Sorry, I’d forgotten it was customizable. For anybody unsure here’s a pic
http://members.cox.net/tbdipics/undoredo.jpg
The one that took me a while was the big circle icon in the upper left. It just never occurred to me that it was a functional thing, I thought it was just decoration.
http://members.cox.net/tbdipics/optionsmenu.jpg
No prob, tbdi, at least you pointed me the right way. OTOH, and rather ironically, clickling on that disk was one of the first things I found…but I do admit to being rather surprised seeing the cascade of commands appear, because, like you, I thought it was just for aesthetics.
BTW, don’t want to bug you anymore, but since you appear to have a good command of the program, what the heck do “Show below the ribbon” and “minimize the ribbon,” mean?
Shoot, I best stop, because if I keep asking questions about all the things that confound me, you are going to have to send me a bill. 
Thank you! I’ve been looking for this but didn’t know where to find it! I’m running Office 2003 on XP and 2007 on Vista so being able to edit .docx files in XP will be a lifesaver!
Fair warning: .docx spreadsheets may not be actually accurate.
Overview:
http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/07/formula-for-failure.html
Detail:
http://www.openmalaysiablog.com/2007/07/mathematically-.html
It’s going to be a long week.
That’s not a very accurate description of your links. What they show are bits of the OOXML specification containing incompletely specified localisation detail, or ambiguities caused by unspecified conventions (things like dates, and weights and measures). There was also one example given of a misplaced formula definition (for deviation), and one of a mis-specified function (the ceiling function).
What this means is that a .docx spreadsheet may not evaluate the same across different valid OOXML implementations. While clearly undesirable (I share the author of your first link’s astonishment that the trigonometric functions don’t even specify units), this really isn’t the same as .docx spreadsheets not being “accurate”, which rather implies that docx files contain some intrinsic mathematical flaw causing their output to be numerically incorrect. This is not the case.
I didn’t want to start a new thread to add my 2 bits to this discussion but I recentley got the Office 07 Ultimate Edition for $60 from MS with an academic discount and am currently using it to write my thesis. I really like the new ribbon and find it much easier to get around in than past iterations of Word. It’s very easy to use for the most part. I don’t think the new docx file format will catch on though. I just don’t see a need. I really do like it better than the previous versions.
My only gripe:
IF you are going to include a citation creator in the program at least give it some features. It should, AT THE MINIMUM, be able to import citations from various card catalogs/ journals.
All in all though I am happy with it.
How can you not name your notebook computer? It has to have a name on the network. I name every computer I own.
New slogan (since MS killed Netscape): “It ain’t done till OpenOffice won’t run”
Excel got worse. Revealed yesterdayish.
It’s clearly having something to do with 65535 being a Word, (2^16, starting at 0), and possibly a 16-bit to 32 bit issue. Furthermore, it flickers back and forth, depending if you add 1 to it, multiply it by two, or multiply it by one, or divide it by one, or divide it by two.
You named your laptop after a SDMB poster?
How many Microsoft Vice Presidents does it take to screw in a light bulb?
None, they just define darkness as the new standard.