Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

This startup disk will not work on this macintosh model.

Expand Messages
  • somniferous1
    This is the error code I get after I installed OS 7.5.3 on Sheepshaver. It goes on further to say.. Use the latest Installer to update this disk for this
    Message 1 of 14 , Jul 31, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      This is the error code I get after I installed OS 7.5.3 on Sheepshaver.

      It goes on further to say..

      Use the latest Installer to update this disk for this model.

      How do I get the smiley face I had with the OS 8.6 CD (that came with my G3).

      Is there any hope for me? So much of what is written is over my head.

      Thanks.
    • thomasbriant
      ... Dear Somniferous1: Did you install John Rethorst s Sheepshaver-WordPerfect kit? It s called SS-WP.ZIP and it s in the Links section of this Yahoo group. It
      Message 2 of 14 , Aug 1, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In wordperfectmac@yahoogroups.com, somniferous1 <no_reply@...> wrote:
        >
        > This is the error code I get after I installed OS 7.5.3 on Sheepshaver.
        >
        > It goes on further to say..
        >
        > Use the latest Installer to update this disk for this model.
        >
        > How do I get the smiley face I had with the OS 8.6 CD (that came with my G3).
        >
        > Is there any hope for me? So much of what is written is over my head.
        >
        > Thanks.
        >
        Dear Somniferous1:

        Did you install John Rethorst's Sheepshaver-WordPerfect kit? It's called SS-WP.ZIP and it's
        in the Links section of this Yahoo group. It works! It sets up Sheepshaver with an OS and
        Word Perfect.

        Or did you install OS 7.5.3 from a CD/floppy in your posession?

        I have to know this in order to help you.

        Tom Briant
        Editor, MacValley Voice
      • Frederic W. Erk
        One year ago I switched to classic Macintosh for word processing, which is essential to my research work. I have installed Microsoft Office 2001 suite, as well
        Message 3 of 14 , Aug 2, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          One year ago I switched to classic Macintosh for word processing,
          which is essential to my research work. I have installed Microsoft
          Office 2001 suite, as well as Corel WordPerfect 3.5e and Nisus. I
          would be interested to hear about fellow users and their opinion
          about those software. Whereas Microsoft does provide for standard
          performance, I have found Nisus and WordPerfect more appealing. Is
          that because Microsoft graphical user interface is so mediocre, or is
          it because WordPerfect is indeed a superior word processing piece of
          software?
          --
          Frederic W. Erk
          http://fredericerk.com
        • Geoff Gilbert
          Dear All I have WP3.5e and I also have WP Office X3 under Parallels. I have installed all the converters for X3 and the Conversion utility includes WPMac
          Message 4 of 14 , Aug 2, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear All

            I have WP3.5e and I also have WP Office X3 under Parallels. I have
            installed all the converters for X3 and the Conversion utility
            includes WPMac 3.1-3.x. I have even saved as Wp3.x in WPMac to see if
            that would work. Whatever I do, X3 tells me that the file is of an
            unknown format. Ideas?

            Geoff
          • manfred_dogg
            WordPerfect is a much superior product. The formatting is more intuitive and flexible. If you have ever used a H-P calculator, the Reverse Polish Notation
            Message 5 of 14 , Aug 2, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              WordPerfect is a much superior product. The formatting is more
              intuitive and flexible. If you have ever used a H-P calculator, the
              Reverse Polish Notation they use is much superior to the standard
              method used by most calculators. Of course RPN is not as intuitive as
              the standard method, but its superiority comes from the ease of use
              and flexibility it offers.


              --- In wordperfectmac@yahoogroups.com, "Frederic W. Erk"
              <discuss.ihsd@...> wrote:
              >
              > One year ago I switched to classic Macintosh for word processing,
              > which is essential to my research work. I have installed Microsoft
              > Office 2001 suite, as well as Corel WordPerfect 3.5e and Nisus. I
              > would be interested to hear about fellow users and their opinion
              > about those software. Whereas Microsoft does provide for standard
              > performance, I have found Nisus and WordPerfect more appealing. Is
              > that because Microsoft graphical user interface is so mediocre, or is
              > it because WordPerfect is indeed a superior word processing piece of
              > software?
              > --
              > Frederic W. Erk
              > http://fredericerk.com
              >
            • hacky8sack
              ... Well, in the worst case scenario, you could save as RTF in WPMac and then open that with X3. Steve
              Message 6 of 14 , Aug 2, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In wordperfectmac@yahoogroups.com, Geoff Gilbert <Geoff@...> wrote:
                >
                > Dear All
                >
                > I have WP3.5e and I also have WP Office X3 under Parallels. I have
                > installed all the converters for X3 and the Conversion utility
                > includes WPMac 3.1-3.x. I have even saved as Wp3.x in WPMac to see if
                > that would work. Whatever I do, X3 tells me that the file is of an
                > unknown format. Ideas?
                >
                > Geoff
                >
                Well, in the worst case scenario, you could save as RTF in WPMac and then open that with X3.
                Steve
              • Randy B. Singer
                ... You are asking on a WordPerfect discussion forum. What do you suppose that the answers will be here? You might want to ask this question on a more general
                Message 7 of 14 , Aug 2, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Aug 2, 2007, at 3:17 AM, Frederic W. Erk wrote:

                  > One year ago I switched to classic Macintosh for word processing,
                  > which is essential to my research work. I have installed Microsoft
                  > Office 2001 suite, as well as Corel WordPerfect 3.5e and Nisus. I
                  > would be interested to hear about fellow users and their opinion
                  > about those software. Whereas Microsoft does provide for standard
                  > performance, I have found Nisus and WordPerfect more appealing. Is
                  > that because Microsoft graphical user interface is so mediocre, or is
                  > it because WordPerfect is indeed a superior word processing piece of
                  > software?

                  You are asking on a WordPerfect discussion forum. What do you
                  suppose that the answers will be here?

                  You might want to ask this question on a more general Macintosh
                  discussion list, but even then I predict that you will get answers
                  similar to asking a bunch of men whose girlfriend was the best.
                  Users are very attached and loyal to their Word processor of choice.

                  Trying to be objective, I think that WordPerfect/Mac and MS Word are
                  in a class that no other word processors for the Macintosh can
                  approach. If WP/Mac hadn't been discontinued, and it incorporated
                  the patches and additions made available since, I think that there is
                  no doubt that it would be the best word processor on the Macintosh
                  platform. Especially so if it had been in continuous development all
                  this time and it took advantage of running on OS X. WP/Mac's one big
                  failing is that it never had really good WP to Word translators, in a
                  world where the Word file format is the de facto business standard
                  for exchanging editable documents.

                  I think that at this point Microsoft Word has more features than WP/
                  Mac, and it became a really good product with the introduction of the
                  first OS X version. It is now dead stable, and the interface, with
                  situation-specific palettes, is quite a bit nicer. Word is different
                  than WP/Mac in the way that it works, so a former WP/Mac user isn't
                  likely to immediately find the interface easy to use or to their
                  liking. Word also does not have the same level of formatting codes
                  that WP does, and that is a big deal to many former WP users. The
                  next version of Word, due anytime now, will have a heavily updated
                  interface,
                  <http://www.useit.com/alertbox/wysiwyg.html>
                  <http://www.microsoft.com/office/preview/uioverview.mspx>
                  and a new default file format that is no longer proprietary.
                  http://www.computerworld.com/newsletter/0,4902,106437,00.html?nlid=PM

                  There are a bunch of other word processors for the Macintosh:
                  http://www.emailman.com/software/wordproc/mac.html
                  None are as powerful as Word and WP/Mac, but if any of them have
                  sufficient features for your needs, and you like their interface,
                  then there is no reason not to use them. But many folks cannot
                  consider anything other than Word or WP/Mac because they need any of
                  a number of advanced features, such as document tracking, redlining,
                  table of authorities, etc.

                  I think that the bottom line is that the word processor that is most
                  "appealing" is the one that most appeals to you. Other factors, such
                  as features, developer support, ease of use (from your perspective),
                  and cost, will also probably figure into your decision as to which
                  word processor is best for you.

                  After all that...have I just fed a troll?


                  ___________________________________________
                  Randy B. Singer
                  Co-author of The Macintosh Bible (4th, 5th, and 6th editions)

                  Macintosh OS X Routine Maintenance
                  http://www.macattorney.com/ts.html
                  ___________________________________________
                • Frederic W. Erk
                  ... I am very sorry about that question on this specific forum. I just registered myself to two new discussion forums, the first being devoted to using Apple
                  Message 8 of 14 , Aug 3, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    >
                    >You are asking on a WordPerfect discussion forum. What do you
                    >suppose that the answers will be here?

                    I am very sorry about that question on this specific forum. I just
                    registered myself to two new discussion forums, the first being
                    devoted to using Apple Macintosh in Humanities - to which I thought
                    my message was posted -, and the latter being yours. So please accept
                    my humblest apologies for this bizarre introduction of myself.

                    >
                    >WP/Mac's one big
                    >failing is that it never had really good WP to Word translators, in a
                    >world where the Word file format is the de facto business standard
                    >for exchanging editable documents.

                    This is an issue, indeed. As I am new to WordPerfect 3.5e and have
                    many Word files, would you mind explaining or at least pointing me at
                    a guide to converting Word files into WordPerfect.

                    >
                    >I think that the bottom line is that the word processor that is most
                    >"appealing" is the one that most appeals to you. Other factors, such
                    >as features, developer support, ease of use (from your perspective),
                    >and cost, will also probably figure into your decision as to which
                    >word processor is best for you.

                    I am particularly interested in the foreign languages Thesauri and
                    dictionaries. After some fiddling with WordPerfect I have the feeling
                    that the Word support is superior (which is to be expected from a
                    more recent and world standard application.) For instance, using
                    WordPerfect in French and checking the spelling resulted in many
                    false errors, as if WordPerfect could not understand grammatical
                    situations or plurals.

                    Another issue is the compatibility of WordPerfect 3.5 with the
                    Windows X3 application suite.

                    >
                    >After all that...have I just fed a troll?

                    I don't think so, first because I have more important things to do
                    than playing that kind of games, and second, because WordPerfect
                    would not be the ideal platform for sounding the troll alarm. I hope
                    that answered your question.

                    --
                    Frederic W. Erk
                    http://fredericerk.com
                  • Thomas J. Rostafinski, Ph.D.
                    Geoff, when I save as WP 3.x AND add the file extension .wpm, WPWin 11 opens the files, though formatting is not always conserved very well. I have had better
                    Message 9 of 14 , Aug 3, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Geoff, when I save as WP 3.x AND add the file extension .wpm, WPWin 11
                      opens the files, though formatting is not always conserved very well.

                      I have had better luck with saving as WPWin 6,7,8, and adding the .wpd
                      extension, of course. WPWin 11 seems to do better with the formatting then.

                      I cannot imagine that X3 would have abandoned even that level of support
                      for WPMac files, but maybe. X3 should continue to open whatever you
                      save as WPWin, though. Let us know if any of these ways work for you. Tom

                      ===================================
                      Thomas J. Rostafinski, Ph.D.
                      Licensed Clinical Psychologist
                      1140 Lake Street, Suite 508
                      Oak Park, IL 60301-1053
                      (708) 848-1611
                      fax (708) 848-1436
                      tjrostaf@...
                      ===================================

                      > WP Office X3 importing WPMac
                      > Posted by: "Geoff Gilbert" Geoff@...
                      > Date: Thu Aug 2, 2007 4:08 pm ((PDT))
                      >
                      > Dear All
                      >
                      > I have WP3.5e and I also have WP Office X3 under Parallels. I have
                      > installed all the converters for X3 and the Conversion utility
                      > includes WPMac 3.1-3.x. I have even saved as Wp3.x in WPMac to see if
                      > that would work. Whatever I do, X3 tells me that the file is of an
                      > unknown format. Ideas?
                      >
                      > Geoff
                    • J. C. Sarmiento
                      fwiw we have continued to use wp/mac within os x using the classic environment, and use maclinkplus as a translator to or from ms word or any other word
                      Message 10 of 14 , Aug 3, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        fwiw we have continued to use wp/mac within os x using
                        the classic environment, and use maclinkplus as a
                        translator to or from ms word or any other word
                        processor. maclinkplus works well and its not too
                        expensive, thus enabling us to remain ms-free.
                        --- "Randy B. Singer" <randy@...> wrote:

                        jc sarmiento, sf

                        >
                        > On Aug 2, 2007, at 3:17 AM, Frederic W. Erk wrote:
                        >
                        > > One year ago I switched to classic Macintosh for
                        > word processing,
                        > > which is essential to my research work. I have
                        > installed Microsoft
                        > > Office 2001 suite, as well as Corel WordPerfect
                        > 3.5e and Nisus. I
                        > > would be interested to hear about fellow users and
                        > their opinion
                        > > about those software. Whereas Microsoft does
                        > provide for standard
                        > > performance, I have found Nisus and WordPerfect
                        > more appealing. Is
                        > > that because Microsoft graphical user interface is
                        > so mediocre, or is
                        > > it because WordPerfect is indeed a superior word
                        > processing piece of
                        > > software?
                        >
                        > You are asking on a WordPerfect discussion forum.
                        > What do you
                        > suppose that the answers will be here?
                        >
                        > You might want to ask this question on a more
                        > general Macintosh
                        > discussion list, but even then I predict that you
                        > will get answers
                        > similar to asking a bunch of men whose girlfriend
                        > was the best.
                        > Users are very attached and loyal to their Word
                        > processor of choice.
                        >
                        > Trying to be objective, I think that WordPerfect/Mac
                        > and MS Word are
                        > in a class that no other word processors for the
                        > Macintosh can
                        > approach. If WP/Mac hadn't been discontinued, and
                        > it incorporated
                        > the patches and additions made available since, I
                        > think that there is
                        > no doubt that it would be the best word processor on
                        > the Macintosh
                        > platform. Especially so if it had been in
                        > continuous development all
                        > this time and it took advantage of running on OS X.
                        > WP/Mac's one big
                        > failing is that it never had really good WP to Word
                        > translators, in a
                        > world where the Word file format is the de facto
                        > business standard
                        > for exchanging editable documents.
                        >
                        > I think that at this point Microsoft Word has more
                        > features than WP/
                        > Mac, and it became a really good product with the
                        > introduction of the
                        > first OS X version. It is now dead stable, and the
                        > interface, with
                        > situation-specific palettes, is quite a bit nicer.
                        > Word is different
                        > than WP/Mac in the way that it works, so a former
                        > WP/Mac user isn't
                        > likely to immediately find the interface easy to use
                        > or to their
                        > liking. Word also does not have the same level of
                        > formatting codes
                        > that WP does, and that is a big deal to many former
                        > WP users. The
                        > next version of Word, due anytime now, will have a
                        > heavily updated
                        > interface,
                        > <http://www.useit.com/alertbox/wysiwyg.html>
                        >
                        <http://www.microsoft.com/office/preview/uioverview.mspx>
                        > and a new default file format that is no longer
                        > proprietary.
                        >
                        http://www.computerworld.com/newsletter/0,4902,106437,00.html?nlid=PM
                        >
                        > There are a bunch of other word processors for the
                        > Macintosh:
                        > http://www.emailman.com/software/wordproc/mac.html
                        > None are as powerful as Word and WP/Mac, but if any
                        > of them have
                        > sufficient features for your needs, and you like
                        > their interface,
                        > then there is no reason not to use them. But many
                        > folks cannot
                        > consider anything other than Word or WP/Mac because
                        > they need any of
                        > a number of advanced features, such as document
                        > tracking, redlining,
                        > table of authorities, etc.
                        >
                        > I think that the bottom line is that the word
                        > processor that is most
                        > "appealing" is the one that most appeals to you.
                        > Other factors, such
                        > as features, developer support, ease of use (from
                        > your perspective),
                        > and cost, will also probably figure into your
                        > decision as to which
                        > word processor is best for you.
                        >
                        > After all that...have I just fed a troll?
                        >
                        >
                        > ___________________________________________
                        > Randy B. Singer
                        > Co-author of The Macintosh Bible (4th, 5th, and 6th
                        > editions)
                        >
                        > Macintosh OS X Routine Maintenance
                        > http://www.macattorney.com/ts.html
                        > ___________________________________________
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                      • Geoff Gilbert
                        Tom Saving as WP 6,7,8 worked and even preserved the cross-referenced footnotes. Strangely, though, it lost the indent for indented paragraphs. However, given
                        Message 11 of 14 , Aug 4, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Tom

                          Saving as WP 6,7,8 worked and even preserved the cross-referenced
                          footnotes. Strangely, though, it lost the indent for indented
                          paragraphs. However, given the number of cross-referenced footnote
                          numbers I usually have to manually insert, I'll take this over saving
                          as Word 6 any day (no cross-referenced footnotes and no indents).

                          Thanks

                          Geoff

                          >Geoff, when I save as WP 3.x AND add the file extension .wpm, WPWin 11
                          >opens the files, though formatting is not always conserved very well.
                          >
                          >I have had better luck with saving as WPWin 6,7,8, and adding the .wpd
                          >extension, of course. WPWin 11 seems to do better with the formatting then.
                          >
                          >I cannot imagine that X3 would have abandoned even that level of support
                          >for WPMac files, but maybe. X3 should continue to open whatever you
                          >save as WPWin, though. Let us know if any of these ways work for you. Tom
                          >
                          >===================================
                          >Thomas J. Rostafinski, Ph.D.
                          >Licensed Clinical Psychologist
                          >1140 Lake Street, Suite 508
                          >Oak Park, IL 60301-1053
                          >(708) 848-1611
                          >fax (708) 848-1436
                          >tjrostaf@...
                          >===================================
                          >
                          >> WP Office X3 importing WPMac
                          >> Posted by: "Geoff Gilbert" Geoff@...
                          >> Date: Thu Aug 2, 2007 4:08 pm ((PDT))
                          >>
                          >> Dear All
                          >>
                          >> I have WP3.5e and I also have WP Office X3 under Parallels. I have
                          >> installed all the converters for X3 and the Conversion utility
                          >> includes WPMac 3.1-3.x. I have even saved as Wp3.x in WPMac to see if
                          >> that would work. Whatever I do, X3 tells me that the file is of an
                          >> unknown format. Ideas?
                          >>
                          >> Geoff
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >Yahoo! Groups Links
                          >
                          >
                          >
                        • David Patterson
                          AND add the file extension .wpm My experience has been that one should always add the DOS extension to any file name which will be opened on a PC. That s the
                          Message 12 of 14 , Aug 4, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            "AND add the file extension .wpm"
                            My experience has been that one should always add the DOS extension to
                            any file name which will be opened on a PC. That's the only way the poor
                            thing has of knowing what to do with the file.

                            David Patterson
                          • Randy B. Singer
                            ... You might want to check out this utility, which I find invaluable: Spell Catcher http://www.rainmakerinc.com/ ___________________________________________
                            Message 13 of 14 , Aug 6, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On Aug 3, 2007, at 12:45 AM, Frederic W. Erk wrote:

                              > I am particularly interested in the foreign languages Thesauri and
                              > dictionaries.

                              You might want to check out this utility, which I find invaluable:

                              Spell Catcher
                              http://www.rainmakerinc.com/

                              ___________________________________________
                              Randy B. Singer
                              Co-author of The Macintosh Bible (4th, 5th, and 6th editions)

                              Macintosh OS X Routine Maintenance
                              http://www.macattorney.com/ts.html
                              ___________________________________________
                            • Frederic W. Erk
                              ... Thank you for this very interesting suggestion! -- Frederic W. Erk http://fredericerk.com
                              Message 14 of 14 , Aug 6, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                >
                                >You might want to check out this utility, which I find invaluable:
                                >
                                >Spell Catcher
                                >http://www.rainmakerinc.com/

                                Thank you for this very interesting suggestion!
                                --
                                Frederic W. Erk
                                http://fredericerk.com
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.