Does Word SP-3 address the old problem of a build-up of list templates?

[Mary]

I'm using Office 2000 on Windows XP. I've had problems in the past with
documents which had a build-up of list templates. Then I discovered MS
Knowledge Base Article 241581, which addresses this issue. I made the
necessary edit to the Windows registry which corrected the problem.

Recently I got a new system (also Windows XP). After installing Office 2000,
I applied all the updates from the MS site, so now Word shows as version
9.0.6926 SP-3. Do these updates automatically address the list template
issue, or is it still necessary to manually edit the registry? The KB
article does not make it clear whether the lastest updates automatically
correct the problem?

 

[Word Heretic]

G'day "Mary" <[email protected]>,

Like you say, it's unclear although I tend to think it _has_ been
implemented.

Steve Hudson - Word Heretic
Want a hyperlinked index? S/W R&D? See WordHeretic.com

steve from wordheretic.com (Email replies require payment)


Mary reckoned:

 

[John McGhie [MVP - Word]]

From memory, that fix was applied with SP 1 for Word 2000.

G'day "Mary" <[email protected]>,

Like you say, it's unclear although I tend to think it _has_ been
implemented.

Steve Hudson - Word Heretic
Want a hyperlinked index? S/W R&D? See WordHeretic.com

steve from wordheretic.com (Email replies require payment)


Mary reckoned:

--

Please respond only to the newsgroup to preserve the thread.

John McGhie, Consultant Technical Writer,
McGhie Information Engineering Pty Ltd
Sydney, Australia. GMT + 10 Hrs
+61 4 1209 1410, mailto:[email protected]

 

[Mary]

I've just been sent a "bad" Word file by a colleague to see if Word 2000
SP-3 still sees it as corrupt. And yes, it did. I used Visual Basic Editor
to check the number of list templates in the document and it returned a
count of 2282.

So it seems manually editing the registry is still necessary even after
updating Word to SP-3. I wonder why the MS Knowledge Base article says "This
problem was corrected in Microsoft Office 2000 SR-1/SR-1a."

 

[Charles Kenyon]

Once a document is corrupt, merely opening it in a fixed system isn't likely
to help the document. I suspect (without knowledge) that the fix keeps the
number from building up, it doesn't fix existing buildup.

 

[Mary]

Charles, actually I know from experience that opening such a corrupt
document (where the corruption is caused by a buildup of list templates)
does "fix" the document. The corruption message is no longer present and the
number of list templates is reduced. However, the fix happens automatically
as soon as you open the document and unless you know that the previous owner
has had a corruption message and (less likely) had checked the no. of list
templates, you would not be aware that anything had happened.

I work for a company where most Word users are still on 97 and few of them
have applied the fix as the tech support department is reluctant to have
them edit the registry. So they frequently encounter this particular breed
of corruption. My original question was prompted by the fact that some have
now moved to Word 2000 and I was wondering if they still need to manually
edit the registry or if SP-3 would have automatically fixed this problem.

 

[Charles Kenyon]

I stand (sit) corrected and exposed in my ignorance.

 

[Mary]

Your conclusion was very logical. I would have expected the same, i.e., that
the fix would just prevent not remove the buildup. However, happily, it does
fix the bad docs. Which is just as well -- with the corrupt docs, the error
message on File>Open says " choose Select All from the Edit menu, then
choose Copy from the Edit menu. Create a new document, then choose Paste
form the Edit menu." But this does not usually work. But opening the same
file in Word XP/2003 or in a "fixed" version of Word 97 or Word 2000
magically fixes the file.

 

[Word Heretic]

G'day "Mary" <[email protected]>,

Cool - thanks for the verify Mary.

Steve Hudson - Word Heretic
Want a hyperlinked index? S/W R&D? See WordHeretic.com

steve from wordheretic.com (Email replies require payment)


Mary reckoned: