4 ms·

Umm but you can’t find a current version of Word that actually does that. Try it sometime.

EvanAnderson 3y ago
Here's a rather large (5MB) vintage 1996 Microsoft Word document: https://archive.org/download/cd-pn-0527a/CD_ROM.ISO/APPENDIX%2FDNS.DOC https://archive.org/download/cd-pn-0527a/CD_ROM.ISO/APPENDIX... That file opens and appears to render just fine for me in Word 2016. This has been my experience w/ Office files in general. Old files open and render very well in newer versions.
- weinzierl 3y ago
  The point made above was "opens exactly as expected". So, does it look like the authors intended in 1996? I doubt it.
  - Arainach 3y ago
    If you "doubt" it, please provide a specific example of what you believe is inaccurate in the document rendering.
    - morsch 3y ago
      As it happens, we just had this discussion regarding a Word document from 1990: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39357709 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39357709
      - weinzierl 3y ago
        Quote from the article: "Converting this document from its original format was a bit of a victory for open source software. And a lesson in how hard document preservation is." So, opening this document was hard and that it finally worked was not because of Microsoft's alleged famous backwards compatibility- which is a myth in my book.
    - weinzierl 3y ago
      I doubt it because, as I said, Word did not even render the document the same on two different installations back in the day. Contrary to LaTeX, there is really no way to know what "opens on your computer exactly as expected" even means. We do not know what the original author intended it to look like, because we do not know how the document looked like to them. As long as there is no retroactive interpretation, like it happened with RGB, for example, the "doubt it" will stand.
  - EvanAnderson 3y ago
    Just flipping thru it I'm not seeing obvious issues. In terms of being usable for reference I think it's reasonable. The diagrams and tables look intelligible and not garbled. Layout isn't visible screwed-up. Will it be a 1-to-1 with printed output from 1996? Probably not.
    - MichaelZuo 3y ago
      “exactly as expected” is a much higher bar to clear then roughly as expected.
judge2020 3y ago
Was able to do it just fine with these government files[0,1] I found on Google. Word version 16.82 on Mac (Apple Silicon too). 0: https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/Legis/LI/uconsCheck.cfm?txtType=DOC&yr=1997&sessInd=0&smthLwInd=0&act=0033 https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/Legis/LI/uconsCheck.cfm.... 1: https://archive.ada.gov/briefs/andersbr.doc https://archive.ada.gov/briefs/andersbr.doc
- weinzierl 3y ago
  The point made above was "opens exactly as expected". So, does it look like the authors intended in 1996? I doubt it.

Here's a rather large (5MB) vintage 1996 Microsoft Word document: https://archive.org/download/cd-pn-0527a/CD_ROM.ISO/APPENDIX%2FDNS.DOC https://archive.org/download/cd-pn-0527a/CD_ROM.ISO/APPENDIX... That file opens and appears to render just fine for me in Word 2016. This has been my experience w/ Office files in general. Old files open and render very well in newer versions.

weinzierl 3y ago
The point made above was "opens exactly as expected". So, does it look like the authors intended in 1996? I doubt it.
- Arainach 3y ago
  If you "doubt" it, please provide a specific example of what you believe is inaccurate in the document rendering.
  - morsch 3y ago
    As it happens, we just had this discussion regarding a Word document from 1990: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39357709 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39357709
    - weinzierl 3y ago
      Quote from the article: "Converting this document from its original format was a bit of a victory for open source software. And a lesson in how hard document preservation is." So, opening this document was hard and that it finally worked was not because of Microsoft's alleged famous backwards compatibility- which is a myth in my book.
  - weinzierl 3y ago
    I doubt it because, as I said, Word did not even render the document the same on two different installations back in the day. Contrary to LaTeX, there is really no way to know what "opens on your computer exactly as expected" even means. We do not know what the original author intended it to look like, because we do not know how the document looked like to them. As long as there is no retroactive interpretation, like it happened with RGB, for example, the "doubt it" will stand.
- EvanAnderson 3y ago
  Just flipping thru it I'm not seeing obvious issues. In terms of being usable for reference I think it's reasonable. The diagrams and tables look intelligible and not garbled. Layout isn't visible screwed-up. Will it be a 1-to-1 with printed output from 1996? Probably not.
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    “exactly as expected” is a much higher bar to clear then roughly as expected.

judge2020 3y ago

Was able to do it just fine with these government files[0,1] I found on Google. Word version 16.82 on Mac (Apple Silicon too). 0: https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/Legis/LI/uconsCheck.cfm?txtType=DOC&yr=1997&sessInd=0&smthLwInd=0&act=0033 https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/Legis/LI/uconsCheck.cfm.... 1: https://archive.ada.gov/briefs/andersbr.doc https://archive.ada.gov/briefs/andersbr.doc

weinzierl 3y ago
The point made above was "opens exactly as expected". So, does it look like the authors intended in 1996? I doubt it.