1.1 or 2.x - experienced opinion required...

[Javalicious]

From what I've been able to gather about the terminology "Legacy Release", wiki's given me the impression that it basically means "old" or "first" but then also not necessarily without advantage.

I started with OO2.4 on the Win2k side of my dual-boot machine - I rather like the program - it was a bit complex for the uninitiated word processor user that I am but not impossible, and I managed to work my way into the first 50 pages of what was going to be a beautiful book...

And then 2K self destructed and took my fine work with it over to the dark side (but that's a different post)

Anyshoes, I've been trying to salvage whatever I can since I was great about saving often but clueless obviously when it came to making backup copies elsewhere as I went along - the salvage expedition is taking place on the beautifully reliable Win98 side of the machine - where I've yet to put OpenOffice. I'd like some opinions from other experienced users - past or present - on which would be a better version to install, 1.1 or 2.x (currently 4).

I found 2.4 rather large, and it was slow on Win2K - that was with 1GB ram and 1.8GHZ processor - which I know isn't much by todays standards but it's all I have. When I came to download another copy for my Win98 I saw the other 1.1 page and wondered if it might be smaller, quicker and better suited as on older version for an older system? Keeping in mind that all I'll really use is Writer (say 98% of the time) for constructing intricately formatted documents. Anyone still using Writer on Win98 out there? Anyone used both versions and care to offer your expertise?

The answer to this could decide for me.... will 1.1 open/repair .odt's made by 2.x? Oh, and I should have said this right up front - Hi everyone!

[squenson]

No.

This short answer to balance your long post!

Unfortunately, the formats between 1.1 and 2.x are different. You can save in Writer 2.4 at the old format 1.1, but not the reverse, which is quite understandable.

[Hagar Delest]

What I find disturbing here is that because your OS is not so good, you're ready to use an old version of a software on an old OS (even older than your previous OS).Why not go back to the typewriter machine then???

Why not trying another OS for example? Linux does a far better job than Windows concerning file systems (avoiding fragmentation for example). It may be worth trying (why not dual boot?).

[Javalicious]

What I find disturbing here is that because your OS is not so good, you're ready to use an old version of a software on an old OS (even older than your previous OS).Why not go back to the typewriter machine then???

You know of a typewriter machine that can recover files from a scrambled hard drive? must be an expensive typewriter...

Why not trying another OS for example? Linux does a far better job than Windows concerning file systems (avoiding fragmentation for example). It may be worth trying (why not dual boot?).

It's a family machine and no one else is willing to learn the complexities of Linux and I cannot force them since I'm not the boss of them. They also will only use MS Office so can you guess what the opposition is that I'm up against.

Can't dual boot a machine that isn't working. I'm using Win98 because it's the only working O/S left to recover my files - can't put a new O/S on a drive you're trying to recover files from. Can't fit another O/S on the old drive. Can't erase the old drive for a new O/S because it's not mine to erase.

Sorry to have disturbed you.

[Villeroy]

They also will only use MS Office ...

So OpenOffice.org is not an option. The best office suite for Windows 98 is Office 2000.

[Javalicious]

Open Office is my choice - it's what all my files are in, on the Win2k partition that died - it is why I wanted to know what was the best OO writer to use on the Win98 side that is left - so I can get my files back. I just thought maybe the old 1.1 could have been more compatible because win98 is an old O/S.

No.

This short answer to balance your long post!

Unfortunately, the formats between 1.1 and 2.x are different. You can save in Writer 2.4 at the old format 1.1, but not the reverse, which is quite understandable.

Thank you squenson, for your simple and polite answer - it is what I wanted to know and so I will use 2.4

[Hagar Delest]

You know of a typewriter machine that can recover files from a scrambled hard drive? must be an expensive typewriter...

Well, if you want to get rid of such risk, then use a typewriter. I understood your question was not how to recover the files, which is another thread. OOo can't recover files on a damaged partition, even more true for OOo 1.1 regarding OOo 2 files

It's a family machine and no one else is willing to learn the complexities of Linux

Time to try a recent version of a Linux distro (live-CD for example).

Can't dual boot a machine that isn't working. I'm using Win98 because it's the only working O/S left to recover my files - can't put a new O/S on a drive you're trying to recover files from. Can't fit another O/S on the old drive. Can't erase the old drive for a new O/S because it's not mine to erase.

I was talking after you've bought a new drive of course.

NB: a file format is not linked to an OS (less true concerning MS Office however because new versions of .doc leads to new version of MS Word leading sometimes to new hardware to support the new version and then new version of the OS, that's a good way to make money).

[keme]

The 1.1.5 version originally supported the ODF standard, but the standard (and OOO.2) has developed since then, so you can't be certain it will open all your docs.

[Javalicious]

...I've been trying to salvage whatever I can... - the salvage expedition is taking place on ...Win98... where I've yet to put OpenOffice...

Well, if you want to get rid of such risk, then use a typewriter. I understood your question was not how to recover the files, which is another thread. OOo can't recover files on a damaged partition, even more true for OOo 1.1 regarding OOo 2 files

No kidding, but one still needs OOo to open the recovered .odt files

Time to try a recent version of a Linux distro (live-CD for example).

Easy for you to say, you can lead wild horses to water ~
but you still have to be bigger than them to push 'em in

NB: a file format is not linked to an OS (less true concerning MS Office however because new versions of .doc leads to new version of MS Word leading sometimes to new hardware to support the new version and then new version of the OS, that's a good way to make money).

I know the file formats aren't linked to the O/S - did you know condescencion isn't linked to social civility? You're a pretty nasty fellow Hagar - not at all like your avatar - you need some pie and ice cream or something.

Buying a new hard drive because the operating system crapped out is like buying new blue jeans after a wet fart

okay enough jokes - back to work!

[Hagar Delest]

Right for the drive, I thought the hardware had been also damaged.

What the point looking for another version than the one used to create your files? The priority is to recover your files or not? Why risk a bad recovery with a deprecated version? Why should you care about the optimization? First recover the files and then decide if you keep that version or not.

BTW, according to your other thread, you haven't recovered anything yet. I mean no .odt file at all, right?