Talk:Microsoft Works

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


I'm not sure, but I seem to remember that a version 1.0 or 1.1 has been available for Mac OS in the early days when.

Ok, now I can confirm that a version 1.0 for Mac OS exists. I update the text accodingly. Jasper. Jan 26, 2007..

The article summary indicates that Microsoft Works has been available since 1988. In fact -- as substantiated by reference #2 to the main article -- the Macintosh version was introduced in 1986. I remember using it when I was a senior in college, at the time when I was the first kid in my dormitory to own a hard disk drive! (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Database format[edit]

I don't know if I should include this here, or somewhere else, but it seems relevant. I did a reverse-engineering of the MS Works database format (.wdb files) and it is available here User:JesseW/wdb format If someone wants to merge it into the article, or knows somewhere else I should publicize it, please let me know. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't publicise it too far as it's a specific breach of the EULA so you're likely to get sued... 15:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I never signed any EULA with Microsoft, so I can't see how it would apply... JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Moot point. This information would not be relevant to the article. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


This page needs a 'see also' to oxymoron.The Final Dream 18:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes cuz Microsoft doesnt work!! (Its a joke) RealG187 20:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
O RLY? —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:49, August 23, 2007 (UTC).
Linked to: Oxymoron#Oxymoron_use_as_Opinion in the "See also section" since Microsoft Works is specifically mentioned in that sub-section —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

POV statement[edit]

The statement "Versions later than 5.0 are only modifications and not improvements. Their main purpose is to echo upgrades of Microsoft Word." seems to be making a POV statement as to whether the modifications contained in 6.0 and later versions are improvements or not. If they are echoing upgrades of Word then I sure at least some people would view them as improvements. As such I have removed it. --Cab88 13:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Compatability of document formats with other applications[edit]

In the Characteristics section, there is the statement The WKS file format used by Microsoft Works has been criticised for being a closed, proprietary file format. Due to this, other office suites such as and even Microsoft Office are not able to open files stored in this format. However, according to (scroll down to Scenario 3), this is no longer true of Office. Fight lupus!

MS Works as an OS?[edit]

Can anyone verify the claim at that MS Works 1.2 was used as an operating system on the Tandy TRS-80 Model 600? Thanks. - MSTCrow 18:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Import library / conversion[edit]

By March 2007 (or maybe even December 2006), the project may be sufficiently developed to be integrated into word processors (such as to allow importing Works documents. Maybe you want to wait until this integration with applications before writing about it in the article.

Fair use rationale for Image:IconMW.PNG[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:IconMW.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

MS Works soon to be free?[edit]

ZDNet - Microsoft Works to become a free, ad-funded product 19:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Works 9.0[edit]

Should Works 9.0 be listed in the section that lists the version? aafuss 11:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Odd political statement?[edit]

The comments section at the bottom of the article strikes me as odd, out of place, and immaterial, not to mention oddly ambiantly political in nature, so Im going to remove it if there are no objections. RickO5 05:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess its some PoV against MS. It was added to MS Office article as well. I removed it a few days back. Must have missed this one. --soum talk 05:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

New picture?[edit]

The current picture doesn't seem to be Works 8.5. I may be wrong, however. Anyway, I've got a new picture that may be great for this article; it's low resolution, up-to-date, and is under Windows Vista, the latest Microsoft Operating system.
--Astroview120mm 23:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. -/- Warren 01:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Works Plus, and (conversely) the more limited version.[edit]

The article does not presently cover Microsoft Works Plus and the (alleged?) differences between it and the regular version. There is also something the name of which I misremember that could probably be called "Microsoft Works Minus", if one were to be a smartass, that has fewer features than the regular version. Both of these ship with various configurations of Dell machines. I have a copy of the Plus 2008 version, so I know that it exists. I haven't installed it, since Open Office does a lot more than Works, and I won't pay for MS Office. At any rate, I have no idea if either of these variants a) are actually true variants, or simply relabelings of the same product, or b) exist as other than Dell OEM items. Regardless, it seems worth investigating and documenting. If I came to this article looking for information on the (purported) differences, it is likely that others will. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I updated the article to more thoroughly cover Works Suite. Based on my research, there is no difference between the version of Works sold standalone & within the suite. However, in select years MS removed the word processor from the version of Works included in Works Suite. Because I could not conclusively identify each year, I omitted this information. Pns2clt (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


This article should be updated to reflect the announcement of the successor of Microsoft Works, Microsoft Office 2010 Starter Edition. Logan | Talk 17:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

used to be free[edit]

MS Works used to come preinstalled on Windows from 95 up until 2000 and ME, I thought. There's no mentioning of this in the article. -- (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope, that was never the case. On certain brands of PC then it was pre-installed by the Vendor but was never part of any version of Windows. The only applications that could be loosely called an word processing package that is/did come with Windows was Notepad and Wordpad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigthomas1 (talkcontribs) 20:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

No but the article is grossly misleading as to what MS Works was. It was shovelware. It was virtually free software that claimed to be a word processor, spreadsheet and database, and you could use it as such, but it was so feature incomplete, and had an incompatible file format, so that it was more a way for manufacturers to include a laundry list of programs for next to nothing. It was software that was used more to fill check boxes on marketing materials than for actual work. It was Microsoft and it was a word processor the ads generally left it for you to figure out that they were talking about works and not Word, Excel, and Access. Micheas (talk) 02:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. The article addresses that Works was a low-cost, stripped down version of Office that saw few changes over the years and was made available to OEM for $2. The product was adequate for the average home user, who expected a productivity suite to be included in the cost of his PC & was ignorant on alternatives. Corel struck agreements to bundle the WordPerfect Suite for virtually no cost to OEM on new PC purchases, however the option wasn't popular with few exceptions (e.g. NEC Packard Bell in the late 1990s and Dell in the mid-2000s). Pns2clt (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Windows Vista Comparability[edit]

Works 9.0 is not the first version compatible with Vista. With my Windows Vista DELL laptop, a Works 8.5 disk came with it and was preinstalled, and worked fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Old Link[edit] now redirects to Should the link maybe be replaced with — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Effect of office?[edit]

Prior to the release of under the GPL (LGPL?) by SunMicro Systems Microsoft Works was frequently/generally installed on new computers shipped by major PC vendors.

The release of a free competitor to Microsoft Office cause Microsoft to take actions to protect MS Offices Market share with trial versions and starter versions of Office to keep the logical upgrade path from the software included on the computer to be Microsoft Office.

One of the ripple effects is that Microsoft Works is no longer a frequently seen program while in most of the 1990's through the first decade of this century the majority of people that purchased a PC from a major manufacturer had the program pre installed on their computer.

I don't really know how to include this in the article, but it seems to be important as someone that is fifteen may have no clue that this was once a frequently pre-installed program.

It also seems like it might be worth mentioning that it was referred to as [[1]] by at least a sizable minority of people. Micheas (talk) 02:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Works was always a low-cost, stripped down version of Office and the transition to Office Starter can be seen as an long overdue updating of the product since it's also a low-cost, stripped down version of Office. We can't insist the transition was made due to competitive pressures, or that Works was shovelware, because Corel also attempted to give away its WordPerfect Suite (Office's lone competitor until the rise of Open/LibreOffice) but found few takers. Most people expect a productivity suite to be included with their computer, and Works was an adequate low-cost solution favored by OEMs. Works was seen as a dated, stripped-down version of Office, so Office Starter can be seen as a natural progression -- re-marketed for upsell opportunities. Of course, Office Starter has since been discontinued by that's beyond the scope of this article. Pns2clt (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Reuters and ArsTechnica seemed to think Microsoft was more threatened by Google and their suite of Google Office products, no mention of OpenOffice. -- (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Markup/Source code[edit]

Is it true that users could look at a document's markup or "source code" in MS Works, unlike MS Word? ➧datumizer  ☎  19:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)