WordPad problem

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by dh@., Jun 12, 2007.

  1. dh@.

    dh@. Guest

    I made some WordPad documents using Windows 98 and WordPad. Then I
    loaded them into another computer that uses Windows xp version 5.1. They
    appeared to load okay, but when I try to open them I get the message:

    Can not load Word for Windows 6.0 files.

    What's up with that? Do later versions of WordPad not recognise things
    done using earlier versions, or what?
     
    dh@., Jun 12, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. dh@.

    Mike Walsh Guest

    I created files with WordPad in Win98SE and saved them as doc file and txt file. Both opened with WordPad in WinXP SP2. Maybe your problem has something to do with your formatting or an embedded object.

    dh@. wrote:
    >
    > I made some WordPad documents using Windows 98 and WordPad. Then I
    > loaded them into another computer that uses Windows xp version 5.1. They
    > appeared to load okay, but when I try to open them I get the message:
    >
    > Can not load Word for Windows 6.0 files.
    >
    > What's up with that? Do later versions of WordPad not recognise things
    > done using earlier versions, or what?


    --
    Mike Walsh
    West Palm Beach, Florida, U.S.A.
     
    Mike Walsh, Jun 12, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. dh@.

    dh@. Guest

    I don't know. I made them with WordPad, as doc files. They downloaded as doc files.
    There was no DOC listed in file types, so I added it. It automatically said it would
    open them with WordPad. So I tried it and got the same hell as before. So I went
    back to the file types, highlighted it and clicked Change, and it said:

    Windows cannot open this file... To open this file, Windows needs to know
    what program created it... you can manually select from a list of programs on
    your computer...

    So of course I selected WordPad again, which it had automatically highlighted.
    Stupidly thinking it would now work, I tried opening one and got the same message
    about Word for Windows 6.0 files again. What does a person have to do to get
    WordPad to open WordPad files?

    On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 23:02:02 -0400, Mike Walsh <> wrote:

    >
    >I created files with WordPad in Win98SE and saved them as doc file and txt file. Both opened with WordPad in WinXP SP2. Maybe your problem has something to do with your formatting or an embedded object.
    >
    >dh@. wrote:
    >>
    >> I made some WordPad documents using Windows 98 and WordPad. Then I
    >> loaded them into another computer that uses Windows xp version 5.1. They
    >> appeared to load okay, but when I try to open them I get the message:
    >>
    >> Can not load Word for Windows 6.0 files.
    >>
    >> What's up with that? Do later versions of WordPad not recognise things
    >> done using earlier versions, or what?
     
    dh@., Jun 12, 2007
    #3
  4. dh@.

    Ben Myers Guest

    See http://support.microsoft.com/kb/883090

    Ben

    <dh@.> wrote in message news:...
    > I made some WordPad documents using Windows 98 and WordPad. Then I
    > loaded them into another computer that uses Windows xp version 5.1. They
    > appeared to load okay, but when I try to open them I get the message:
    >
    > Can not load Word for Windows 6.0 files.
    >
    > What's up with that? Do later versions of WordPad not recognise things
    > done using earlier versions, or what?
     
    Ben Myers, Jun 12, 2007
    #4
  5. dh@.

    thanatoid Guest

    dh@. wrote in
    news::

    <SNIP>

    > What does a person have
    > to do to get WordPad to open WordPad files?


    Why do you think there are about 200,000 NotePad and WordPad and
    Word replacements, almost all of which are smaller, faster,
    better (many are also free), and which don't get you in this
    kind of mess with a product made by a company which purposely
    makes a new version of a major program incompatible with the
    previous one thereby forcing everyone to buy the new version?

    Unless you are doing serious DTP or pre-print or printing fancy
    stuff at home for whatever reasons, you should always use txt
    and txt only. Every computer on Earth can read it, it's 20-50
    times smaller than the doc format, it's faster and it never
    causes any trouble.

    I strongly recommend you try NoteTab Light, it's free and you
    will not believe what it can do.

    http://www.notetab.com

    BTW, if you rename your files to whatever01.txt (etc) and open
    them in Notepad (unless they're too big, in which case just DL
    the above mentioned program) you should be able to extract the
    text. It'll be a hassle but that's the price.

    95% of a doc format file has nothing to do with the word
    content. But Word does like to include snippets of sentences you
    *thought* you deleted, your name (even if you had no intention
    of having it there), and other more or less interesting things.
    Great product.
     
    thanatoid, Jun 13, 2007
    #5
  6. dh@.

    Guest

    On Jun 12, 2:18 am, dh@. wrote:
    > I made some WordPad documents using Windows 98 and WordPad. Then I
    > loaded them into another computer that uses Windows xp version 5.1. They
    > appeared to load okay, but when I try to open them I get the message:
    >
    > Can not load Word for Windows 6.0 files.
    >
    > What's up with that? Do later versions of WordPad not recognise things
    > done using earlier versions, or what?


    Windows XP is Windows NT v5.1 (the 5.1 is mentioned in
    start..run..msinfo32)

    There is no such thing as your term.

    Anyhow, something screwed up. Try to repeat the problem if you're
    interested finding what the problem was, the root of it. But to just
    solve your problem. You have a file you want to open.

    If you don't have Ms Word, try Word Viewer.
    It's free and should open anything from word, wordpad, whatever. Just
    as Word would.
    http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...87-8732-48D5-8689-AB826E7B8FDF&displaylang=en

    Like Word, it can open documents saved in earlier versions of Word.

    You can then click edit..select all, and Copy,paste. The text into
    your word processor e.g. wordpad.
     
    , Jun 13, 2007
    #6
  7. dh@.

    Guest

    Why I use doc files instead of txt files !

    On Jun 13, 7:11 am, thanatoid <> wrote:
    > dh@. wrote innews::
    >
    > <SNIP>
    >
    > > What does a person have
    > > to do to get WordPad to open WordPad files?

    >
    > Why do you think there are about 200,000 NotePad and WordPad and
    > Word replacements, almost all of which are smaller, faster,
    > better (many are also free), and which don't get you in this
    > kind of mess with a product made by a company which purposely
    > makes a new version of a major program incompatible with the
    > previous one thereby forcing everyone to buy the new version?
    >
    > Unless you are doing serious DTP or pre-print or printing fancy
    > stuff at home for whatever reasons, you should always use txt
    > and txt only. Every computer on Earth can read it, it's 20-50
    > times smaller than the doc format, it's faster and it never
    > causes any trouble.
    >


    With txt you can't increase or decrease font size.. Or was it that
    text editors have some workaround.. I tried it once. It's not as good
    as being able to change the font size properly.

    Say i'm writing a LONG file, researching something.

    I want to be able to make things bold.
    (not becaue i'm selling something. But because i'm a geek and I may
    have figured something out, and I want it to stand out so next time I
    see it).

    Make some things Big. So I can jump around the document fast and see
    things.

    I want to be able to write a whole load of stuff, and if it's not
    important, make it TINY like size 4, so I can skip over it quickly.

    I might put something in italics, to indicate to me that it is very
    much in progress... Perhaps i'm copying and pasting bits and bobs
    from the the web into my document , and I want to study it , figure it
    out.. The italics is not my words.

    You can't make tables in a text file.

    With txt you can't make text a different colour.. e.g. say I've got a
    whole load of very misc stuff at the end of a file, that I don't want
    to remove from the file, but i don't want to print either. So I make
    it red so I know not to print it, and to skip over it quickly. I can
    go to the bottom of the document, hold page up until the red
    disappears. Getting to the real end of my document.


    I may want to draw a very simple diagram.
    A square for example. some text in it.

    What hassle it is drawing a square in ascii !!!!

    And typing in that square will ruin the square! You then have to
    correct the square..

    A circle is impossible.

    conceptually, shapes like square and circles are useful. This is not
    DTP.

    suppose I want to draw a conceptual, abstract, sketch , of anything -
    a mini roundabout. All I need to do is a circle, and some lines. It's
    not DTP or advanced DTP.

    I have txt files, and doc files. My txt files are small. Anything big
    is in a doc file. I do not write long txt files. My txt files if
    they're any use , combine into a doc, because little txt files are
    disorganised.

    Suppose I want bookmarks. I have some files where I made good use of
    them. Like hyperlink. So I can jump around the document through an
    index at the top.

    Suppose I am convinced of the stuff about certain contrast in colours
    being better on the eyes, and black on white being terrible. So I
    could do Green text on a black background.. Or the old word perfect
    5.2 or edit.com look, I think, white text on a blue background.

    The main reason I don't use txt is font sizes. (tiny font size is as
    useful as large. totally different use) . The next is probably
    inability to draw shapes. I find it necessary from time to time.

    <snip>
     
    , Jun 13, 2007
    #7
  8. dh@.

    thanatoid Guest

    Re: Why I use doc files instead of txt files !

    "" <> wrote
    in
    news::


    > With txt you can't increase or decrease font size.. Or was
    > it that text editors have some workaround.. I tried it
    > once. It's not as good as being able to change the font
    > size properly.


    Form over content, huh?

    > Say i'm writing a LONG file, researching something.
    >
    > I want to be able to make things bold.
    > (not because i'm selling something. But because i'm a geek
    > and I may have figured something out, and I want it to
    > stand out so next time I see it).


    You can put it between *, #, +++++++++++ or ---------- or
    ============ lines as a workaround. Doing a search for a
    character like that will also let you immediately find the
    section(s).

    > Make some things Big. So I can jump around the document
    > fast and see things.


    Get glasses. Or set the default to a different font. (There can
    only be ONE font of one size, but it can be anything you like.)

    > I want to be able to write a whole load of stuff, and if
    > it's not important, make it TINY like size 4, so I can skip
    > over it quickly.


    Ever heard of the page down key? Or the search function for a
    word you remember appears in the first paragraph of the part you
    want to get to?

    > I might put something in italics, to indicate to me that it
    > is very much in progress... Perhaps i'm copying and
    > pasting bits and bobs from the web into my document ,
    > and I want to study it , figure it out.. The italics is not
    > my words.


    Again, as mentioned above, there are ways of distinguishing
    quotes and other "formattable" sections.

    > You can't make tables in a text file.


    True. But you can make a table in a 150KB free program, save it
    in a common graphics format which every computer on earth can
    read, and keep it with the txt file with an indication as to
    where it goes.

    > With txt you can't make text a different colour.. e.g. say
    > I've got a whole load of very misc stuff at the end of a
    > file, that I don't want to remove from the file, but i
    > don't want to print either. So I make it red so I know not
    > to print it, and to skip over it quickly. I can go to the
    > bottom of the document, hold page up until the red
    > disappears. Getting to the real end of my document.


    I don't have the patience to explain the 10 or so keystrokes
    required to achieve exactly the same thing.

    > I may want to draw a very simple diagram.
    > A square for example. some text in it.


    You can do that in another 150KB free program and keep it with
    the txt file with an indication as to where it goes.

    > What hassle it is drawing a square in ascii !!!!


    Actually not THAT much of a hassle, but MS has made everyone
    rather lazy.

    > And typing in that square will ruin the square! You then
    > have to correct the square..


    Awwwwwww. Life is SO hard isn't it?

    > A circle is impossible.


    A little difficult, but not impossible. And again, you can make
    one in another 150KB free program and keep it with the txt file
    with an indication as to where it goes.

    > conceptually, shapes like square and circles are useful.
    > This is not DTP.


    They can be substituted by other things with no change in the
    effect on the reader.

    > suppose I want to draw a conceptual, abstract, sketch , of
    > anything - a mini roundabout. All I need to do is a circle,
    > and some lines. It's not DTP or advanced DTP.


    No, it's something that needs a tiny free program like Quickdraw
    or one of 1,000 similar ones.

    > I have txt files, and doc files. My txt files are small.
    > Anything big is in a doc file. I do not write long txt
    > files. My txt files if they're any use , combine into a
    > doc, because little txt files are disorganised.


    Or maybe you are.

    > Suppose I want bookmarks. I have some files where I made
    > good use of them. Like hyperlink. So I can jump around the
    > document through an index at the top.


    I am not sure, but I think NoteTab can do hyperlinks and/or
    bookmarks. Anyway, there are manual ways of doing it. But as I
    already said, MS has made everyone rather lazy.

    > Suppose I am convinced of the stuff about certain contrast
    > in colours being better on the eyes, and black on white
    > being terrible. So I could do Green text on a black
    > background.. Or the old word perfect 5.2 or edit.com look,
    > I think, white text on a blue background.


    Most of the Notepad substitutes allow you to choose colors for
    txt and bkgd. Of course, the colors will only be "in effect" on
    your machine in that program. Still, if someone can't read black
    on white, they can change the colors themselves in whatever
    program they use. Unless of course, you are using the very
    latest version of Word and they have a much older version of WP.

    > The main reason I don't use txt is font sizes. (tiny font
    > size is as useful as large. totally different use) . The
    > next is probably inability to draw shapes. I find it
    > necessary from time to time.


    Already addressed above.

    Also:

    1.
    Almost any DTP program (even something like SerifPlus even
    though I admit I have never used it) let alone PageMaker, Quark,
    or InDesign will do all that you want 100 times better. Not to
    mention most are smaller and faster and doesn't crash all the
    time and don't hide private info and deleted sentences at the
    end of the document where anyone can read them in a real file
    viewer.

    Before I stopped thinking about it (except when I see posts like
    yours) I used to think that the main problem with Word was that
    it tried to do everything (and funked most of it) instead of
    just doing one thing right. I still believe this to be the case.
    This criticism can regrettably also be applied to most other
    current software.

    In fact I sometimes use Pagemaker (6.52) JUST for its text
    editor/spelling functions because they are so superior to
    Word's.

    2.
    Word is a smelly pig the size of the Titanic. Of course, you may
    like that kind of thing. But it also has about 100,000
    options/functions of which I am *absolutely convinced* not ONE
    SINGLE person on Earth knows ALL, 50% of which no one EVER uses,
    and all of which make the program incredibly slow and cumbersome
    and confusing to use. (Not to mention incompatible with
    everything else - but of course, that's how MS wants it.)

    It gives me a headache just to see its screen with all the
    ridiculous toolbars and all the "eye candy" shit it dumps all
    over your document.
    I won't even mention Clippy.

    I know most of it (except the basic "all users are morons so we
    are going to do everything for you the way WE think it should be
    done" Microsoft philosophy) can be customized, but why should
    you have to spend 5 hours customizing stupid things which have
    no place in a word processor in the first place?

    Regards
    t.

    --
    Disagreements and the usual insults expected and welcomed.
     
    thanatoid, Jun 14, 2007
    #8
  9. dh@.

    Guest

    Re: Why I use doc files instead of txt files !

    On Jun 14, 9:10 pm, thanatoid <> wrote:
    > "" <> wrote
    > innews::
    >
    > > With txt you can't increase or decrease font size.. Or was
    > > it that text editors have some workaround.. I tried it
    > > once. It's not as good as being able to change the font
    > > size properly.

    >
    > Form over content, huh?
    >


    try reading more of what I wrote.

    But you agree, you can't change the font size (different text
    different sizes).

    > > Say i'm writing a LONG file, researching something.

    >
    > > I want to be able to make things bold.
    > > (not because i'm selling something. But because i'm a geek
    > > and I may have figured something out, and I want it to
    > > stand out so next time I see it).

    >
    > You can put it between *, #, +++++++++++ or ---------- or
    > ============ lines as a workaround. Doing a search for a
    > character like that will also let you immediately find the
    > section(s).
    >


    true, that bold isn't really necessary, one can use ****...*** , which
    is just as good.

    Regarding finding text. Making some text larger so as to find it or a
    section, is quite different to searching for text.

    e.g.
    holding page up/down for a few seconds is far easier on the fingers ,
    and quicker, than searching for text.
    The TEXT alternative to that is **********...........***********
    again.

    To emphasise the text.

    And one could search for ***s, so i'll say that making a font bigger
    is not that necessary.
    Sometimes holding page down can be quicker than making a search. But
    searching for ** isn't *such* hassle.

    > > Make some things Big. So I can jump around the document
    > > fast and see things.

    >
    > Get glasses. Or set the default to a different font. (There can
    > only be ONE font of one size, but it can be anything you like.)
    >


    You clearly don't get it. But as you accidentally pointed out, the
    ***s thing can be used to emphasise. Then a search of *s.

    That is an alternative to the making CERTAIN text bigger so it's
    quickly visible.

    My point though, is that it's good to make certain text BIG and
    certain text SMALL. To emphasise and deemphasise.

    > > I want to be able to write a whole load of stuff, and if
    > > it's not important, make it TINY like size 4, so I can skip
    > > over it quickly.

    >
    > Ever heard of the page down key? Or the search function for a
    > word you remember appears in the first paragraph of the part you
    > want to get to?
    >


    Not a good alternative.

    One shouldn't have to remember the words/language of what one wrote.
    Suppose it was written a month ago, and is a long document. And you're
    not thinking about looking for a certain paragraph. You want to read
    the thing , MINUS a LARGE CHUNK. Because the LARGE CHUNK is just
    there 'cos it's information relevant to surrounding text, and it's to
    be reviewed and combined into the text around it. It's material very
    much in draft form. Straight in the middle of a document that is in
    good form. e.g. suppose the document is on Gardening, and the
    document is fairly complete, self-contained, unambiguous. Then one
    plant is mentioned, and i'm not clear on it.. The writing continues.
    But near where that plant is mentioned, I dump a whole load of info
    for further review, and to be combined into the text around it, or to
    resolve ambiguities in the text i've written.

    i.e.

    I want to make text TINY so that I see it, but it doesn't get in the
    way.

    You're saying "well, you can, get the same effect if you remember the
    first words of the paragraph after it". That's not a good alternative.
    Especially since the paragprah after it may not be particularly
    significant. But it's part of what I want to read.

    It's about the document not being messy. IF I havve 40 pages of good
    stuff and some draft stuff that would take up one page, and is between
    pages 20 and 21. Then i'll make it size 4. Maybe it'll only take a
    paragraph. I won't lose the flow of what i'm looking at.

    Your page down method here won't work.
    Suppose you open the document and go anywhere in it. I wouldn't want
    to run into the draft stuff in a regular font size. THen i'd have to
    go up a few pages to see that it is draft stuff..


    > > I might put something in italics, to indicate to me that it
    > > is very much in progress... Perhaps i'm copying and
    > > pasting bits and bobs from the web into my document ,
    > > and I want to study it , figure it out.. The italics is not
    > > my words.

    >
    > Again, as mentioned above, there are ways of distinguishing
    > quotes and other "formattable" sections.
    >


    yeah, at the beginning and end of them.

    If the section spans a few pages that's another matter.

    And if it's being distinguished as not that important, then it's all
    te worse to be stuck in the middle of 10 pages of it.

    > > You can't make tables in a text file.

    >
    > True. But you can make a table in a 150KB free program, save it
    > in a common graphics format which every computer on earth can
    > read, and keep it with the txt file with an indication as to
    > where it goes.
    >


    so we need 2 programs. ok.
    And this isn't quite as quick as making a table in Word. Amending its
    contents in word, amending the table 'frame' in word



    > > With txt you can't make text a different colour.. e.g. say
    > > I've got a whole load of very misc stuff at the end of a
    > > file, that I don't want to remove from the file, but i
    > > don't want to print either. So I make it red so I know not
    > > to print it, and to skip over it quickly. I can go to the
    > > bottom of the document, hold page up until the red
    > > disappears. Getting to the real end of my document.

    >
    > I don't have the patience to explain the 10 or so keystrokes
    > required to achieve exactly the same thing.
    >


    10 keystrokes!!!!!

    Anyhow, with a macro I can make text red by clicking ONE BUTTON !!!

    And anyhow, your idea of acheiving 'exactly the same thing' is often
    fantasy.

    > > I may want to draw a very simple diagram.
    > > A square for example. some text in it.

    >
    > You can do that in another 150KB free program and keep it with
    > the txt file with an indication as to where it goes.
    >



    why repeat yourself. Just list the programs / alternatives. ONCE

    I can imagine that a program that draws shapes in ascii is going to be
    small.

    > > What hassle it is drawing a square in ascii !!!!

    >
    > Actually not THAT much of a hassle, but MS has made everyone
    > rather lazy.


    So don't use a computer then. Do it by hand. "Awwwww" the fool says.
    Computers have made people "so lazy".

    Anybody with an ounce of sense knows the difference between being lazy
    and being efficient.


    >
    > > And typing in that square will ruin the square! You then
    > > have to correct the square..

    >
    > Awwwwwww. Life is SO hard isn't it?
    >


    You could easily walk a 10min journey on your hands and feet, it'd
    suit you. It wouldn't be "SO HARD".

    You can then tell everybody else that they're idiots for walking in a
    more efficient manner. And you can pretend that the only reason why
    they don't walk on their hands and feet is because 'it's too hard for
    them'.

    >
    > No, it's something that needs a tiny free program like Quickdraw
    > or one of 1,000 similar ones.
    >



    finally at least you name a program

    > > I have txt files, and doc files. My txt files are small.
    > > Anything big is in a doc file. I do not write long txt
    > > files. My txt files if they're any use , combine into a
    > > doc, because little txt files are disorganised.



    >
    > > Suppose I want bookmarks. I have some files where I made
    > > good use of them. Like hyperlink. So I can jump around the
    > > document through an index at the top.

    >
    > I am not sure, but I think NoteTab can do hyperlinks and/or
    > bookmarks. Anyway, there are manual ways of doing it. But as I
    > already said, MS has made everyone rather lazy.
    >


    Not such a big deal anyway. I find I don't use them much. But when I
    have they've been useful.

    The thing is a text editor wouldn't store these things in a the file.
    'cos it's a text file.




    > > Suppose I am convinced of the stuff about certain contrast
    > > in colours being better on the eyes, and black on white
    > > being terrible. So I could do Green text on a black
    > > background.. Or the old word perfect 5.2 or edit.com look,
    > > I think, white text on a blue background.

    >
    > Most of the Notepad substitutes allow you to choose colors for
    > txt and bkgd. Of course, the colors will only be "in effect" on
    > your machine in that program. Still, if someone can't read black
    > on white, they can change the colors themselves in whatever
    > program they use. Unless of course, you are using the very
    > latest version of Word and they have a much older version of WP.
    >


    ok

    Anyhow.
    The limitation of using text, to emphasise text, has its limitations,
    as mentioned.

    <snip>

    > Also:
    >
    > 1.
    > Almost any DTP program (even something like SerifPlus even
    > though I admit I have never used it) let alone PageMaker, Quark,
    > or InDesign will do all that you want 100 times better. Not to
    > mention most are smaller and faster and doesn't crash all the
    > time and don't hide private info and deleted sentences at the
    > end of the document where anyone can read them in a real file
    > viewer.
    >
    > Before I stopped thinking about it (except when I see posts like
    > yours) I used to think that the main problem with Word was that
    > it tried to do everything (and funked most of it) instead of
    > just doing one thing right. I still believe this to be the case.
    > This criticism can regrettably also be applied to most other
    > current software.
    >
    > In fact I sometimes use Pagemaker (6.52) JUST for its text
    > editor/spelling functions because they are so superior to
    > Word's.
    >
    > 2.
    > Word is a smelly pig the size of the Titanic. Of course, you may
    > like that kind of thing. But it also has about 100,000
    > options/functions of which I am *absolutely convinced* not ONE
    > SINGLE person on Earth knows ALL, 50% of which no one EVER uses,
    > and all of which make the program incredibly slow and cumbersome
    > and confusing to use. (Not to mention incompatible with
    > everything else - but of course, that's how MS wants it.)
    >
    > It gives me a headache just to see its screen with all the
    > ridiculous toolbars and all the "eye candy" shit it dumps all
    > over your document.
    > I won't even mention Clippy.
    >
    > I know most of it (except the basic "all users are morons so we
    > are going to do everything for you the way WE think it should be
    > done" Microsoft philosophy) can be customized, but why should
    > you have to spend 5 hours customizing stupid things which have
    > no place in a word processor in the first place?
    >


    now who is lazy.

    It doesn't take 5 hours of customizing.

    I still use Ms Word 97 on one machine. No customizing at all.

    Later words I may have to look into hiding the clippy thing. Removing
    the "startup pane". I think that's about it.

    I've seen a glimpse of the very latest Ms Word, it looks nasty. No
    doubt it's possible to get it back to the classic look. Somehow! But
    I can't comment on that one, I haven't used it.
    Annyhow, I can use MS Word 97 fine.
    And if somebody is too stupid to know how to save a doc file as an
    earlier version, then i'll use Ms Word Viewer. A free download.
    I guess in some cases it may lose some formatting..
    But anyhow, I shouldn't be using SUCH old versions of things. I tended
    to use Win 98 for a year or two into Win XP time. And i'm still on Win
    XP.
     
    , Jun 15, 2007
    #9
  10. dh@.

    thanatoid Guest

    Re: Why I use doc files instead of txt files !

    "" <> wrote
    in news::

    > On Jun 14, 9:10 pm, thanatoid <>
    > wrote:


    <SNIP>

    I think we can agree that (mainly I, but you played along) we
    were just killing time with an argument which would be much
    better conducted in person since it could quite easily take
    hours if not days or weeks or months.

    So I will just respond to one thing you said - and allow me to
    say that I am a bit of a fanatic, and I like to argue for
    arguing's sake, although everything I do, I *do* do in txt, or
    Pagemaker. And I still use 95B on a 166MHz/64MB (I have 98SELite
    on my 2nd computer because I got tired of waiting 3 hours for a
    song to convert from one format to another).

    > Anybody with an ounce of sense knows the difference between
    > being lazy and being efficient.


    (I once read somewhere that - in that author's opinion - lazy
    people tended to be efficient and do things right the first
    time, to avoid having to do more work. Interesting, huh?)

    The are VERY few people in the world who would call using MS
    Word later than ver. 2 "efficient". You should try AmiPro. Now
    THAT was a great word processor - AND MORE. You can still find
    it if you look around. Read this:

    http://www.zisman.ca/Articles/1991-92/OCP_AmiPro.html

    It apparently runs GREAT under XP!

    Regards
    t.
     
    thanatoid, Jun 16, 2007
    #10
  11. dh@.

    Guest

    Re: Why I use doc files instead of txt files !

    On 16 Jun, 05:12, thanatoid <> wrote:
    > "" <> wrote
    > innews::
    >
    > > On Jun 14, 9:10 pm, thanatoid <>
    > > wrote:

    >
    > <SNIP>
    >
    > I think we can agree that (mainly I, but you played along) we
    > were just killing time with an argument which would be much
    > better conducted in person since it could quite easily take
    > hours if not days or weeks or months.



    Possibly.. Though I think a public archived "forum" with lots of
    participants, is far more fruitful and worthwhile on a global scale,
    than one on one real life converations. In the latter, only 2 people
    benefit, and sub points of discussion last as long as a man's short
    term memory.

    However, considering we are having this discussion on the world stage,
    it's suprising how little anybody has to say on the matter!!
    I never understood that about newsgroups

    Anyhow, I think the arguments have been made.

    >
    > So I will just respond to one thing you said - and allow me to
    > say that I am a bit of a fanatic, and I like to argue for
    > arguing's sake, although everything I do, I *do* do in txt, or
    > Pagemaker. And I still use 95B on a 166MHz/64MB (I have 98SELite
    > on my 2nd computer because I got tired of waiting 3 hours for a
    > song to convert from one format to another).
    >



    For most techies that don't have an urge to install the latest windows
    version and new technology. End users push them into it.

    Nowadays comps break quicker - shorter lifespan. One has to buy a MBRD
    ot today. It's unwise to get a second hand one.

    Now my priority is fanless machines. (I have noise issues). And i'm
    not that interested in going into the computer industry..

    Most people that are really into the whole small program, efficient
    code thing , would I suppose use linux and no GUI.

    I know that some people are still using DOS.
    For everything. Browsing the web, e.t.c.


    > > Anybody with an ounce of sense knows the difference between
    > > being lazy and being efficient.

    >
    > (I once read somewhere that - in that author's opinion - lazy
    > people tended to be efficient and do things right the first
    > time, to avoid having to do more work. Interesting, huh?)
    >


    The author is interesting psychologically. He is talking of computer
    efficient people, calling themselves lazy because it sounds cool. Of
    course, he is most probably one of them.

    Lazy people do nothing, and would be offended if somebody else was to
    steal their title.

    > The are VERY few people in the world who would call using MS
    > Word later than ver. 2 "efficient". You should try AmiPro. Now
    > THAT was a great word processor - AND MORE. You can still find
    > it if you look around. Read this:
    >
    > http://www.zisman.ca/Articles/1991-92/OCP_AmiPro.html
    >
    > It apparently runs GREAT under XP!
    >


    Interesting. Back in the days of Win 3.1, I used and quite liked
    Windows Write. With no internet access, and I guess not shopping, I
    wasn't aware of AmiPro. I may give it a look.
     
    , Jun 17, 2007
    #11
  12. dh@.

    Guest

    Re: Why I use doc files instead of txt files ! O/T

    thanatoid <> wrote:
    > "" <> wrote
    > in news::
    >
    > > On Jun 14, 9:10 pm, thanatoid <>
    > > wrote:

    >
    > <SNIP>
    >
    >
    >
    > And I still use 95B on a 166MHz/64MB (I have 98SELite
    > on my 2nd computer because I got tired of waiting 3 hours for a
    > song to convert from one format to another).
    > <snip>


    Just curious. I run 98 SE on a P166mmx with 64 mb edo ram on a 3 gig
    drive.Do you have your 95B on fat16 or 32 and why?

    Regards.........

    --
    -------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
    Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
     
    , Jun 17, 2007
    #12
  13. dh@.

    Robert Baer Guest

    Re: Why I use doc files instead of txt files !

    wrote:
    > On 16 Jun, 05:12, thanatoid <> wrote:
    >
    >>"" <> wrote
    >>innews::
    >>
    >>
    >>>On Jun 14, 9:10 pm, thanatoid <>
    >>>wrote:

    >>
    >><SNIP>
    >>
    >>I think we can agree that (mainly I, but you played along) we
    >>were just killing time with an argument which would be much
    >>better conducted in person since it could quite easily take
    >>hours if not days or weeks or months.

    >
    >
    >
    > Possibly.. Though I think a public archived "forum" with lots of
    > participants, is far more fruitful and worthwhile on a global scale,
    > than one on one real life converations. In the latter, only 2 people
    > benefit, and sub points of discussion last as long as a man's short
    > term memory.
    >
    > However, considering we are having this discussion on the world stage,
    > it's suprising how little anybody has to say on the matter!!
    > I never understood that about newsgroups
    >
    > Anyhow, I think the arguments have been made.
    >
    >
    >>So I will just respond to one thing you said - and allow me to
    >>say that I am a bit of a fanatic, and I like to argue for
    >>arguing's sake, although everything I do, I *do* do in txt, or
    >>Pagemaker. And I still use 95B on a 166MHz/64MB (I have 98SELite
    >>on my 2nd computer because I got tired of waiting 3 hours for a
    >>song to convert from one format to another).
    >>

    >
    >
    >
    > For most techies that don't have an urge to install the latest windows
    > version and new technology. End users push them into it.
    >
    > Nowadays comps break quicker - shorter lifespan. One has to buy a MBRD
    > ot today. It's unwise to get a second hand one.
    >
    > Now my priority is fanless machines. (I have noise issues). And i'm
    > not that interested in going into the computer industry..
    >
    > Most people that are really into the whole small program, efficient
    > code thing , would I suppose use linux and no GUI.
    >
    > I know that some people are still using DOS.
    > For everything. Browsing the web, e.t.c.
    >
    >
    >
    >>>Anybody with an ounce of sense knows the difference between
    >>>being lazy and being efficient.

    >>
    >>(I once read somewhere that - in that author's opinion - lazy
    >>people tended to be efficient and do things right the first
    >>time, to avoid having to do more work. Interesting, huh?)
    >>

    >
    >
    > The author is interesting psychologically. He is talking of computer
    > efficient people, calling themselves lazy because it sounds cool. Of
    > course, he is most probably one of them.
    >
    > Lazy people do nothing, and would be offended if somebody else was to
    > steal their title.
    >
    >
    >>The are VERY few people in the world who would call using MS
    >>Word later than ver. 2 "efficient". You should try AmiPro. Now
    >>THAT was a great word processor - AND MORE. You can still find
    >>it if you look around. Read this:
    >>
    >>http://www.zisman.ca/Articles/1991-92/OCP_AmiPro.html
    >>
    >>It apparently runs GREAT under XP!
    >>

    >
    >
    > Interesting. Back in the days of Win 3.1, I used and quite liked
    > Windows Write. With no internet access, and I guess not shopping, I
    > wasn't aware of AmiPro. I may give it a look.
    >
    >

    *RageMaker*??? Another M$ POS.
    Most of the time i use text with a "dumb" editor.
    I run 3 OSes: DOS (Win3.11 installed and used on occasion), Win98SE
    (using it now and us it most of the time), and Win2K for programs that
    "demand" that as a minimum.
    Even wrote DOS programs that can use all memory available, that run
    in DOS and AFAIK all WinDoze OSes (as-is).
     
    Robert Baer, Jun 17, 2007
    #13
  14. dh@.

    thanatoid Guest

    Re: Why I use doc files instead of txt files ! O/T

    wrote in
    news:20070616220829.558$:

    > thanatoid <> wrote:
    >> "" <>
    >> wrote in
    >> news::
    >>
    >> > On Jun 14, 9:10 pm, thanatoid <>
    >> > wrote:

    >>
    >> <SNIP>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> And I still use 95B on a 166MHz/64MB (I have 98SELite
    >> on my 2nd computer because I got tired of waiting 3 hours
    >> for a song to convert from one format to another).
    >> <snip>

    >
    > Just curious. I run 98 SE on a P166mmx with 64 mb edo ram
    > on a 3 gig drive.Do you have your 95B on fat16 or 32 and
    > why?
    >
    > Regards.........
    >


    That was exactly what I bought almost exactly 10 years ago.
    Since then I have changed HD's and added an LG CD-R drive. I
    still have 64MB of RAM but I do have a Matrox graphics card with
    its own memory.

    I have both 95B and 98SELite formatted with FAT32. The 166 95B
    machine had 7 partitions on an 8.4 drive, the other 16 on a 40
    GB drive.

    Fat 32 (introduced with the OEM version of Win95B while
    Microsoft was still selling MS Windows95A in stores and with
    brand name machines) has a variety of advantages over 16 which
    you can read about in wikipedia and thousands of other places. I
    have never had any problems. FWIW, I have read an *MVP* refer to
    the NTFS file system as "fiasco" - not that it is applicable to
    our machines.

    BTW if you use the 166 machine for the web, I strongly recommend
    visiting www.offbyone.com. You will be amazed.

    Regards
    t.

    --
    Disagreements and the usual insults expected and welcomed.
     
    thanatoid, Jun 17, 2007
    #14
  15. dh@.

    thanatoid Guest

    Re: Why I use doc files instead of txt files !

    "" <> wrote
    in news::

    > On 16 Jun, 05:12, thanatoid <>
    > wrote:
    >> "" <>
    >> wrote
    >> innews:
    >> :
    >>
    >> > On Jun 14, 9:10 pm, thanatoid <>
    >> > wrote:

    >>
    >> <SNIP>
    >>
    >> I think we can agree that (mainly I, but you played along)
    >> we were just killing time with an argument which would be
    >> much better conducted in person since it could quite
    >> easily take hours if not days or weeks or months.

    >
    >
    > Possibly.. Though I think a public archived "forum" with
    > lots of participants, is far more fruitful and worthwhile
    > on a global scale, than one on one real life converations.
    > In the latter, only 2 people benefit, and sub points of
    > discussion last as long as a man's short term memory.
    >
    > However, considering we are having this discussion on the
    > world stage, it's suprising how little anybody has to say
    > on the matter!! I never understood that about newsgroups


    This group (although I see you have crossposted to a few more)
    is rather under-populated. Also, I think most people get tired
    of arguing with me. I have been mistreated rather harshly is
    some groups just for expressing opinions. But then of course
    there are those who are even worse than me with arguing just for
    something to do.

    > Anyhow, I think the arguments have been made.


    Agreed. :)

    >>
    >> So I will just respond to one thing you said - and allow
    >> me to say that I am a bit of a fanatic, and I like to
    >> argue for arguing's sake, although everything I do, I *do*
    >> do in txt, or Pagemaker. And I still use 95B on a
    >> 166MHz/64MB (I have 98SELite on my 2nd computer because I
    >> got tired of waiting 3 hours for a song to convert from
    >> one format to another).
    >>

    > For most techies that don't have an urge to install the
    > latest windows version and new technology. End users push
    > them into it.
    >
    > Nowadays comps break quicker - shorter lifespan. One has to
    > buy a MBRD ot today. It's unwise to get a second hand one.


    This computer is almost 10 yars old and runs just great. Of
    course, it took years of tweaking Win95B to behave the way it
    should.

    > Now my priority is fanless machines. (I have noise issues).
    > And i'm not that interested in going into the computer
    > industry..


    Just for fun of it, ever looked at the tiny Mac the size of a CD
    drive? It has no fan I believe. The really cool looking white
    one about 5-8 years ago didn't have a fan either, but was so
    ridiculously overpriced I only ever saw it on the set of the
    Drew Carey show. (The set designers often get to take stuff home
    it's over.)

    But I am not a Mac fan. They have made great contributions and
    their aesthetics are second to almost none, but they are way too
    arrogant and overpriced, and most of their innovations (which
    they later sued MS over) were stolen from Xerox PARC in the
    first place.

    You can get custom (a bit expensive) power supplies which make
    almost NO noise. Google.

    >> > Anybody with an ounce of sense knows the difference
    >> > between being lazy and being efficient.

    >>
    >> (I once read somewhere that - in that author's opinion -
    >> lazy people tended to be efficient and do things right the
    >> first time, to avoid having to do more work. Interesting,
    >> huh?)
    >>

    > The author is interesting psychologically. He is talking
    > of computer efficient people, calling themselves lazy
    > because it sounds cool. Of course, he is most probably one
    > of them.


    He wasn't talking about computers. I think it was a work of
    fiction (which of course does NOT preclude great insights) and
    it was a long time ago.

    > Lazy people do nothing, and would be offended if somebody
    > else was to steal their title.
    >
    >> The are VERY few people in the world who would call using
    >> MS Word later than ver. 2 "efficient". You should try
    >> AmiPro. Now THAT was a great word processor - AND MORE.
    >> You can still find it if you look around. Read this:
    >>
    >> http://www.zisman.ca/Articles/1991-92/OCP_AmiPro.html
    >>
    >> It apparently runs GREAT under XP!
    >>

    >
    > Interesting. Back in the days of Win 3.1, I used and quite
    > liked Windows Write. With no internet access, and I guess
    > not shopping, I wasn't aware of AmiPro. I may give it a
    > look.


    Have fun. If you ask in alt.binaries.warez.ibm-pc.old someone
    may post it for you. I would but I still have my ten year old
    33.6 modem.

    Regards
    t.


    --
    Disagreements and the usual insults expected and welcomed.
     
    thanatoid, Jun 17, 2007
    #15
  16. dh@.

    thanatoid Guest

    Re: Why I use doc files instead of txt files !

    Robert Baer <> wrote in
    news:1W2di.1264$:

    <SNIP>

    > *RageMaker*??? Another M$ POS.


    I don't know what you mean. Pagemaker was the first DTP program
    for Windows, made by Aldus in Seattle and since then bought out
    and fucked up, excuse me, improved, and finally killed off by
    Adobe, as appears to be their SOM. (They did the same with a
    couple of other Aldus programs which were better than Adobe's,
    and are doing it all the time with other software.)

    > Most of the time i use text with a "dumb" editor.


    So do I, but occasionally I need some design. I learned
    computers mainly to use Pagemaker where I worked over 15 years
    ago and I still like it. Why change if it does everything you
    need?

    <SNIP>

    BTW you are supporting Scientology using Earthlink.

    --
    Disagreements and the usual insults expected and welcomed.
     
    thanatoid, Jun 17, 2007
    #16
  17. dh@.

    Guest

    Re: Why I use doc files instead of txt files ! O/T

    thanatoid <> wrote:
    > wrote in
    > news:20070616220829.558$:
    >
    > > thanatoid <> wrote:
    > >> "" <>
    > >> wrote in
    > >> news::
    > >>
    > >> > On Jun 14, 9:10 pm, thanatoid <>
    > >> > wrote:
    > >>
    > >> <SNIP>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> And I still use 95B on a 166MHz/64MB (I have 98SELite
    > >> on my 2nd computer because I got tired of waiting 3 hours
    > >> for a song to convert from one format to another).
    > >> <snip>

    > >
    > > Just curious. I run 98 SE on a P166mmx with 64 mb edo ram
    > > on a 3 gig drive.Do you have your 95B on fat16 or 32 and
    > > why?
    > >
    > > Regards.........
    > >

    >
    > That was exactly what I bought almost exactly 10 years ago.
    > Since then I have changed HD's and added an LG CD-R drive. I
    > still have 64MB of RAM but I do have a Matrox graphics card with
    > its own memory.
    >
    > I have both 95B and 98SELite formatted with FAT32. The 166 95B
    > machine had 7 partitions on an 8.4 drive, the other 16 on a 40
    > GB drive.
    >
    > Fat 32 (introduced with the OEM version of Win95B while
    > Microsoft was still selling MS Windows95A in stores and with
    > brand name machines) has a variety of advantages over 16 which
    > you can read about in wikipedia and thousands of other places. I
    > have never had any problems. FWIW, I have read an *MVP* refer to
    > the NTFS file system as "fiasco" - not that it is applicable to
    > our machines.
    >
    > BTW if you use the 166 machine for the web, I strongly recommend
    > visiting www.offbyone.com. You will be amazed.
    >
    > Regards
    > t.


    Hi, Thanks for feedback. The seperate graphics card explains a lot. I
    deal mostly in this, email, and book/dvd/searches thru Amazon etc. So,
    I've never considered a seperate card necessary. Mine is on the cpu and
    is 2 mb. I've been thinking lately of adding another pc and haven't made
    up what passes for a mind on what to get. Unless I go for broadband, I
    can't see getting anything new. Especially XP or Vista. If I stick with
    dial-up, I'll haunt the thrift stores till I see something which tests
    out ok,but, has more cpu,ram,hd and at least a cdr. Can't see on dial-up
    using anything beyond WinMe anyway. Others, I'm sure will disagree.
    That's freedom by golly.

    D/l Offbyone, faq looks interesting. It's almost 10 pm and time for the
    sack. I'll check it out tomorrow.

    Best regards...

    Charles Bennett

    --
    -------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
    Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
     
    , Jun 18, 2007
    #17
  18. dh@.

    Guest

    Re: Why I use doc files instead of txt files ! O/T

    wrote:
    > thanatoid <> wrote:
    > > wrote in
    > > news:20070616220829.558$:
    > >
    > > > thanatoid <> wrote:
    > > >> "" <>
    > > >> wrote in
    > > >> news::
    > > >>
    > > >> > On Jun 14, 9:10 pm, thanatoid <>
    > > >> > wrote:
    > > >>
    > > >> <SNIP>
    > > >>
    > > >>
    > > >>
    > > >> And I still use 95B on a 166MHz/64MB (I have 98SELite
    > > >> on my 2nd computer because I got tired of waiting 3 hours
    > > >> for a song to convert from one format to another).
    > > >> <snip>
    > > >
    > > > Just curious. I run 98 SE on a P166mmx with 64 mb edo ram
    > > > on a 3 gig drive.Do you have your 95B on fat16 or 32 and
    > > > why?
    > > >
    > > > Regards.........
    > > >

    > >
    > > That was exactly what I bought almost exactly 10 years ago.
    > > Since then I have changed HD's and added an LG CD-R drive. I
    > > still have 64MB of RAM but I do have a Matrox graphics card with
    > > its own memory.
    > >
    > > I have both 95B and 98SELite formatted with FAT32. The 166 95B
    > > machine had 7 partitions on an 8.4 drive, the other 16 on a 40
    > > GB drive.
    > >
    > > Fat 32 (introduced with the OEM version of Win95B while
    > > Microsoft was still selling MS Windows95A in stores and with
    > > brand name machines) has a variety of advantages over 16 which
    > > you can read about in wikipedia and thousands of other places. I
    > > have never had any problems. FWIW, I have read an *MVP* refer to
    > > the NTFS file system as "fiasco" - not that it is applicable to
    > > our machines.
    > >
    > > BTW if you use the 166 machine for the web, I strongly recommend
    > > visiting www.offbyone.com. You will be amazed.
    > >
    > > Regards
    > > t.

    >
    > Hi, Thanks for feedback. The seperate graphics card explains a lot. I
    > deal mostly in this, email, and book/dvd/searches thru Amazon etc. So,
    > I've never considered a seperate card necessary. Mine is on the cpu
    > and is 2 mb. I've been thinking lately of adding another pc and haven't
    > made up what passes for a mind on what to get. Unless I go for
    > broadband, I can't see getting anything new. Especially XP or Vista. If
    > I stick with dial-up, I'll haunt the thrift stores till I see
    > something which tests out ok,but, has more cpu,ram,hd and at least a
    > cdr. Can't see on dial-up using anything beyond WinMe anyway. Others,
    > I'm sure will disagree. That's freedom by golly.
    >
    > D/l Offbyone, faq looks interesting. It's almost 10 pm and time for the
    > sack. I'll check it out tomorrow.
    >
    > Best regards...
    >
    > Charles Bennett


    OOPs, Sorry, should have used Follow To. Didn't mean to post to so many
    groups. Sorry! C B

    --
    -------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
    Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
     
    , Jun 18, 2007
    #18
  19. dh@.

    thanatoid Guest

    Re: Why I use doc files instead of txt files ! O/T

    wrote in
    news:20070617214806.409$:

    <SNIP>

    >> That was exactly what I bought almost exactly 10 years
    >> ago. Since then I have changed HD's and added an LG CD-R
    >> drive. I still have 64MB of RAM but I do have a Matrox
    >> graphics card with its own memory.

    >
    > Hi, Thanks for feedback. The seperate graphics card
    > explains a lot.


    I only got it because I "thought" I was going to do some
    animation and advanced graphics, which of course I never got
    around to. For most purposes, onboard graphics are be quite
    sufficient. I got a sound card because I knew that I wanted the
    music to be of better quality - I use the computers for music a
    lot. My 2GHz/256MB/98SELite machine uses onboard video and it
    works JUST FINE. I did get a sound card for it for reasons
    mentioned above.

    > I deal mostly in this, email, and
    > book/dvd/searches thru Amazon etc.


    The ONLY disadvantage (far outweighed by its advantages) of OB1
    is that it does not even recognize Java or Flash, so SOME sites
    you just get a blank screen. In those cases I use Opera
    (although sometimes you can "view source" and find a link to a
    page which will display fine). But most sites work fine with it
    although the "design" is rendered in a much simplified form (in
    most cases a plus since most web design is pretty pathetic).

    > So, I've never
    > considered a seperate card necessary. Mine is on the cpu
    > and is 2 mb.


    You don't need anything new. Use this until it dies and then get
    something a little newer in good shape and install Win98Lite on
    it.

    > I've been thinking lately of adding another
    > pc and haven't made up what passes for a mind on what to
    > get. Unless I go for broadband, I can't see getting
    > anything new. Especially XP or Vista.


    Wouldn't touch those with a hundred foot pole.

    > If I stick with
    > dial-up, I'll haunt the thrift stores till I see
    > something which tests out ok,but, has more cpu,ram,hd and
    > at least a cdr.


    Unless you DL lots of movies and/or are a DVD pirate, I really
    see no point in broadband. What's the rush? So it takes me 6 hrs
    to DL an album. Big deal. I can read a book (remember those?) in
    the meantime.

    You can get an LG CD-R for about 15-25 bucks and they are VERY
    good. When I got one for this machine, I put my old Toshiba 12X
    CD reader drive in a 486/16 HP Vectra (had to cut a hole for the
    cables, it sits on top there being no space in a low-profile
    machine) and it works just fine. A 64MB SIMM oth (IF you can
    find one in an "antique" store) can cost you almost what a 512
    or 1GB stick of "current" memory would. But you can find an old
    machine with one in it for $10 if you look around.

    <SNIP>

    Regards
    t.

    --
    Disagreements and the usual insults expected and welcomed.
     
    thanatoid, Jun 19, 2007
    #19
  20. dh@.

    dh@. Guest

    On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:07:54 -0700, "" <> wrote:

    >On Jun 12, 2:18 am, dh@. wrote:
    >> I made some WordPad documents using Windows 98 and WordPad. Then I
    >> loaded them into another computer that uses Windows xp version 5.1. They
    >> appeared to load okay, but when I try to open them I get the message:
    >>
    >> Can not load Word for Windows 6.0 files.
    >>
    >> What's up with that? Do later versions of WordPad not recognise things
    >> done using earlier versions, or what?

    >
    >Windows XP is Windows NT v5.1 (the 5.1 is mentioned in
    >start..run..msinfo32)
    >
    >There is no such thing as your term.


    Which term it that?

    >Anyhow, something screwed up. Try to repeat the problem if you're
    >interested finding what the problem was, the root of it. But to just
    >solve your problem. You have a file you want to open.
    >
    >If you don't have Ms Word, try Word Viewer.
    >It's free and should open anything from word, wordpad, whatever. Just
    >as Word would.
    >http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...87-8732-48D5-8689-AB826E7B8FDF&displaylang=en
    >
    >Like Word, it can open documents saved in earlier versions of Word.
    >
    >You can then click edit..select all, and Copy,paste. The text into
    >your word processor e.g. wordpad.


    It still seems that there must be some way of getting WordPad to
    open WordPad documents...
     
    dh@., Jun 20, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Merlin

    Re: Wordpad

    Merlin, Jul 10, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,899
    Merlin
    Jul 11, 2003
  2. Shel-hed

    Re: Wordpad

    Shel-hed, Jul 10, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    670
    jda^fx
    Jul 11, 2003
  3. HiC
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    650
    Aardvark
    May 2, 2008
  4. THEO@TO.

    Problem with WordPad all of a sudden.

    THEO@TO., Dec 14, 2009, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    1,616
    - Bobb -
    Dec 24, 2009
  5. Jeff Strickland

    Wordpad double spacing problem

    Jeff Strickland, Nov 14, 2011, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    872
Loading...

Share This Page