
Microsoft Word is a word processor program from Microsoft. It was originally written by Richard Brodie for IBM PC computers running DOS in 1983. Later versions were created for the Apple Macintosh (1984), SCO UNIX, and Microsoft Windows (1989). It became part of the Microsoft Office. ==The beginning== Many concepts and ideas were brought from Bravo (software), the original GUI word processor developed at Xerox PARC, into Microsoft Word. Bravo's creator Charles Simonyi left PARC to work for Microsoft in 1981. Simonyi hired Brodie, who had worked with him on Bravo, away from PARC that summer. Word's first general release was for MS-DOS computers in late 1983. It was not well received, and sales lagged behind those of rival products such as WordPerfect. On the Macintosh, however, Word gained wide acceptance after it was released in 1985, and especially with the second major release, Word 3.01 for Macintosh, two years later (Word 3.00 was plagued with bugs and quickly superseded). Like other Mac software, Word for Mac was a true what-you-see-is-what-you-get (WYSIWYG) editor. Although MS-DOS was a character-based system, Word for DOS was the first word processor for the IBM PC that showed typeface markups such as bold and italics directly on the screen while editing, although this was not a true WYSIWYG system. Other DOS word processor, such as WordStar and WordPerfect, used simple text-only display with markup codes on the screen or sometimes, at the most, alternative colors. However, as with most DOS software, each program had its own, often complicated, set of commands for performing functions that had to be learned (for example, in Word for DOS, a file would be saved with the sequence Escape-T-S), and as most secretaries had learned how to use WordPerfect, companies were reluctant to switch to a rival product that offered few advantages. ==Word 1990 to 1995== The first version of Word for Windows was released in 1989 at a price of 500 US dollars. With the release of Windows 3.x the following year, sales began to pick up (Word 1.0 worked much better with Windows 3.0 than with previous versions). The failure of WordPerfect to produce a Windows version proved a fatal mistake. It was version 2.0 of Word, however, that firmly established Microsoft Word as the market leader. Word on the Macintosh never had any serious rivals, despite programs such as Nisus Writer that provided features such as non-contiguous selection that was not added to Word until Word 2002 in Office XP, and despite some users' belief that the program had not had a major overhaul between versions 3.01 in 1987 and version 5.0 in 1991. Word 5.1 for the Macintosh was a popular word processor due to its elegance, relative ease of use, and feature set. However, version 6.0 for the Macintosh, released 1994, was widely derided. It was the first version of Word based on a common codebase between the Windows and Mac versions; many accused it of being slow, clumsy and memory intensive. The Windows version was also numbered 6.0 to coordinate product naming across platforms (despite the fact that the previous version of Word for Windows was 2.0). Later versions of Word have more capabilities than just word processing. The Drawing tool allows simple desktop publishing operations such as adding graphics to documents. Collaboration, document comparison, multilingual support and many other capabilities have been added over the years. ==The present== Microsoft Word is the dominant word processor in current use, making Word's proprietary document file format (DOC (computing)) the de facto standard which competing products must support to interoperate in an office environment. File import and export filters exist for many word processors such as AbiWord or OpenOffice.org (see the article on word processor for other competitors). Most of this interoperability is achieved through reverse engineering since documentation of the file format, while available to partners, is not openly available. The document formats of the various versions of Word change in subtle and not so subtle ways; formatting created in newer versions does not always survive when viewed in older versions of the program, nearly always because that capability does not exist in the previous version. The DOC format of Word 97 was publicly documented by Microsoft, but later versions have been kept private, available only to partners, governments and institutions. Industry rumors claim some aspects of the Word file format are at present not fully understood even by Microsoft themselves. Lately Microsoft has stated that they will move towards an XML-based file format for their office applications. Word 2003 has an XML file format as an option using a publicly documented schema called WordprocessingML, endorsed by such institutions as the Politics of Denmark. The "professional" edition includes the ability to handle non-Microsoft schemas directly in Word. Apache Jakarta POI is an open-source Java programming language library that aims to read and write Word's binary computer file file format. Like other Microsoft Office applications, Word can be highly customised using a built-in macro language (originally WordBasic, but changed to Visual Basic for Applications as of Word 97). However, this capability can also be used to embed Computer virus in documents, as was demonstrated by the Melissa worm. This is just another reason why computer users should have a firewall (networking) and anti-virus software installed on their system and follow [http://www.microsoft.com/security/default.mspx Microsofts security advice] The first virus known to affect Microsoft Word documents was called the Concept virus, a relatively harmless virus created to demonstrate the possibility of macro virus creation. ==Versions== Versions for MS-DOS include: *1983 November Word 1 *1985 Word 2 *1986 Word 3 *1987 Word 4 aka Microsoft Word 4.0 for the PC *1989 Word 5 *1991 Word 5.5 Versions for Apple Macintosh include: *1985 January Word 1 for the Macintosh *1987 Word 3 *1989 Word 4 *1991 Word 5 *1993 Word 6 *1998 Word 98 *2000 Word 2001, the last version compatible with Mac OS 9 *2001 Word v.X, the first version for Mac OS X only *2004 Word 2004 Versions for Microsoft Windows include: *1989 November Word for Windows *1991 Word 2 for Windows *1993 Word 6 for Windows (renumbered "6" to bring Windows version numbering in line with that of DOS version, Macintosh version and also WordPerfect, the main competing word processor at the time) *1995 Word 95, also known as Word 7 *1997 Word 97, also known as Word 8 *1999 Word 2000, also known as Word 9 *2001 Word XP, also known as Word 2002 or Word 10 *2003 Word 2003, also known as Word 11 but officially titled Microsoft Office Word 2003 Versions for SCO UNIX include: *[http://www.opsys.com/products/sco/ Microsoft Word for UNIX Systems Release 5.1] == Alternatives == *Open Office - Free alternative to Microsoft word see also: List of office suites ==See also== *List of word processors *Comparison of word processors *How to draw a diagram with Microsoft Word ==External links== *[http://www.wotsit.org/search.asp?s=text Links to Microsoft's documentation of the Word 97 DOC file format] *[http://www.goldmark.org/netrants/no-word/attach.html MS-Word is ''Not'' a document exchange format] *[http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html No Word Attachments] - the GNU project's thoughts regarding the use of Word's .DOC format to distribute text *[http://visualbasic.about.com/od/learnvba/l/blecvbai0204.htm ''The Word Object Model''] ==Further reading== *Tsang, Cheryl. ''Microsoft: First Generation''. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 0-471-33206-2. Mac OS word processors Technical communication tools Windows word processors Microsoft Office simple:Microsoft Word
Question: Did Microsoft Word for MS-DOS have a "ruler", or did that feature appear first in the Macintosh version? Yes it did (I used WordDOS from 1.0 onward), and it looked something like this: |----|----|----|----| I think there was a numerical option as well: 0....5....10....15....20 ...as it was a character-based display. Later DOS versions had a graphical version as well, depending on what kind of a graphics card you had. (Mine wasn't supported...) --User:ProhibitOnions 21:44, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC) --- Stephen Gilbert: Ok, better let them be listed in :word processor (tuxisuau) --- A side-thought: it'd be nice for someone to develop a discussion on the :Microsoft Mouse and its history. Compare its development with that of the one-button Apple mouse. No contest. --- Word and MS' first spreadsheet program MultiPlan both shared a very similar look when they came out, using the same two-line command interface at the bottom of the screen; the 'feel' of the two programs was very similar, implying that Word was first developed by Bill's MultiPlan team. MultiPlan was boosted by Bill Gates who envied Lotus 1-2-3, but was disappointed by MultiPlan's inability to compete. Buoyed by his successes in writing early programs for the Macintosh, I think Bill gritted his teeth and resolved to bring out graphically based versions of Word and Excel/MultiPlan to leapfrog Lotus. An early sign of this resolve was the introduction of the Microsoft Mouse (which, btw, worked with the text version of Word). Other attempts at mouse products for the PC were unsuccessful. Bill's resolve to make Excel and Word probably motivated the development of Windows. :MultiPlan predates 1-2-3, if I recall correctly. An early version of Multiplan was even available for CP/M machines. --user:Robert Merkel Most of Microsoft's products have been bought from other companies. Anyone know the origin of Word and whether this is true for it? *On the Microsoft Mac Business Unit [http://www.microsoft.com/mac/community/community.aspx?pid=community] website, it says that "In 1984, Microsoft releases Word 1.0 and it becomes one of the world’s most popular word processing programs." It doesn't say they actually developed it so I do not know. User:Ben Newman 19:40, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC) This PDF [http://www.engr.uvic.ca/~seng310/notes/Historical_Aspects_of_HCI.pdf] states that BravoX, a predecessor to the Star it's Document Editor, was the direct predecessort of MS Word. You do not always need to buy such products as you can simply hire the orginal developers. ---- ''There are some free alternatives, like :KWord, :AbiWord, :TeX and :Openoffice.'' I removed this, as this is an article about MS Word. Adding free alternatives is quite close to advocating free software. Also, none of the programs listed is a true alternative to Word. TeX is a typesetting system, not a wordprocessor. Kword and AbiWord are nowhere near Word's functionality, and OpenOffice is incomplete (last I checked, it had no spellchecker, as Sun did not hold the copyright on StarOffice's spellchecker code). A better approach would be to list other wordprocessing programs (not just open source ones!) in a "see also" section. --User:Stephen Gilbert :The release versions (1.0+) of OpenOffice.org ''do'' have a spell checker, though some early developer's releases did not. --User:Brion VIBBER ---- Removed (in reference to Word 6 for Windows) ''numbered to indicate that it also superceded Word 5 for DOS'' because it is obviously untrue. Word 5 for DOS was replaced by Word 6 for ''DOS''. Replaced it with an explanation that fits much better with the observable facts. User:Tannin :I don't think 'numbered "6" to imply a superiority to Word Perfect 5.1' in the ''Word 6 for Windows'' bullet is NPOV. Microsoft claims they numbered it 6 to line up its versioning numbers with the Mac version of Word. ''Word 6 for Windows'' had a modified file format that, for the first time, matched Word for the Mac. I don't really care if we include the file-format info or not, but the statement as it stands doesn't seem NPOV. Anyone else? -User:Frecklefoot :: AFAIK it was to bring Win / DOS / Mac version into line. DOS was up to 5.5, so the first combined version was 6 -- User:Tarquin 19:22 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC) ::Yes, the version 6 was to bring the Windows version number to parity with the DOS and Mac version numbers. This should be changed. -- Talk:Fireball1244 4:07 Nov 2, 2003 (CST) ------------------------------ From: Petri Sakkinen While the article may be considered correct in terms of sequence, it is my perception that the original Word for Macintosh was an independently created program with a different set of features than that of Word for DOS. So, considering Word for the Mac as a 'port' is not actually correct. My (biased!) interpretation & recollection is that the current Word is based on Word for the Mac, at least as comes to features and user interface. Cannot comment on code (!) but at the time of Word for the Mac 1.x, Pascal (MPW) was the dominating programming language for the Macintosh. : I'm going from memory too, but as I recall the sequence was: : 1: Word written and marketed for the Mac by a non-Microsoft company : 2: Microsoft buy them out : 3: Microsoft produce a DOS version : 4: Microdoft produce a Windows version : 5: DOS version is dropped : 6: Mac version is dropped, restored, ignored, forgotten about until no-one cares anymore : User:Tannin == Future versions == The article contained this: *Word 2004, also known as Word 12 and officially titled Microsoft Office Word 2004 *Word 2005, also known as Word 13 and officially titled Microsoft Office Word 2005 I wondered if they should really be in that list - are they speculative, confirmed, or what? Certainly you can't buy them, can you? If not, I think it makes the list misleading. Maybe, if someone feels they are good and accurate content, they should be reintroduced under a separate subhead? Or something?? User:Nevilley 00:50, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC) :I would guess it was a newbie test. It's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=217.81.175.4 217.81.175.4] sole contribution. --User:Mrwojo 03:04, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC) :Ah. Good point, thank you. User:Nevilley 07:45, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC) == meta data == Someone with a better knowledge of the history than I have should perhaps write a section on how the 'meta data' (I believe it's called) stored in .doc files has occasionally been newsworthy: aspects of the Hutton Inquiry became public when Downing Street documents were searched for older-version information, and a similar thing happened with SCO's plan for their lawsuit against UNIX-derivatives. == advice == ''However, this capability can also be used to embed viruses in documents, as was demonstrated by the Melissa worm. Because of this, users having Microsoft Word installed should refrain from having it configured to open Microsoft Word documents received — by email or otherwise — from untrusted sources.'' Are we in any position to say this? I would say it should be rephrased with a thing saying "Most analysts agree that users having Microsoft Word installed should refrain..." [[User:Maestrosync|[maestro]]] 09:44, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) == Headings == Would anyone be in favor of the occasional heading or title in this article? User:Ojw 19:13, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) == Books == A book has been newly listed at the end of this article Amazon lists 1404 books about MS-Word, what's special about this one? User:Ojw 13:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) * I suggest that if any books are linked from here, they should be general books on the development of office, office interoperability, and/or the history of the office suite (assuing we can't get books on Word specifically) -- I don't see what's special about the book either, and suggest deletion unless someone substantiates it. User:EggplantWizard 19:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) :* Of course, the ideal type of book to link to would be a [http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Microsoft_Office_bookshelf WikiBook]... User:Ojw 20:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) == Format and Headings == This article badly needs more segregation -- I've added some headings with my most recent revision, and I feel that the article is now better -- however, it still needs a lot more work, and I don't think that the categories I chose are the best way to approach this in the long run. I'd like to start a dialogue about how best to format the article, and then ideally get the right pieces moved into the right sections based on consensus opinion of what's easiest to follow. User:EggplantWizard 19:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Microsoft_Word:
Microsoft_Word
Microsoft_Word
Microsoft Word
Microsoft Word is a word processor program from Microsoft. It was originally written by Richard Brodie for IBM PC computers running DOS in 1983. Later versions were created for the Apple Macintosh (1984), SCO UNIX, and Microsoft Windows (1989). It became part of the Microsoft Office. ==The beginning== Many concepts and ideas were brought from Bravo (software), the original GUI word processor developed at Xerox PARC, into Microsoft Word. Bravo's creator Charles Simonyi left PARC to work for Microsoft in 1981. Simonyi hired Brodie, who had worked with him on Bravo, away from PARC that summer. Word's first general release was for MS-DOS computers in late 1983. It was not well received, and sales lagged behind those of rival products such as WordPerfect. On the Macintosh, however, Word gained wide acceptance after it was released in 1985, and especially with the second major release, Word 3.01 for Macintosh, two years later (Word 3.00 was plagued with bugs and quickly superseded). Like other Mac software, Word for Mac was a true what-you-see-is-what-you-get (WYSIWYG) editor. Although MS-DOS was a character-based system, Word for DOS was the first word processor for the IBM PC that showed typeface markups such as bold and italics directly on the screen while editing, although this was not a true WYSIWYG system. Other DOS word processor, such as WordStar and WordPerfect, used simple text-only display with markup codes on the screen or sometimes, at the most, alternative colors. However, as with most DOS software, each program had its own, often complicated, set of commands for performing functions that had to be learned (for example, in Word for DOS, a file would be saved with the sequence Escape-T-S), and as most secretaries had learned how to use WordPerfect, companies were reluctant to switch to a rival product that offered few advantages. ==Word 1990 to 1995== The first version of Word for Windows was released in 1989 at a price of 500 US dollars. With the release of Windows 3.x the following year, sales began to pick up (Word 1.0 worked much better with Windows 3.0 than with previous versions). The failure of WordPerfect to produce a Windows version proved a fatal mistake. It was version 2.0 of Word, however, that firmly established Microsoft Word as the market leader. Word on the Macintosh never had any serious rivals, despite programs such as Nisus Writer that provided features such as non-contiguous selection that was not added to Word until Word 2002 in Office XP, and despite some users' belief that the program had not had a major overhaul between versions 3.01 in 1987 and version 5.0 in 1991. Word 5.1 for the Macintosh was a popular word processor due to its elegance, relative ease of use, and feature set. However, version 6.0 for the Macintosh, released 1994, was widely derided. It was the first version of Word based on a common codebase between the Windows and Mac versions; many accused it of being slow, clumsy and memory intensive. The Windows version was also numbered 6.0 to coordinate product naming across platforms (despite the fact that the previous version of Word for Windows was 2.0). Later versions of Word have more capabilities than just word processing. The Drawing tool allows simple desktop publishing operations such as adding graphics to documents. Collaboration, document comparison, multilingual support and many other capabilities have been added over the years. ==The present== Microsoft Word is the dominant word processor in current use, making Word's proprietary document file format (DOC (computing)) the de facto standard which competing products must support to interoperate in an office environment. File import and export filters exist for many word processors such as AbiWord or OpenOffice.org (see the article on word processor for other competitors). Most of this interoperability is achieved through reverse engineering since documentation of the file format, while available to partners, is not openly available. The document formats of the various versions of Word change in subtle and not so subtle ways; formatting created in newer versions does not always survive when viewed in older versions of the program, nearly always because that capability does not exist in the previous version. The DOC format of Word 97 was publicly documented by Microsoft, but later versions have been kept private, available only to partners, governments and institutions. Industry rumors claim some aspects of the Word file format are at present not fully understood even by Microsoft themselves. Lately Microsoft has stated that they will move towards an XML-based file format for their office applications. Word 2003 has an XML file format as an option using a publicly documented schema called WordprocessingML, endorsed by such institutions as the Politics of Denmark. The "professional" edition includes the ability to handle non-Microsoft schemas directly in Word. Apache Jakarta POI is an open-source Java programming language library that aims to read and write Word's binary computer file file format. Like other Microsoft Office applications, Word can be highly customised using a built-in macro language (originally WordBasic, but changed to Visual Basic for Applications as of Word 97). However, this capability can also be used to embed Computer virus in documents, as was demonstrated by the Melissa worm. This is just another reason why computer users should have a firewall (networking) and anti-virus software installed on their system and follow [http://www.microsoft.com/security/default.mspx Microsofts security advice] The first virus known to affect Microsoft Word documents was called the Concept virus, a relatively harmless virus created to demonstrate the possibility of macro virus creation. ==Versions== Versions for MS-DOS include: *1983 November Word 1 *1985 Word 2 *1986 Word 3 *1987 Word 4 aka Microsoft Word 4.0 for the PC *1989 Word 5 *1991 Word 5.5 Versions for Apple Macintosh include: *1985 January Word 1 for the Macintosh *1987 Word 3 *1989 Word 4 *1991 Word 5 *1993 Word 6 *1998 Word 98 *2000 Word 2001, the last version compatible with Mac OS 9 *2001 Word v.X, the first version for Mac OS X only *2004 Word 2004 Versions for Microsoft Windows include: *1989 November Word for Windows *1991 Word 2 for Windows *1993 Word 6 for Windows (renumbered "6" to bring Windows version numbering in line with that of DOS version, Macintosh version and also WordPerfect, the main competing word processor at the time) *1995 Word 95, also known as Word 7 *1997 Word 97, also known as Word 8 *1999 Word 2000, also known as Word 9 *2001 Word XP, also known as Word 2002 or Word 10 *2003 Word 2003, also known as Word 11 but officially titled Microsoft Office Word 2003 Versions for SCO UNIX include: *[http://www.opsys.com/products/sco/ Microsoft Word for UNIX Systems Release 5.1] == Alternatives == *Open Office - Free alternative to Microsoft word see also: List of office suites ==See also== *List of word processors *Comparison of word processors *How to draw a diagram with Microsoft Word ==External links== *[http://www.wotsit.org/search.asp?s=text Links to Microsoft's documentation of the Word 97 DOC file format] *[http://www.goldmark.org/netrants/no-word/attach.html MS-Word is ''Not'' a document exchange format] *[http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html No Word Attachments] - the GNU project's thoughts regarding the use of Word's .DOC format to distribute text *[http://visualbasic.about.com/od/learnvba/l/blecvbai0204.htm ''The Word Object Model''] ==Further reading== *Tsang, Cheryl. ''Microsoft: First Generation''. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 0-471-33206-2. Mac OS word processors Technical communication tools Windows word processors Microsoft Office simple:Microsoft Word
Microsoft Word
Question: Did Microsoft Word for MS-DOS have a "ruler", or did that feature appear first in the Macintosh version? Yes it did (I used WordDOS from 1.0 onward), and it looked something like this: |----|----|----|----| I think there was a numerical option as well: 0....5....10....15....20 ...as it was a character-based display. Later DOS versions had a graphical version as well, depending on what kind of a graphics card you had. (Mine wasn't supported...) --User:ProhibitOnions 21:44, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC) --- Stephen Gilbert: Ok, better let them be listed in :word processor (tuxisuau) --- A side-thought: it'd be nice for someone to develop a discussion on the :Microsoft Mouse and its history. Compare its development with that of the one-button Apple mouse. No contest. --- Word and MS' first spreadsheet program MultiPlan both shared a very similar look when they came out, using the same two-line command interface at the bottom of the screen; the 'feel' of the two programs was very similar, implying that Word was first developed by Bill's MultiPlan team. MultiPlan was boosted by Bill Gates who envied Lotus 1-2-3, but was disappointed by MultiPlan's inability to compete. Buoyed by his successes in writing early programs for the Macintosh, I think Bill gritted his teeth and resolved to bring out graphically based versions of Word and Excel/MultiPlan to leapfrog Lotus. An early sign of this resolve was the introduction of the Microsoft Mouse (which, btw, worked with the text version of Word). Other attempts at mouse products for the PC were unsuccessful. Bill's resolve to make Excel and Word probably motivated the development of Windows. :MultiPlan predates 1-2-3, if I recall correctly. An early version of Multiplan was even available for CP/M machines. --user:Robert Merkel Most of Microsoft's products have been bought from other companies. Anyone know the origin of Word and whether this is true for it? *On the Microsoft Mac Business Unit [http://www.microsoft.com/mac/community/community.aspx?pid=community] website, it says that "In 1984, Microsoft releases Word 1.0 and it becomes one of the world’s most popular word processing programs." It doesn't say they actually developed it so I do not know. User:Ben Newman 19:40, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC) This PDF [http://www.engr.uvic.ca/~seng310/notes/Historical_Aspects_of_HCI.pdf] states that BravoX, a predecessor to the Star it's Document Editor, was the direct predecessort of MS Word. You do not always need to buy such products as you can simply hire the orginal developers. ---- ''There are some free alternatives, like :KWord, :AbiWord, :TeX and :Openoffice.'' I removed this, as this is an article about MS Word. Adding free alternatives is quite close to advocating free software. Also, none of the programs listed is a true alternative to Word. TeX is a typesetting system, not a wordprocessor. Kword and AbiWord are nowhere near Word's functionality, and OpenOffice is incomplete (last I checked, it had no spellchecker, as Sun did not hold the copyright on StarOffice's spellchecker code). A better approach would be to list other wordprocessing programs (not just open source ones!) in a "see also" section. --User:Stephen Gilbert :The release versions (1.0+) of OpenOffice.org ''do'' have a spell checker, though some early developer's releases did not. --User:Brion VIBBER ---- Removed (in reference to Word 6 for Windows) ''numbered to indicate that it also superceded Word 5 for DOS'' because it is obviously untrue. Word 5 for DOS was replaced by Word 6 for ''DOS''. Replaced it with an explanation that fits much better with the observable facts. User:Tannin :I don't think 'numbered "6" to imply a superiority to Word Perfect 5.1' in the ''Word 6 for Windows'' bullet is NPOV. Microsoft claims they numbered it 6 to line up its versioning numbers with the Mac version of Word. ''Word 6 for Windows'' had a modified file format that, for the first time, matched Word for the Mac. I don't really care if we include the file-format info or not, but the statement as it stands doesn't seem NPOV. Anyone else? -User:Frecklefoot :: AFAIK it was to bring Win / DOS / Mac version into line. DOS was up to 5.5, so the first combined version was 6 -- User:Tarquin 19:22 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC) ::Yes, the version 6 was to bring the Windows version number to parity with the DOS and Mac version numbers. This should be changed. -- Talk:Fireball1244 4:07 Nov 2, 2003 (CST) ------------------------------ From: Petri Sakkinen While the article may be considered correct in terms of sequence, it is my perception that the original Word for Macintosh was an independently created program with a different set of features than that of Word for DOS. So, considering Word for the Mac as a 'port' is not actually correct. My (biased!) interpretation & recollection is that the current Word is based on Word for the Mac, at least as comes to features and user interface. Cannot comment on code (!) but at the time of Word for the Mac 1.x, Pascal (MPW) was the dominating programming language for the Macintosh. : I'm going from memory too, but as I recall the sequence was: : 1: Word written and marketed for the Mac by a non-Microsoft company : 2: Microsoft buy them out : 3: Microsoft produce a DOS version : 4: Microdoft produce a Windows version : 5: DOS version is dropped : 6: Mac version is dropped, restored, ignored, forgotten about until no-one cares anymore : User:Tannin == Future versions == The article contained this: *Word 2004, also known as Word 12 and officially titled Microsoft Office Word 2004 *Word 2005, also known as Word 13 and officially titled Microsoft Office Word 2005 I wondered if they should really be in that list - are they speculative, confirmed, or what? Certainly you can't buy them, can you? If not, I think it makes the list misleading. Maybe, if someone feels they are good and accurate content, they should be reintroduced under a separate subhead? Or something?? User:Nevilley 00:50, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC) :I would guess it was a newbie test. It's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=217.81.175.4 217.81.175.4] sole contribution. --User:Mrwojo 03:04, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC) :Ah. Good point, thank you. User:Nevilley 07:45, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC) == meta data == Someone with a better knowledge of the history than I have should perhaps write a section on how the 'meta data' (I believe it's called) stored in .doc files has occasionally been newsworthy: aspects of the Hutton Inquiry became public when Downing Street documents were searched for older-version information, and a similar thing happened with SCO's plan for their lawsuit against UNIX-derivatives. == advice == ''However, this capability can also be used to embed viruses in documents, as was demonstrated by the Melissa worm. Because of this, users having Microsoft Word installed should refrain from having it configured to open Microsoft Word documents received — by email or otherwise — from untrusted sources.'' Are we in any position to say this? I would say it should be rephrased with a thing saying "Most analysts agree that users having Microsoft Word installed should refrain..." [[User:Maestrosync|[maestro]]] 09:44, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) == Headings == Would anyone be in favor of the occasional heading or title in this article? User:Ojw 19:13, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) == Books == A book has been newly listed at the end of this article Amazon lists 1404 books about MS-Word, what's special about this one? User:Ojw 13:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) * I suggest that if any books are linked from here, they should be general books on the development of office, office interoperability, and/or the history of the office suite (assuing we can't get books on Word specifically) -- I don't see what's special about the book either, and suggest deletion unless someone substantiates it. User:EggplantWizard 19:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) :* Of course, the ideal type of book to link to would be a [http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Microsoft_Office_bookshelf WikiBook]... User:Ojw 20:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) == Format and Headings == This article badly needs more segregation -- I've added some headings with my most recent revision, and I feel that the article is now better -- however, it still needs a lot more work, and I don't think that the categories I chose are the best way to approach this in the long run. I'd like to start a dialogue about how best to format the article, and then ideally get the right pieces moved into the right sections based on consensus opinion of what's easiest to follow. User:EggplantWizard 19:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
M
MA | MB | MC | MD | ME | MF | MG | MH | MI | MJ | MK | ML | MN | MO | MP | MR | MS | MT | MU | MW | MX | MY | MZ |Words begining with Microsoft_Word:
Microsoft_Word
Microsoft_Word
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
