a file fully
compatible with PowerPoint 97 without the file becomeing 5-10 times larger!!?
This especially happens when the file contains images. Most people use Office
97 and 200 and I (foolishly) purchased 2003. I regularly have to Email
PowerPoint presentations to people, but it easily exceeds the 10MB file size
limit for Hotmail. I have to keep each presentation under about 12 slides and
ZIP it. The originals are only some 2MB but may become 20MB upon conversion.
I HAVE DECIDED THAT OFFICE 2003 IS MORE TROUBLE THAN IT IS WORTH and want to
reinstall Office 97, but so many of my files are now in PowerPoint 2003
format! This sucks!!!! My advice: boycott Office 2003, it is a waste of time!

----------------
This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this
link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
click "I Agree" in the message pane.

http://www.microsoft.com/office/com...f-1e4814c12a18&dg=microsoft.public.powerpoint

 

[Austin Myers]

Well,

That is certainly one opinion. You don't mind if I reject it do you? <g>


Austin Myers
MS PowerPoint MVP Team

Solutions to Multimedia in PowerPoint www.pfcmedia.com

Is there any way to convert a PowerPoint 2003 file into a file fully
compatible with PowerPoint 97 without the file becomeing 5-10 times larger!!?
This especially happens when the file contains images. Most people use Office
97 and 200 and I (foolishly) purchased 2003. I regularly have to Email
PowerPoint presentations to people, but it easily exceeds the 10MB file size
limit for Hotmail. I have to keep each presentation under about 12 slides and
ZIP it. The originals are only some 2MB but may become 20MB upon conversion.
I HAVE DECIDED THAT OFFICE 2003 IS MORE TROUBLE THAN IT IS WORTH and want to
reinstall Office 97, but so many of my files are now in PowerPoint 2003
format! This sucks!!!! My advice: boycott Office 2003, it is a waste of time!

----------------
This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this
link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
click "I Agree" in the message pane.

http://www.microsoft.com/office/com...f-1e4814c12a18&dg=microsoft.public.powerpoint

 

[Kathy J]

There is no difference in the file format between PPT 97 and 2003. the
difference is in the features offered. My guess is that you are back saving
your presentation to the 95 version (which had no compression) - don't do
that.

I recommend you look into using PPT 2003 as it is designed and ask the
people who are using the older versions to view your presentations with the
newer viewer. I would also suggest that you read the information in this
entry from Steve Rindsberg's PPT FAQ:
Do this before using PowerPoint seriously
http://www.rdpslides.com/pptfaq/FAQ00034.htm

--
Kathryn Jacobs, Microsoft MVP PowerPoint and OneNote
Author of Kathy Jacobs on PowerPoint - Available now from Holy Macro! Books
Get PowerPoint answers at http://www.powerpointanswers.com
I believe life is meant to be lived. But:
if we live without making a difference, it makes no difference that we lived

 

[Bill Dilworth]

You have made a small mistake.

If you save your presentation normally and do not add a password, then the
PowerPoint 97 users can open it. Of course they will not have all the fancy
transitions and animations that 2000, 2002 and 2003 offer, but the file will
open. If those transitions and animations are important to you/them, then
you can have them view the presentation using the free viewer. The file
format has not changed since PowerPoint 97.

When you save the file to PowerPoint 97-2003 & 95 Presentation, PowerPoint
falls down to the lowest common denominator which in this case is PowerPoint
95. PowerPoint 95 did not use picture compression and can not read a
compressed image, so naturally the file size balloons up. However, you
stated that you need PowerPoint 97 NOT 95, so this is an unnecessary waste.

PowerPoint 2003 is much better than 95, but does require that you learn some
new procedures, including what steps to use to make the files backward
compatible. If you have found your comfort zone in PowerPoint 97, great -
use it. But in all seriousness, I don't think going backwards will ever
really catch on


--
Bill Dilworth
A proud member of the Microsoft PPT MVP Team
Users helping fellow users.
billdilworth.mvps.org
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
yahoo2@ Please read the PowerPoint
yahoo. FAQ pages. They answer most
com of our questions.
www.pptfaq.com
..
..

 

[Guest]

I have tried opening PowerPoint 2003 files, with no animations just straight
forward text and images, in PowerPoint 97 and 2000, but to no avail. Nobody I
know, except myself uses PowerPoint 2003 because they can see no single
advantage over PowerPoint 97 and this backward compatibility is a serious
issue.

 

[Guest]

Thanks, but this FAQ tells me nothing new and nothing that seems to be of
direct consequence to the issue I raise. I have used PowerPoint 97 and 2000
professionally since they came out! powerPoint 2003 does seem a little
awkward with its auto-format features. It is not a question of going backward
rather a question of going forwards! Everyone I know uses Office 2000 or 97.
I have yet to find a single feature that would make me recommend Office 2003.
I find this product disappointing.

 

[Guest]

Forgive me for expressing my honest opinion. However, some more constructive
feedback would be nice. Tell me why PowerPoint 2003 is better than
PowerPoints 97 and 2000. Please convince me. I would love to think that I
made a wise purchase, because right now I am feeling "ripped-off". Sell your
product to me! I have an open mind and would be the first to correct myself
if you convince me that I am wrong. You see people are cynical that new
versions of Office (and Windows) is more about boosting sales than delivering
improved software. This is a serious public image problem Microsoft has, now
is your chance...

 

[Kathy J]

My first question: Do you have SP1 installed for Office 2003? If not, that
might explain some of your problems. In addition, it sounds like you need
to check to make sure that the new features are enabled on your copy of PPT
(Tools--> Options, Edit tab - make sure the last three boxes are unchecked).
Why say that? Because you sound like you are having problems finding the
very features that make PPT 2003 so good.:
1) Multiple masters
2) Much better animations
3) Much better control of animations
4) Password protection

Each of these features takes a little getting used to, but adds so much to
the capabilities of PowerPoint that they are very worth learning.

As for the Auto-format features: If you don't like them, turn them off (most
of us do turn them off right away). To do that, go to Tools--> Autocorrect,
Autoformat as you type tab and un-check the autoformat options.

As for your note to Bill: If you have presentations that are password
protected, they will not be able to be viewed by those with older versions.
Other than that, all presentations developed in PPT 97 and later should be
able to be viewed in any version of PPT from 97 on. There will be things
added in 2002 and 2003 that will not show in the older versions, but the
files can be opened and worked with quite easily. I do it all the time, as
do many many others. Can you give us some more details on what is happening
when you try to open the 2003 files in the older versions?

--
Kathryn Jacobs, Microsoft MVP PowerPoint and OneNote
Author of Kathy Jacobs on PowerPoint - Available now from Holy Macro! Books
Get PowerPoint answers at http://www.powerpointanswers.com
I believe life is meant to be lived. But:
if we live without making a difference, it makes no difference that we lived

 

[John O]

Nobody I

know, except myself uses PowerPoint 2003 because they can see no single
advantage over PowerPoint 97 and this backward compatibility is a serious
issue.

At this point I can't tell if you're serious or not. Assuming you are,
probably the only reason to upgrade Office from the 2000 version to 2003 was
PowerPoint. Sure, there's some other stuff, buy Ppt saw major improvements.
From 97 to 2003 is a HUGE jump in features and usability. Animations,
compressible after you're done, the user interface is superb, and notes
pages are really cool...the list is very long but most of us focus on a few
features we use regularly.

That said, if all you're doing is typing text onto slides with an
occassional image, then maybe '97 is fine for you. Personally, the
motion-path animations and simultaneous animations were worth a lot.

---In Ppt '03, right-click the images and select Format Picture. Click the
Compress button, and watch your file sizes shrink with no loss in display
quality.

-John O

 

[Sonia]

Although this newsgroup is sponsored by Microsoft, the people you see here are
just users like you. So, when we tell you about the features of PowerPoint 2003
and try to provide suggestions for correcting the problems you are describing,
we are doing so from our personal experience and enthusiasm. You are not
hearing from Microsoft sales people or even Microsoft employees. We call 'em
like we see 'em and are quite vocal and honest when we don't like something.

Try all of the suggestions and you will probably find that the problems you've
mentioned are resolved. If there are other problems you haven't mentioned, let
us know and we can probably help with them as well.
--

Sonia Coleman
Microsoft PowerPoint MVP Team
Autorun Software, Templates and Tutorials
http://www.soniacoleman.com

 

[Pete]

Yes 2003 added some nifty features but I tend to agree more with
Erfavlin than the MVPs.

I too have used PPT professionally through all versions. I design and
develop highly technical presentations for a major network equipment
vendor, so I really don't feel like all I do is "type text onto slides
with an occassional image". But then maybe I am remiss in thinking that
the purpose of a slide is to convey some meaningful content. If a
slide's content is merely to dazzle or entertain then many of my
complaints are invalid.

In my experience each upgrade from 97 on has added some bells and
whistles but none of them has significantly improved my productivity
over PPT97 (which I still use at home). Since my company provides the
software (whether I want it or not but that is another topic) it hasn't
cost me personally to upgrade, at least not directly. The indirect costs
are having to migrate customizations and relearn modified user
interfaces. I estimate 40 hours at each iteration. So if I have a "shop
rate" of $100/hr the migrations since 97 have cost my employer's not
less than $16,000. Or, as is the case with my most recent employer, I
work nights and weekends to compensate for the lost productivity. The
cost of the software is a drop in the bucket.

Yes 2003 has some neat features but I have to ask if any of the
following has really improved anyone's content or increased their
overall productivity?
1) Multiple masters
2) Much better animations
3) Much better control of animations
4) Password protection

The changes to autocorrect were the single biggest F-up. Yes, you can
control them to an extent but I, and others, have posted many times
about how not being able to change the cut and paste default is a
serious flaw. Whatever I gained with 2003 is far offset by the fact that
I can no longer cut content from one slide and move it to another in a
single operation.

Don't get me wrong, I like PPT it's just that, like Erfavlin, I don't
really see that 2003 was that big of an improvement and, if asked, I
could only recommend an upgrade if advanced animations were required
(but I would also ask how the user thought motion paths would improve
their content).

On a final note... Anyone that follows this thread should realize that
the MVPs are not MS employees. I have a lot of respect for them and have
been helped immeasurably by their expertise. However, the fact that MVPs
have acquired that status means that they are heavily biased towards the
product. So a final Q for the MVPs...Is is possible for you to criticise
the product and maintain MVP status?

Best regards and thanks for the ear,

Mike Langford (aka Pete)

 

[David M. Marcovitz]

To a large degree, I agree with you. For many users, PowerPoint 97 is
just fine. Personally, I rarely use anything that is not available in 97.
For people like us, the annoyances of PowerPoint 2003 are problematic.
However, the features that many people listed here are very useful to
some people. Since I deal mainly with interactive presentations, the big
win for me comes with animation triggers. Many things that I have been
teaching people to do with code for many years are now possible without
code (read that as, most people can now do them easily).

If you need compatibility with earlier versions, simply turn off the new
features (Tools > Options > Edit > Disable New Features). This isn't
better than using the version you like, but it should make your
presentations more compatible with earlier versions.

--David

--
David M. Marcovitz
Microsoft PowerPoint MVP
Director of Graduate Programs in Educational Technology
Loyola College in Maryland
Author of _Powerful PowerPoint for Educators_
http://www.loyola.edu/education/PowerfulPowerPoint/

 

[Steve Rindsberg]

Forgive me for expressing my honest opinion.

No need to forgive anything. Honest opinions are what this group is all about.

I still like '97 better than the others, but later versions do add some very nice features
in several areas (though the UI is something of a backward step from 97 ... but then
that's just *my* honest opinion).

Still, the problems you mention re 2003 are easily avoidable and there a lot of very nice
new features in it. And you can still stay compatible with earlier versions.

And if you like, you can leave them both installed on one computer. Use whichever suits
your needs. For the most part, it's a fairly smooth co-existence.

 

[Steve Rindsberg]

I have tried opening PowerPoint 2003 files, with no animations just straight
forward text and images, in PowerPoint 97 and 2000, but to no avail.

This is the first time you've mentioned this issue.

Your earlier post was about the size of the presentations when saved to the earlier PPT95
etc format; as has been explained, that's likely the cause of the size explosion and it's
totally unnecessary.

So I suppose the next question is whether you've since tried saving normally and then
opening the result in PPT97 et al?

 

[John O]

Yes 2003 has some neat features but I have to ask if any of the

following has really improved anyone's content or increased their
overall productivity?
1) Multiple masters

Absolutely...we can combine presentations with differing themes rather than
fooling with tempermental links. --improved reliability and
faster-to-market.

2) Much better animations

Try showing how electrons flow in a circuit in 97/2000, then try it in '03.
MAJOR improvement, MAJOR feature enhancement. And, these translate to html
(the MS-proprietary version of html, anyway) and the animations still work
in IE. Motion path animations make that possible. Our presentations are
intended to teach, and this feature makes it faster, easier, and more
effective (better selling price) in the classroom.

3) Much better control of animations

The moving ball can go forward, then back, then repeat, then take an
entirely new direction when something else moves into the slide. And, I can
do five of tham all at the same time, control their speed, and the way they
start and stop. This unleashes an entirely new form of creativity.

4) Password protection

We don't use this, but it was a major FAQ for several years.

The picture compression is also a major timesaver. Rather than worry about
image sizes and optimizing them to reduce the final file size, just shove in
the images at whatever size you want. Then run the compresser, and
optimization is perfect and automatic, in ten seconds.

But hey, the benefits of these features depend on your visual and
presentation development needs. We create educational tools for the
classroom, and these features are a big deal for us. OTOH, I run the Office
2000 suite(with Ppt 03), and could not imagine any reason to upgrade Word
2000, which I use constantly. ;-)

-John O

 

[Austin Myers]

Naw, I don't do sales. I guess I should explain, I don't work for MS, I'm
just another user like yourself. <g>


Austin Myers
MS PowerPoint MVP Team

Solutions to Multimedia in PowerPoint www.pfcmedia.com

 

[Guest]

The problem has not reoccured with my latest Powerpoint presntation, it could
be something to do with the first one being corrupted in cyberspace (I Email
them to people who run them on Office 2000 you see, but I currently only have
2003 on my system). Ok so now I know what an MVP is! Thank you for your
reply, Kathy, I found it the most helpful of all of them! However, I still
will not recommend Office 2003 (at least not until a better version comes
out) because it still seems to me to be an insignificant step forward. The
way some people react to my Devil's Advocate strategy, i am convinced some of
them work for Microsoft! I think they would burn me at the stake given half a
chance!

 

[Guest]

Interesting, because I use PowerPoint to prepare educational material as a
teacher (rather than a technical whizz) but I would probably use alternative
software for animations. I would have to compare to see which is easiest and
most powerful. I think Pete is right though, to market a new product it needs
more than improvement, it needs significant improvements that warrant the
cost. Free software is available for creating animations afterall. I also do
believe that Microsoft is more keen to implement fancy jingles than real
improvements. This is especially important since they have to compete with
the vast repertoire of free software. Pov-Ray is now being used to produce
stunning animations, for example, and indeed future versions will support
this feature fully. (I use Pov-ray a lot, but have yet to experiment with
animations myself). You see, it is a question of cost. Microsoft Office no
longer gives adequate improvements, with each new edition, to warrant its
cost. I think that people simply are stuck with it out of familiarity and
compatibility concerns. Ok, your example of speeding electrond is a good one,
but sometimes animations can confuse the issue, and even professionally
developed education software (like Multimedia Science) has limited use of
animations, most of which could easily be done by stringing JPgs together
into an AVI. (Maybe this would be slightly more time consuming?). Still I
will experiment with the PowerPoint animations more now that you have given
me ideas, and I will let you know how I get on. (I will have to do a
comparison with other software, as someone with only moderate graphical
technical expertise). I also think that Microsoft is cashing in on making
software dificult to use (oh no not another ICT course!) insteade of
advertising its benefits clearly - or am I too cynical?

 

[Guest]

Of course I am serious! We may not all be PowerPoint graphics wizards,
(though that does not make me stupid I can assure you!) You see this is
another point - the ever-changing UI! I have to study chemistry, biology,
physics, mathematics, geography and C++/C# programming as part of my work, so
it is rather dificult to be an expert in all computer graphics packages as
well! (Though I do use Pov-Ray and I am familiar with OpenGL). Most of us can
not invest 100% effort in keeping up-to-date and there are already freely
available packages that can do all the fancy animation stuff, so is MS Office
2003 really worth the cost! I shall have to experiment and see (when i get
the time! Lol).

 

[John O]

Still I

will experiment with the PowerPoint animations more now that you have given
me ideas, and I will let you know how I get on. (I will have to do a
comparison with other software, as someone with only moderate graphical
technical expertise).

All I can say is that we're not animators, nor graphic-trained people, and
we can do it. The interface needs to be learned and mastered, just like with
any significant software upgrade.

I also think that Microsoft is cashing in on making
software dificult to use (oh no not another ICT course!) insteade of
advertising its benefits clearly - or am I too cynical?

I dunno, but maybe. They sell a ton of training material to OS and network
admin types, and probably a couple books each year for Office apps. ;-) The
program certainly changed a lot between 1997 and 2003.

-John O