In newsq6i24tjho1pg55boume78t3gnq8c6nmgf@4ax.com,
journey typed on Mon, 12 May 2008 23:41:51 -0500:
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 18:13:06 -0400, "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>> In news:5_2Wj.1730$yP7.875@newsfe18.lga,
>> Robert243 typed on Mon, 12 May 2008 16:03:50 -0500:
>>> If I buy MS Office off the shelf can I install it on my desktop and
>>> my laptop, or is it only allowed on one computer.
>>>
>>> If only one computer, is there a way around it. I'm not a pirate
>>> but it would be no use to me if I couldn't use it on both computers
>>> and I don't want to pay for two programs.
>>>
>>> Bob
>>
>> I don't know about current versions, but up to MS Office 2000 Pro
>> anyway you are allowed to install a single license on your laptop
>> and desktop.
>
> Which brings up another point. For the most part the biggest
> increment of innovation was with Office 97. Office 97, arguably, is
> better than Office 2007 (at least the interface for Word and Excel).
> So, if one has licenses to older versions of Office, they may want to
> skip Office 2007.
Well I did use MS Office 97 for a few years until Office 2000 came out
and I fell in love with Office 2000. 97 for me anyway on a number of
machines in time has been on the buggy side for me. As Word and Outlook
would crash often for me. And Office 2000 was rock stable.
So I saw Office 2000 as the fixed version of Office 97. I later checked
out Office XP and Office 2003 and I had seen no reason for me to go that
route. Although it appears that many doesn't feel this way as newer
versions of Office are still selling. Even so, I just checked out eBay
and Office 2000 is still selling and the cheapest I saw the Pro version
going for is 90 bucks.
His question was:
If I buy MS Office off the shelf can I install it on my desktop and my
laptop, or is it only allowed on one computer.
If only one computer, is there a way around it. I'm not a pirate but it
would be no use to me if I couldn't use it on both computers and I don't
want to pay for two programs.
Bob
We all assume everyone in this newsgroup has a Dell. Of course in this
newsgroup for years all kinds of computer hardware and software
questions have always been answered.
I suggest you go play on another newsgroup for a while.
Joan
>
> "journey" <journey@merr.com> wrote in message
> news:um6i2492tiqce7fepeh30qq9vgc7grdtsn@4ax.com...
>
>> On Mon, 12 May 2008 22:38:26 -0400, "K2NNJ"
>> <k2nnj@nospam.optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>> How is this related to Dell?
>>
>>
>> Dell sells computers. Windows computers. Microsoft makes Windows.
>> Microsoft also makes Office. Office runs on Dell computers. Most
>> people need office software. Next question ...
>
>
it was a rhetorical question. and in your posting about the clean1k you
made no mention of dell or that the utility had ever been supplied on a dell
resource cd. so before you criticize other people about the appropriateness
of their posts you should consider that of your own. welcome to my kill
file, hope that you enjoy your stay.
"K2NNJ" <k2nnj@nospam.optonline.net> wrote in message
news:48291e86$0$15190$607ed4bc@cv.net...
> The clean 1k utility used to be on Dell Resource CD's. The OP makes no
> reference to Dell. I at least mentioned that I have a Dell PC.
>
> "Christopher Muto" <muto@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:85OdnV6VxauXmLTVnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@earthlink.co m...
>> tell us how asking "can anyone id this file ~ROFMN_00000790" or "where I
>> can download the clean1k utility" is related to dell and then you will
>> have your answer.
>>
>> "K2NNJ" <k2nnj@nospam.optonline.net> wrote in message
>> news:4828ff24$0$25020$607ed4bc@cv.net...
>>> How is this related to Dell?
>>>
>>> "S.Lewis" <Gossamer@interesting.com> wrote in message
>>> news:A26Wj.2373$Kk3.2231@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
>>>>
>>>> "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in message
>>>> news:4828e5bd$0$11116$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere .com...
>>>>> In news:ct4Wj.18012$Au2.14014@trnddc07,
>>>>> Bill Ghrist typed on Mon, 12 May 2008 23:33:28 GMT:
>>>>>
>>>>> In news:1q3Wj.133360$Er2.98244@bignews6.bellsouth.net ,
>>>>> S.Lewis typed on Mon, 12 May 2008 17:22:26 -0500:
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, the OP might consider downloading and trying the (free) Sun
>>>>>>> OpenOffice suite.
>>>>>
>>>>>> ... OpenOffice is even less expensive (free).
>>>>>
>>>>> You get what you pay for. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear Bill.........and Bill.........
>>>>
>>>> You're both right. The intent of my original mangled response was to
>>>> agree wtiht Bill (Ghrist's) response that MS Office Home and Student
>>>> would likely be the best (and least expensive) MS Office solution per
>>>> the OP's post. I was only trying to provide another option (as
>>>> unattractive as it may have been in providing Outlook).
>>>>
>>>> We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.......
>>>>
>>>> Stew
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>So I saw Office 2000 as the fixed version of Office 97. I later checked
>out Office XP and Office 2003 and I had seen no reason for me to go that
>route. Although it appears that many doesn't feel this way as newer
>versions of Office are still selling. Even so, I just checked out eBay
>and Office 2000 is still selling and the cheapest I saw the Pro version
>going for is 90 bucks.
Office XP had a few neat things that I needed/have used in one of
its components or another that I use (Word, Excel, Access) that
drove me to u/g from 2000. None since have added or improved
anything I need/use. [It should be needless for me to say that I
have no intention, at my age, of jumping off the Office 2007
cliff.]
"Bob Levine" <fake@fake.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:qMfWj.8014$jk1.233@trndny05...
> K2NNJ wrote:
>> How is this related to Dell?
>
> Quite a bit more related to Dell than fake designer watches, don't you
> think?
>
> Bob
In news:hd0k24p83cl2h5henam0l37o82tb942o2a@4ax.com,
Ogden Johnson III typed on Tue, 13 May 2008 17:11:43 -0400:
> "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>> So I saw Office 2000 as the fixed version of Office 97. I later
>> checked out Office XP and Office 2003 and I had seen no reason for
>> me to go that route. Although it appears that many doesn't feel this
>> way as newer versions of Office are still selling. Even so, I just
>> checked out eBay and Office 2000 is still selling and the cheapest I
>> saw the Pro version going for is 90 bucks.
>
> Office XP had a few neat things that I needed/have used in one of
> its components or another that I use (Word, Excel, Access) that
> drove me to u/g from 2000. None since have added or improved
> anything I need/use. [It should be needless for me to say that I
> have no intention, at my age, of jumping off the Office 2007
> cliff.]
Interesting... I like to know what some of these were. As I might
upgrade. :-D
>>> So I saw Office 2000 as the fixed version of Office 97. I later
>>> checked out Office XP and Office 2003 and I had seen no reason for
>>> me to go that route. Although it appears that many doesn't feel this
>>> way as newer versions of Office are still selling. Even so, I just
>>> checked out eBay and Office 2000 is still selling and the cheapest I
>>> saw the Pro version going for is 90 bucks.
>> Office XP had a few neat things that I needed/have used in one of
>> its components or another that I use (Word, Excel, Access) that
>> drove me to u/g from 2000. None since have added or improved
>> anything I need/use. [It should be needless for me to say that I
>> have no intention, at my age, of jumping off the Office 2007
>> cliff.]
>Interesting... I like to know what some of these were. As I might
>upgrade. :-D
Concurrent with lack of interest in jumping off cliffs as one
ages is memory that isn't as good as it once was. Complicating
that is that when I bought Office XP, it was partly because we
used it at the office I was working at, and I couldn't do things
at home in Office 2K that I could at work, primarily in Access,
but I remember [the fact of them, not the detail] some arcane
things I could do at work but not at home, or kludged at home.
Going on six years after the fact (concurrent with going on 65
six years after the fact) damfino WITH they were. Heck, I
haven't touched Access in [cogitate, cogitate, cogitate] a
couple, three years, and am not doing anything in Word or Excel
that I couldn't be doing in '97 or 2K. Life tends to be both
simpler and less stressful in semi-retirement.
In news:1qbk24p5l60g2u4snvtm5uijkbguhls76v@4ax.com,
Ogden Johnson III typed on Tue, 13 May 2008 20:30:34 -0400:
> "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>> Ogden Johnson III typed:
>
>>> "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>>>> So I saw Office 2000 as the fixed version of Office 97. I later
>>>> checked out Office XP and Office 2003 and I had seen no reason for
>>>> me to go that route. Although it appears that many doesn't feel
>>>> this way as newer versions of Office are still selling. Even so, I
>>>> just checked out eBay and Office 2000 is still selling and the
>>>> cheapest I saw the Pro version going for is 90 bucks.
>
>>> Office XP had a few neat things that I needed/have used in one of
>>> its components or another that I use (Word, Excel, Access) that
>>> drove me to u/g from 2000. None since have added or improved
>>> anything I need/use. [It should be needless for me to say that I
>>> have no intention, at my age, of jumping off the Office 2007
>>> cliff.]
>
>> Interesting... I like to know what some of these were. As I might
>> upgrade. :-D
>
> Concurrent with lack of interest in jumping off cliffs as one
> ages is memory that isn't as good as it once was. Complicating
> that is that when I bought Office XP, it was partly because we
> used it at the office I was working at, and I couldn't do things
> at home in Office 2K that I could at work, primarily in Access,
> but I remember [the fact of them, not the detail] some arcane
> things I could do at work but not at home, or kludged at home.
> Going on six years after the fact (concurrent with going on 65
> six years after the fact) damfino WITH they were. Heck, I
> haven't touched Access in [cogitate, cogitate, cogitate] a
> couple, three years, and am not doing anything in Word or Excel
> that I couldn't be doing in '97 or 2K. Life tends to be both
> simpler and less stressful in semi-retirement.
Fair enough Ogden. I just needed last night to sort a list based on the
first character of each line, for example. I thought Word 2000 does this
and I think it does. But I couldn't get it to work correctly. I finally
got the results I wanted by firing up my old WordStar for DOS and two
seconds the job was done. Surprisingly 20 years later it still has some
use left. LOL
Re: MS Office 
q6i24tjho1pg55boume78t3gnq8c6nmgf@4ax.com,
Linear Mode
