Why install older version of Office first? Apply to Tools?

C

Chad Harris

I have often seen it written, in groups and MSKBs that you are to install
the older version first when you want multiple versions to coexist in
Office. One popular KB that states this is:

Running Multiple Versions of Microsoft Office with Office 2003
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;828956&Product=off2003

From the above KB 828956:

*Order of Installation*

"If you want to install and use more than one version of Office on the same
computer, you must install the earliest version first. For example, if you
want to use both Office 97 and Microsoft Office XP on the same computer,
install Office 97 first. You must follow this step because of the way that
registry keys, shared programs, file extensions, and other settings are
managed for each version of Office, and for the programs that are included
with each version of Office."


*I have not been able to find the reasons for this in detail. Can someone
supply them for me?* Should this also apply to installing Office 2003, and
then attempting to install any of the XP tools after uninstalling XP? I
haven't had any trouble with installing Office 2003, opting to uninstall
Office XP, and then inserting the Office XP CD and selectively installing XP
tools from setup. They are coexisting fine. But one friend and a recent
poster here had difficulty with that method: See *Office 2003/Office
Shortcut Bar posted by Peebs on 6/20/2004 @ 5:03PM. Peebs wrote:

"I needed the Visual Keyboard - I work in two languages. I am using Office
2003. When I tried to install the k/b I got a message saying that i could
not install the k/b because I did not have and Office 2000 installed so I
tried just what you did. I installed a couple of tools from Office 2000 and
was then able to install the Key Board. All was well until I tried to answer
an email in Outlook. Although I had selected Word 2003 as my default editor
I got a message that Word 2003 was not available and Outlook was launching
its own editor. I think that when I installed Office 2003/ tools I somehow
made Word 2003 invisable to Outlook 2003.
I am going to try uninstalling Office 2003 in total and then reinstall it to
see if the last man in sets the key.
What i don't understand is just why MS discontinue popular add ins like Tool
bar and Visual Key Board from the latest version of Office."

Several people have posted methods that worked for them. Wouldn't a logical
and easy method be with Office XP in, to choose to keep the XP Shortcut Bar
and/or any other tools desired from Office XP by using a custom
installation while installing MOS 2003?

Thanks,

Chad Harris
 
E

Eric Lawrence [MSFT]

*I have not been able to find the reasons for this in detail. Can someone
supply them for me?*

Generally, it's much harder for something to be "forward compatible" than it
is for something else to be "backward compatible".

Think of it this way--When building version 2, we can test version 2 with
version 1 installed alongside it. However, when building version 1, we of
course cannot work to accomodate version 2, since it doesn't exist yet.

--
Thanks,

Eric Lawrence
Program Manager
Assistance and Worldwide Services

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
 
E

Eric Lawrence [MSFT]

*I have not been able to find the reasons for this in detail. Can someone
supply them for me?*

Generally, it's much harder for something to be "forward compatible" than it
is for something else to be "backward compatible".

Think of it this way--When building version 2, we can test version 2 with
version 1 installed alongside it. However, when building version 1, we of
course cannot work to accomodate version 2, since it doesn't exist yet.

--
Thanks,

Eric Lawrence
Program Manager
Assistance and Worldwide Services

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
 
E

Eric Lawrence [MSFT]

*I have not been able to find the reasons for this in detail. Can someone
supply them for me?*

Generally, it's much harder for something to be "forward compatible" than it
is for something else to be "backward compatible".

Think of it this way--When building version 2, we can test version 2 with
version 1 installed alongside it. However, when building version 1, we of
course cannot work to accomodate version 2, since it doesn't exist yet.

--
Thanks,

Eric Lawrence
Program Manager
Assistance and Worldwide Services

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
 
E

Eric Lawrence [MSFT]

*I have not been able to find the reasons for this in detail. Can someone
supply them for me?*

Generally, it's much harder for something to be "forward compatible" than it
is for something else to be "backward compatible".

Think of it this way--When building version 2, we can test version 2 with
version 1 installed alongside it. However, when building version 1, we of
course cannot work to accomodate version 2, since it doesn't exist yet.

--
Thanks,

Eric Lawrence
Program Manager
Assistance and Worldwide Services

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
 
E

Eric Lawrence [MSFT]

*I have not been able to find the reasons for this in detail. Can someone
supply them for me?*

Generally, it's much harder for something to be "forward compatible" than it
is for something else to be "backward compatible".

Think of it this way--When building version 2, we can test version 2 with
version 1 installed alongside it. However, when building version 1, we of
course cannot work to accomodate version 2, since it doesn't exist yet.

--
Thanks,

Eric Lawrence
Program Manager
Assistance and Worldwide Services

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
 
E

Eric Lawrence [MSFT]

*I have not been able to find the reasons for this in detail. Can someone
supply them for me?*

Generally, it's much harder for something to be "forward compatible" than it
is for something else to be "backward compatible".

Think of it this way--When building version 2, we can test version 2 with
version 1 installed alongside it. However, when building version 1, we of
course cannot work to accomodate version 2, since it doesn't exist yet.

--
Thanks,

Eric Lawrence
Program Manager
Assistance and Worldwide Services

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
 
E

Eric Lawrence [MSFT]

*I have not been able to find the reasons for this in detail. Can someone
supply them for me?*

Generally, it's much harder for something to be "forward compatible" than it
is for something else to be "backward compatible".

Think of it this way--When building version 2, we can test version 2 with
version 1 installed alongside it. However, when building version 1, we of
course cannot work to accomodate version 2, since it doesn't exist yet.

--
Thanks,

Eric Lawrence
Program Manager
Assistance and Worldwide Services

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top