Re: Vista Home Premium damaged by Office 97

On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 04:48:10 -0500, Paul Montgomery
<i.m.nonnymous@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 10:04:27 +0100, "Gordon"
<gordonbparker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Paul Montgomery" <i.m.nonnymous@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 07:06:13 +0100, "Gordon"
<gordonbparker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"DDW" <dd.wright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 22:05:13 +0100, "Gordon"
<gordonbparker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"DDW" <dd.wright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 21:30:39 +0100, "Gordon"
<gordonbparker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"JohnJ" <theislands@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
I had no problems installing Office 97 on either computer I have,
Vista Home Premium. It is working great, even including Outlook in

Why would you even BOTHER with Office 97 when Open Office 2.4 and
Thunderbird 2 are SO much better and FREE?

Your opinion, bozo.

Maybe the OP installed it because it's a familiar product that meets
the needs.


Hmm An Office suite that is TEN years old, is clunky, has many security
holes, is just plain OLD. Has far less functions than OO and more
importantly, has had NO updates for I need to go on?


A rational, well thought-out reply.....

I thought his/her first reply to you was "rational and well thought
out". You jumped in on someone who is happy with their installation
and recommended something else when your opinion wasn't asked for.

His first response was, I agree, rational. But not reasoned.
Who in their right minds would deliberately choose an Office suite that is
ten years old, designed for



Reply via this group
No email please