2007/7/19, NoOp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 07/19/2007 12:44 AM, Harold Fuchs wrote: > On 19/07/07, NoOp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On 07/18/2007 10:45 AM, Harold Fuchs wrote: >> > John Barman wrote: >> >> I have recently updated my OO programme to the latest stable >> >> version (2.2.9161) I find that none of my existing web hyperlinks >> >> now work. Typing the URL directly in the Windows Explorer browser >> >> works OK, as does the same hyperlink from a MS Word Document, but >> >> links in OO Write and OO Calc now generate an error message: >> >> "Windows cannot find https:// ....etc. Make sure you typed the name >> >> correctly and then try again. To search for a file, check the Start >> >> button and then check Search." >> >> >> >> John Barman >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Hmmmm. >> > >> > 1. The *latest* version of OO is 2.2.1 not 2.2.9161 as you mention. >> > Where did you get it from? (or was the 9161 a typo?) >> >> I doubt that it is a typo; if you look at the OOo RPM you'll find that >> they are listed at 2.2.9161 etc. For example, the previous (June) 2.3dev >> .rpm files are: >> >> ooo-dev-core01-2.3.0-9171.i586.rpm >> ooo-dev-writer-2.3.0-9171.i586.rpm >> >> 2.2.0 was 2.20-9134.i5586.rpm >> >> >> I don't have a Windows version handy right now to check, but perhaps the >> windows files a similar numbering scheme? >> > I'm a little confused by your post: the OP says he's using Windows Explorer > and MS Word which suggests he's on Windows; aren't .rpm files related to > Linux installations? Or is this yet another stick I've got the wrong end of? > Perhaps you missed: "I don't have a Windows version handy right now to check, but perhaps the windows files a similar numbering scheme?" That was a question. I was simply pointing out that the various versions (at least on linux) have numbering schemes that appear to match what he is reporting. So I suspect that the actual windows files probably have the same or similar.
I think John has answered our queries, by pointing out that OOo editions for Windows do seem to have, precisely as NoOp surmised, a numbering scheme quite similar to that used for Linux editions. The really fascinating thing here, however, is the information that he was able to resolve his problems simply by making IE 7 his default browser. That, I for one, hadn't expected.... Henri
