Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Information > PDF to DOC?

Reply
Thread Tools

PDF to DOC?

 
 
Paul
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-23-2013
Robert Baer wrote:
> Paul wrote:


>>
>> As for IE6, many eons ago, I took a snapshot of some temporary
>> directory during an IE6 installation. And that folder of
>> stuff, functions now as a stand alone installer. If I need to install
>> IE6 on Win2K SP4 for example, I can use that to get the job done.
>> Originally, the IE6 installer was a "stub" with no files. But
>> by keeping the temp directory from the first install, I can
>> redo it (without calling Microsoft) at a later date.


> * Cool! Is it possible that (assuming i get those files) i could
> install IE6 - WITHOUT interfering with IE5?
> That way i can test web code on IE5, 6, 7, 6, and 9.
>


I think there is a different recipe for that.

Someone figured out a way to run a few versions in parallel.

http://www.tredosoft.com/Multiple_IE

I doubt my installer would help, as it likely obliterates
a previous IE.

If you are good with virtual machines, you could likely run a
bunch of those (one IE version per VM). Win2K would be the best
candidate, with the caveat of a limited set of versions that
would work. Probably IE6 would be the max in that case.

Using Preview versions of Windows might extend your test
capabilities. But at the current time, no OS previews are valid.
That doesn't entirely spoil the fun. I can still install
the Windows 7 preview, and it runs (in "not genuine" mode),
and you can still get a few things done in it. Not a lot
of fun though. And for the later versions of IE, I doubt
a standalone installer is available. When I run a Preview copy
of Windows 7, I like to keep it off the net. I don't expect
it would run for more than 3 days (72 hours). I haven't tried
a Windows 8 Preview version lately, to see how it behaves,
as I have a real honest to goodness $39.95 install running
instead.

Paul
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
VanguardLH
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-23-2013
Robert Baer wrote:

> Is it possible that (assuming i get those files) i could
> install IE6 - WITHOUT interfering with IE5?


Don't recall why after more than a decade afterward but I'm sure you
don't want to go below version 5.5 for Internet Explorer.

IE 5.5:
http://www.oldapps.com/internet_expl...et_explorer=13

IE 6:
http://www.oldapps.com/internet_expl...et_explorer=11

IE 7:
http://www.oldapps.com/internet_expl...net_explorer=9

IE 8:
http://www.oldapps.com/internet_expl...et_explorer=17

IE9:
too many to bother in a short time to pick one

Do your own searches there. I just grabbed some URLs on what looked
like a good match but didn't investigate if they were a beta, initial,
full, or other type of installation.

> That way i can test web code on IE5, 6, 7, 6, and 9.


I have seen users claim they had the multiple IE libs installed
concurrenty so they could load different versions of IE; however, the
exercise was so convoluted with flaky results that I don't recommend it
to anyone. Instead, some solutions are to use virtual machines in which
you can have different versions of IE or use a virtualized copy of the
web browser.

For a virtual machine, you cannot uninstall the base version of IE from
Windows. I think IE6 came with Windows XP so you cannot get it down to
IE5, only at IE6 or higher. Alas, with virtual machines, you are
legally obligated to purchase another license of Windows, one for each
virtual machine (XP's license lets you have multiple installs but only
one can be active at a time wherease Vista, and later, are more
restrictive). I suppose you could install some Linux variant in the
virtual machine and then check if WINE would let you run an install of
IE under that emulated environ.

There was a product from Altiris (called SVS) that could make apps look
like they didn't exist. It isolated the apps in their own virtualized
app environ but not disconnected from the real OS. This was not a
security solution as is a virtual machine. The apps would run just like
a regular app on your host so anything a non-SVS app could do on your
could also be performed by an SVS app when its app layer was enabled.
If you needed to run another version or load a conflicting program, you
would disable the app environ for one app and load the environ for the
conflicting app. That way, you could have multiple versions of the same
program installed or prevent conflicts between non-compatible apps.
Alas, Symantec acquired Altiris and the SVS product (free) disappeared
after a year. Symantec does that with lots of products to quash
competition under the guise they are going to incorporate the acquired
code into their own products but which often never happens. There
might've been other vendors of SVS (software virtualization solution)
but I only remember Altiris (since I used it until Symantec made it
disappear).

Instead of installing the web browsers on your own host, and somewhat
similar to SVS (virtualized app layering that you can enable/disable to
make apps appear/disappear from your host), you could run them as
virtualized apps. These are somewhat like sandboxes but are not
designed to isolate the app from the OS, devices, and other files or
software on your host. They are more like application layering where
everything for an installed app could be exposed or hidden. Spoon.net,
for example, has canned virtual apps you can run on your host. I think
you only need to download and install their web browser handler that
manages the app layering. After that, you can visit their site and
select which web browser you want to use. These are actually demos of
their app layering product to lure enterprise-level customers in
providing a means of doing what Altiris SVS did but they are fully
functional demos. They have lots of demos of varying types of software,
including web browser (http://spoon.net/browsers). From a glimpse at
that web page, it looks like you have to upgrade (pay money) to get
their app layering "sandbox" that supports the old version of the web
browsers.

You could save an image backup of your OS partition, install the base or
later version of IE for that version of Windows, and then restore from
the image afterward to get back to what you had before. That's a
nuisance determined by how long it takes to save an image backup (and
later do a restore). Some image backup programs, like Easeus ToDo
Workstation (payware), let you save snapshots. Those take only a couple
minutes to save and a minute to restore so they are doable to restore
your computer to a prior state after installing and testing some
software that you may not want to keep, are trialing, or are unknown and
possibly suspicious. I suppose this is akin to GoBack's snapshotting
that let you revert to a prior state in a quick and easy manner.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Robert Baer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-26-2013
Paul wrote:
> Robert Baer wrote:
>> Paul wrote:

>
>>>
>>> As for IE6, many eons ago, I took a snapshot of some temporary
>>> directory during an IE6 installation. And that folder of
>>> stuff, functions now as a stand alone installer. If I need to install
>>> IE6 on Win2K SP4 for example, I can use that to get the job done.
>>> Originally, the IE6 installer was a "stub" with no files. But
>>> by keeping the temp directory from the first install, I can
>>> redo it (without calling Microsoft) at a later date.

>
>> * Cool! Is it possible that (assuming i get those files) i could
>> install IE6 - WITHOUT interfering with IE5?
>> That way i can test web code on IE5, 6, 7, 6, and 9.
>>

>
> I think there is a different recipe for that.
>
> Someone figured out a way to run a few versions in parallel.
>
> http://www.tredosoft.com/Multiple_IE
>
> I doubt my installer would help, as it likely obliterates
> a previous IE.
>
> If you are good with virtual machines, you could likely run a
> bunch of those (one IE version per VM). Win2K would be the best
> candidate, with the caveat of a limited set of versions that
> would work. Probably IE6 would be the max in that case.
>
> Using Preview versions of Windows might extend your test
> capabilities. But at the current time, no OS previews are valid.
> That doesn't entirely spoil the fun. I can still install
> the Windows 7 preview, and it runs (in "not genuine" mode),
> and you can still get a few things done in it. Not a lot
> of fun though. And for the later versions of IE, I doubt
> a standalone installer is available. When I run a Preview copy
> of Windows 7, I like to keep it off the net. I don't expect
> it would run for more than 3 days (72 hours). I haven't tried
> a Windows 8 Preview version lately, to see how it behaves,
> as I have a real honest to goodness $39.95 install running
> instead.
>
> Paul

What i did, was make a HD with three partitions: Win2K, Win7, and Win7.
That Win2K is "upgraded" to IE6 and i have to use a separate HD for IE5.
The first Win7 has the default IE8 (which has a "compatibility" IE7
mode) and the second "upgraded" to IE9.
*
Nobody will say if a/any given OS running in a VM environment acts
the same as if directly installed on a HD, and i know so little about
the use and taming of any VM software that i (so far) am busy ignoring it.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Baer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-26-2013
VanguardLH wrote:
> Robert Baer wrote:
>
>> Is it possible that (assuming i get those files) i could
>> install IE6 - WITHOUT interfering with IE5?

>
> Don't recall why after more than a decade afterward but I'm sure you
> don't want to go below version 5.5 for Internet Explorer.
>
> IE 5.5:
> http://www.oldapps.com/internet_expl...et_explorer=13
>
> IE 6:
> http://www.oldapps.com/internet_expl...et_explorer=11

* Full version they say; size looks reasonable.
Tanks!!!

>
> IE 7:
> http://www.oldapps.com/internet_expl...net_explorer=9
>
> IE 8:
> http://www.oldapps.com/internet_expl...et_explorer=17
>
> IE9:
> too many to bother in a short time to pick one
>
> Do your own searches there. I just grabbed some URLs on what looked
> like a good match but didn't investigate if they were a beta, initial,
> full, or other type of installation.
>
>> That way i can test web code on IE5, 6, 7, 6, and 9.

>
> I have seen users claim they had the multiple IE libs installed
> concurrenty so they could load different versions of IE; however, the
> exercise was so convoluted with flaky results that I don't recommend it
> to anyone. Instead, some solutions are to use virtual machines in which
> you can have different versions of IE or use a virtualized copy of the
> web browser.

* I would not trust present "concurrent" programs further than tossing
Mt Everest.
Now, in the 1980's (roughly) things were cruder perhaps but a hell of
a lot more reliable and controllable.


>
> For a virtual machine, you cannot uninstall the base version of IE from
> Windows. I think IE6 came with Windows XP so you cannot get it down to
> IE5, only at IE6 or higher. Alas, with virtual machines, you are
> legally obligated to purchase another license of Windows, one for each
> virtual machine (XP's license lets you have multiple installs but only
> one can be active at a time wherease Vista, and later, are more
> restrictive). I suppose you could install some Linux variant in the
> virtual machine and then check if WINE would let you run an install of
> IE under that emulated environ.

* Presuming that would work, one can easily guarantee the operation of
the browser would NOT be the same as if installed directly in the
preferred OS.

>
> There was a product from Altiris (called SVS) that could make apps look
> like they didn't exist. It isolated the apps in their own virtualized
> app environ but not disconnected from the real OS. This was not a
> security solution as is a virtual machine. The apps would run just like
> a regular app on your host so anything a non-SVS app could do on your
> could also be performed by an SVS app when its app layer was enabled.
> If you needed to run another version or load a conflicting program, you
> would disable the app environ for one app and load the environ for the
> conflicting app. That way, you could have multiple versions of the same
> program installed or prevent conflicts between non-compatible apps.
> Alas, Symantec acquired Altiris and the SVS product (free) disappeared
> after a year. Symantec does that with lots of products to quash
> competition under the guise they are going to incorporate the acquired
> code into their own products but which often never happens. There
> might've been other vendors of SVS (software virtualization solution)
> but I only remember Altiris (since I used it until Symantec made it
> disappear).

* Sounds a bit complicated and contrived; wold not trust the operation
to be the same.

>
> Instead of installing the web browsers on your own host, and somewhat
> similar to SVS (virtualized app layering that you can enable/disable to
> make apps appear/disappear from your host), you could run them as
> virtualized apps. These are somewhat like sandboxes but are not
> designed to isolate the app from the OS, devices, and other files or
> software on your host. They are more like application layering where
> everything for an installed app could be exposed or hidden. Spoon.net,
> for example, has canned virtual apps you can run on your host. I think
> you only need to download and install their web browser handler that
> manages the app layering. After that, you can visit their site and
> select which web browser you want to use. These are actually demos of
> their app layering product to lure enterprise-level customers in
> providing a means of doing what Altiris SVS did but they are fully
> functional demos. They have lots of demos of varying types of software,
> including web browser (http://spoon.net/browsers). From a glimpse at
> that web page, it looks like you have to upgrade (pay money) to get
> their app layering "sandbox" that supports the old version of the web
> browsers.
>
> You could save an image backup of your OS partition, install the base or
> later version of IE for that version of Windows, and then restore from
> the image afterward to get back to what you had before. That's a
> nuisance determined by how long it takes to save an image backup (and
> later do a restore). Some image backup programs, like Easeus ToDo
> Workstation (payware), let you save snapshots. Those take only a couple
> minutes to save and a minute to restore so they are doable to restore
> your computer to a prior state after installing and testing some
> software that you may not want to keep, are trialing, or are unknown and
> possibly suspicious. I suppose this is akin to GoBack's snapshotting
> that let you revert to a prior state in a quick and easy manner.

I think my approach of multiple partitions, each with preferred OS
and its "native" browser is much more trustworthy.

 
Reply With Quote
 
VanguardLH
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-26-2013
Robert Baer wrote:

> VanguardLH wrote:
>
>> For a virtual machine, ...
>> ... I suppose you could install some Linux variant in the
>> virtual machine and then check if WINE would let you run an install of
>> IE under that emulated environ.

>
> * Presuming that would work, one can easily guarantee the operation of
> the browser would NOT be the same as if installed directly in the
> preferred OS.


You would have to ask a Linux newsgroup or forum on the viability of
running IE inside of WINE running on *NIX. When I'm using non-Windows
operating systems, they aren't intended for running Windows apps. They
run OS-native apps. It was a suggestion. As to your claim, it's just a
guess on your part. You don't know ... yet.

I'm assuming your statement was about running IE under WINE and not when
running IE in a VM. In a VM, obviously IE *would* behave the same
because it *is* running under Windows. The only "guarantee the
operation would NOT be the same" is that everything runs slower in a VM.
Hey, the VM is software emulated hardware after all, not real hardware.

>> There was a product from Altiris (called SVS) that could make apps look
>> like they didn't exist. It isolated the apps in their own virtualized
>> app environ but not disconnected from the real OS.

>
> * Sounds a bit complicated and contrived; wold not trust the operation
> to be the same.


Actually it worked extremely well. It was an enterprise-level program.
The free SVS server was a reduce functionality version but more than
sufficient for end users.

You could install multiple versions of MS Office. During installation
or later when executed, a version couldn't see anything of another
version. If you had software that conflicted with each other, you could
unload the layer for one and load the layer for the other (i.e., keep
them mutually exclusive) and each ran fine. Security software, like
anti-virus, dug too deep along with system hooks so they would still be
present whether app layers were loaded or not ... but then web browsers
aren't AV program or digging into the OS and instead run at the user
mode level. Before I heard about spoon.net (forget its original
domain), I used SVS to have several versions of IE available at once. I
had other web browsers installed. It was up to me as to which of them
were visible and which were hidden.

There were ways of penetrating an application layer but the point of
this software wasn't to isolate malware. It was to isolate apps. And
it worked very well, right up to when Symantec made it disappear. No
more difficult to manage than having to manage multiple VMs. With a VMM
(VM manager), you picked which VMs to load separately or concurrently.
You did the same with SVS.

I haven't kept track if any other software emerged that does the same as
SVS and for free. Symantec didn't exactly make it disappear as I see
they did incorporate it into some of their enterprise products. SVS
was, after all, a means for IT folks to control multiple-version or
conflicting software. The scheme was to have workstations get the app
layer from their server (but the free version was limited so it didn't
support policies, fancy exclusion/inclusion rules for app layer combos,
or retrieving app layers from a server). It worked but I don't know if
anything else came out at the consumer-level to replace it (and for
free). I mentioned it to show there are ways to reliably maintain
concurrent app layer definitions and decide which one(s) you wanted
active at any time.

If SVS were still around and supported in a freeware version, I wouldn't
need to multi-boot, use VMs (except to isolate unknown or suspect
software), do snapshots or image backups (to test software). I'd have
it create a new app layer, install the app, and then decide when I
wanted it active. Just a simple click from a popup menu from a tray
icon. Alas, that disappeared and nothing showed up to replace it (I
gave up looking after a couple years so I don't know if something showed
up in the last few years).

> I think my approach of multiple partitions, each with preferred OS
> and its "native" browser is much more trustworthy.


An approach you came up with 3 days after my post. I didn't know you
were willing to incur the impact of having to reboot the host and wait
for the OS to load to back up to speed to then start using another
version of an app. I was trying to find something that was faster and
possible concurrent; i.e., to test IE6, IE7, IE8, Chrome, Firefox, or
whatever are your test environs, you could test them together rather
than have to reboot and wait to test each one separately. The backup
scheme (or snapshotting) was just a last method that I thought of but
not much easier than your scheme (since you'd have to do an install of
IE after a snaphot to use that later version).

With an imaging program that provides for snapshotting (e.g., Easeus
ToDo Workstation), it took me about 4 minutes to snapshot the OS
partition. I'd then go "play" with whatever software I was
experimenting with, or do my tweaking, or whatever. When I was done,
restoring from the snapshot was under a minute. That's a hell of a lot
faster than loading VMs or waiting for an OS to load when multi-booting
(as you imply above). However, the problem there is you would have to
image or snaphot and then spend the time to install the next version of
IE or whatever was the app under test.

Acronis TrueImage has their "Try & Decide" feature: enable it, play, and
then reboot to wipe everything that changed. A separate product to do
the same thing is Returnil. When you enable their safe mode, all disk
writes are redirected to a virtual disk. I tested with benchmarks and
the delay to write to the virtual disk was neglible (I couldn't measure
a value outside the variance between tests). When you're done tweak
testing, trialing unknown or suspect software, or you R-E-A-L-L-Y want
to insure that your web browsing remains completely secret, you reboot.
On reboot, you're back to use Windows and the real hard disk. The
virtual disk isn't used on reboot so all changes that went there,
including registry changes, are gone.

I suspect you're talking about multi-booting. Yeah, that works, too, as
long as you have enough Windows licenses for all of that. Read the
EULA. The Windows XP specifies that the license is valid on one
computer at a time but also alludes that only the currently active one
counts as in use. We called Microsoft (sales, tech, legal) and were
told we could use 1 XP license installed in multiple partition, on
multiple removable hard disks, or on multiple hosts as long as only ONE
instance of that license was active at a time. Vista and later got more
restrictive in their licensing. With a VM, you would need at least 2 XP
licenses: one for the host OS and one for the guest OS (inside the VM)
since both are active at the same time. With multi-booting, you would
only have one instance as active.

If you go that route, I would suggest staying away from Microsoft's
crappy dual-boot scheme. They actually require loading [part of] the
kernel from one OS before you can decide if that's the one you want to
continue loading or you want to load a different OS instance. Use a
real multi-boot manager. GAG (gag.sourceforge.net) is freeware. You
can even have it load from a floppy (don't about CD) to run from there
before you decide to overwrite the MBR bootstrap code on the hard disk
with the GAG bootstrap code.

Personally I think the virtualized disk scheme (Acronis Try&Decide or
Returnil) would be more convenient for you. I gave up doing multi-
booting when I found this easier method. Of course, if you're in a
testing environment where you need changes to remain permanent for an
extended time then, yeah, virtualized disk that disappears on reboot
won't meet your needs. VMs would but you don't want to go that route.
 
Reply With Quote
 
bobmaria57@gmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2013
Go to http://www.pdftowordtool.com to download an effective pdf to word conversion tool for converting your pdf file to doc file or other word file format.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Baer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-28-2013
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> Go to http://www.pdftowordtool.com to download an effective pdf to word conversion tool for converting your pdf file to doc file or other word file format.

I may not have tried it; 80 percent chance it fails DOA, 10% fails
not a 32bit app, 20% chance result is garbage (yes! adds to >100%).

 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Baer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-03-2013
Robert Baer wrote:
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>> Go to http://www.pdftowordtool.com to download an effective pdf to
>> word conversion tool for converting your pdf file to doc file or other
>> word file format.

> I may not have tried it; 80 percent chance it fails DOA, 10% fails not a
> 32bit app, 20% chance result is garbage (yes! adds to >100%).
>

Miracle! I works! and reasonably accurate.
Thanks.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Postscript to PDF with pdf-tools, pdf-writer, or other Sean Nakasone Ruby 1 04-14-2008 09:13 PM
PDF::Writer, create pdf and insert in other pdf file. Ricardo Pog Ruby 1 03-26-2008 08:24 PM
Forced download of PDF producing 0kb PDF on only 1 computer darren@yellowpencil.com ASP .Net 1 05-05-2005 04:11 PM
Open linked PDF-Files from a PDF-File Paul Kuebler ASP .Net 8 08-18-2003 04:42 PM
Re: Open linked PDF-Files from a PDF-File Carl Prothman [MVP] ASP .Net 4 08-12-2003 09:26 AM



Advertisments