Problems converting DOCX to DOC files
Thread poster: philgoddard

philgoddard
United States
Member (2009)
German to English
+ ...
Jun 22, 2016

I have a confession: I use Word 2000. I like it because it's simple and doesn't have lots of frills that I don't need.

Until recently, I've had no trouble converting back and forth between DOC and DOCX files using the Microsoft Compatibility Pack, but recently I keep receiving files that are enormously long: a two-page document becomes thirty-two, with a little bit of text on each page and lots of grey horizontal lines and rectangles.

I've tried updating the Compatibility Pack, but it doesn't help, so I have to convert the files by uploading them to a website.

Does anyone have any solutions, apart from buying the latest version of Word?


 

Tom in London
United Kingdom
Local time: 15:31
Member (2008)
Italian to English
I confess Jun 22, 2016

2000 was a long time ago. I am still using Office 2008 for Mac and much prefer it to Office 2011 (which I also have). They both run problem-free on the latest MacOS (apart from the occasional crash + recovery, which seems to be a standard feature of all Microsoft products).

Have you tried opening those Word 2000 files in OpenOffice or LibreOffice and then exporting them in the format you want?

Or have you simply tried changing the name of the file to either docx or doc before you open the application?

[Edited at 2016-06-22 21:20 GMT]


 

philgoddard
United States
Member (2009)
German to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Tom Jun 22, 2016

Tom in London wrote:

Or have you simply tried changing the name of the file to either docx or doc before you open the application?



Much to my surprise, that worked! Thank you.

That said, I'd be interested to hear from anyone who knows why this problem is occurring.


 

Jack Doughty  Identity Verified
United Kingdom
Local time: 15:31
Member (2000)
Russian to English
+ ...
WPS Office Jun 22, 2016

I also use Word 2000. I convert docx to doc using WPS Office, also known as Kingston Office (free), which in its "classical" form (I think no longer available in latest update) looks very like Word 2000. No conversion problems so far.
If anyone wants a copy of the older .exe file, please email me.

[Edited at 2016-06-22 22:33 GMT]


 

neilmac  Identity Verified
Spain
Local time: 16:31
Spanish to English
+ ...
Techno-gavaging Jun 22, 2016

philgoddard wrote:

I have a confession: I use Word 2000. I like it because it's simple and doesn't have lots of frills that I don't need.



I liked it too. I also liked Windows XP because I could use my CD dictionaries offline. However, over the past 15 years I've found myself nagged, wheedled, badgered and eventually dragged kicking and screaming into whichever new version or "improvement" the powers-that be have decided to foist upon us...

Much to my chagrin, I'm currently struggling with Windows 10, Office 2016 and Google Chrome black screen crashes....

I doff my translator hat to you sir, a veritable bastion of resistance!


 

Tom in London
United Kingdom
Local time: 15:31
Member (2008)
Italian to English
Luddites Jun 22, 2016

Luddites of the world - unite!

 

PAS  Identity Verified
Local time: 16:31
English to Polish
+ ...
Luddites, cavemen, troglodytes Jun 23, 2016

Word 2000 is maybe just a bit too old-school, but I was using 2003 way into the 21st century.

That said, the compatibility pack does not handle smart art very well (at all, for that matter). Once I started dealing with documents containing smart art diagrams, tables etc. I found myself (somewhat reluctantly) forced to upgrade (to Office 2010) because I was losing formatting features that were essential to the integrity of the document.

So, if you've never seen smart art or don't know what I'm talking about, you're probably safe with Word 2K.

Another thing, though, is that Office recovery from crashes has been improving significantly over the years. Word 2000 had a tendency to lose some recent work when it crashed. Newer versions of Office pretty much pick up where they left off.

And one last thing - it takes some work, but if you hide the ribbon and place the relevant icons on the quick access bar (or whatever it's called), you can recreate the old MS Word look fairly well. The only thing you cannot do is to have two rows of icons, but in the days of 27" panoramic monitors this does not pose a problem.

[Edited at 2016-06-23 09:20 GMT]


 

Tom in London
United Kingdom
Local time: 15:31
Member (2008)
Italian to English
I hate the ribbon ! Jun 23, 2016

As was so well explained by the great Vance Packard back in 1957 in his book "The Hidden Persuaders", "planned obsolescence" was introduced by big corporations as a way of "renewing" their products for no good reason, and persuading (or compelling) you to buy the new version.

That is what Microsoft (and Apple, and Samsung, and everyone else) is doing. There is really nothing in the latest version of Word that does anything better than Word 2000 did. But they put stuff into the code that makes it harder and harder to use the earlier versions until you eventually succumb and fork out money for the latest version EVEN THOUGH YOU DON'T LIKE IT and it's WORSE.

Apple, for example, has just announced that the forthcoming new version of the MacOS will not run on any MacBook Pro made after 2009. I have a perfectly serviceable 2009 MacBook Pro that I upgraded with a faster HD and extra RAM, which is now going to become gradually more and more unusable.

Smash the System !

icon_frown.gif

[Edited at 2016-06-23 09:40 GMT]


 

PAS  Identity Verified
Local time: 16:31
English to Polish
+ ...
Kill all troglodytes Jun 23, 2016

At least the ribon can be hidden (I don't like it mainly because it steals a lot of real estate in your work space).
The compatibility pack does allow mostly for backward compatibility going all the way to Word 2.0 and 6.0

Adobe does something much worse - its RAW file conversion module is updated continually to include new models of cameras, but you cannot use new versions of the module with old versions of Photoshop. So buying a new camera forces you to buy a new version of Photoshop because you will not even open the file from the new camera with the old version.

Going back to the topic - I tried using open source Office software, but again - it did not handle complex formatting of MS documents very well. SO it all goes back to how complex your source document is. If it's just some text - you're probably OK. If there are lots of bells and whistles, you may lose integrity.


 

esperantisto  Identity Verified
Local time: 17:31
Member (2006)
English to Russian
+ ...
No problem Jun 23, 2016

Tom in London wrote:

Smash the System !


No problem: use a free operating system, a free office suite. This is the only way to frighten billgateses and stevejobses of this world.


 


To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator:


You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request »

Problems converting DOCX to DOC files

Advanced search






Protemos translation business management system
Create your account in minutes, and start working! 3-month trial for agencies, and free for freelancers!

The system lets you keep client/vendor database, with contacts and rates, manage projects and assign jobs to vendors, issue invoices, track payments, store and manage project files, generate business reports on turnover profit per client/manager etc.

More info »
SDL Trados Studio 2017 only €435 / $519
Get the cheapest prices for SDL Trados Studio 2017 on ProZ.com

Join this translator’s group buy brought to you by ProZ.com and buy SDL Trados Studio 2017 Freelance for only €435 / $519 / £345 / ¥63000 You will also receive FREE access to Studio 2019 when released.

More info »



Forums
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search