Re: Office upgrades and Intel Macs

In article <jaqhp-7E692F.21321623062006@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jake
<jaqhp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <4g2s8pF1ld69uU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Chris Ridd <chrisridd@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On 2006-06-23 19:33:21 +0100, Jake <jaqhp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:

Suppose I have Office 2001. I upgrade to Office v.X. lt installs OK
because it can see that an older version is already there.

Why not go straight to Office 2004? I suspect upgrading in two steps
would cost more than buying 2004 outright

But I don't want 2004. At least, I don't think I do. Should I?
Activation hassles and all?

2004 is worth it for long filenames and unicode.
But..
There are reports of a 2004 bug when running on Intel processors with
certain fonts in a large document. It is a crasher. It also seems to
cause other programs to die as well.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Office upgrades and Intel Macs
    ... Chris Ridd wrote: ... Why not go straight to Office 2004? ... I suspect upgrading in two steps ... remove teeth to reply by email ...
    (uk.comp.sys.mac)
  • Re: Office upgrades and Intel Macs
    ... Chris Ridd wrote: ... Why not go straight to Office 2004? ... I just want the nearest ... remove teeth to reply by email ...
    (uk.comp.sys.mac)
  • Re: Make Table: Record Too Large
    ... normalize my tables. ... Thanks for setting me straight. ... Jake ... Prev by Date: ...
    (microsoft.public.access.queries)