"Read Mode" in Word 2013 does not look as the "Take a Tour" document says - wonder why so?

How many real books (150 to 300 pages) you have designed, finalized, published in different languages using Word 2007 that you are suggesting "best advised not to use "Book fold"?

What I have stated is based on practical use of Word 2007 which, with your limited perspective, you have failed to understand. Hence, it is pointless wasting time on this subject anymore.

I admit you are expert in theory but that is inconsequential.

I also admit that I made the mistake of even attempting to explain to you in my last reply looking at your 'assumption' that was way off the mark.

When you select "Book fold," Word gives you two pages per sheet, and you can see two pages in Print Layout view or Print Preview (but facing pages only in Print Preview). This is a Page Setup setting that has nothing to do with the view. You can view two pages (facing pages in Print Preview) just the same if the document is set for Normal, the only difference being the size of the "pages." The preview in the Page Setup dialog is not intended to show how the document will look on the screen, just the fact that there will be two logical pages printed on one physical sheet.

Read Mode (Full Screen Reading in Word 2007 and 2010, Reading Layout in Word 2003) is not intended to be WYSIWYG and is not primarily intended for editing. It is meant to be a view in which the document can be made more readable by increasing the text size; it is not for laying out or editing the text but for just reading it. That's why it was made the default view for opening Word attachments directly from email, the assumption being that if  you just opened the attachment (as opposed to saving it to the HD and then opening), your primary interest was in the content, not the layout.

I still don't understand what you think Word is not doing. You can still layout a book for desktop publishing. If it will be bound in the conventional way, you would be best advised not to use "Book fold," which will lay out pages for a folded booklet (and 100 pages is about the maximum you can successfully have in a folded booklet). You can set "Mirror margins" and have different odd and even running heads and footers. What is it that you find yourself unable to do?

If you just want to see how the book (facing pages) will look when made into a book (whether or not you're using "Book fold"), you can do this in Print Preview.

Thanks.

I do not just want to see how the book (facing pages) will look when made into a book using Print Preview. I want complete DTP from start to finish, book arrives at publisher's desk.

Page arrangement in Word has to follow the binding technique to be used. Word 2007 was capable of handling all that with ease provided one had experimented with, and arrived at, proper mix of settings under page layout. Word 2013 has killed that hidden potential. Hats off to Microsoft.

Background

Prior to Word 2007, I used extensively Adobe PageMaker 7. Those days OT Fonts were not in vogue.

Adobe stopped further development of PageMaker after 2003 as Microsoft did for its web designing software FrontPage 2003, and again Expression Web 4. At this point, I explored Microsoft Publisher 2003 and found it a poor substitute for Adobe PageMaker.

Then I figured out how Microsoft Word 2007 could deliver the result, I was looking for, by harvesting its hidden potential. Besides, Word 2007 also offered Unicode compatibility for multi-lingual publications.

With new PC, new OS, I bought new Office 2013 only to find how frustrating it could be to encounter Microsoft's legandary inconsistency by deploying which they make their own product weaker than before.

Thanks for the clarification. Of course, Google Search and Internet Explorer are off-topic in this thread.

I shall bring home the point why mention thereof was not out of place.

This is Word 2007 Page Setup -

Now compare it with Word 2013 Page Setup -

Do you see any difference?

They look alike.

And yet, one consistently delivered the result, the other plainly fails to do that.

What Microsoft did with Google Search and Internet Explorer was fairly similar. Win 7 consistently delivered a specific result, whereas Win 8.1 failed in consistently delivering the same result.

Those were off-topic and these are on-topic. Together they convey practically same thing.

It is not prudent to rob the benefit earlier system by making changes for sake of change, without serving the purpose, and killing something that was functional.

Note that although Read Mode has existed for a while (under different names), it has been redesigned a few times, so you can't really compare to what was in Word 2007.

Well, let's see what changes were made and to what advantage?

This is word 2007 ribbon. It has no Read Mode. It has Two Page view.

This is word 2013 ribbon. It has Read Mode. It has no Page view.

Does this convey that Read Mode was introduced in Word 2013 to substitute Two Page view of Word 2007 and therefore Microsoft chose this icon for Read Mode which, very clearly, is set in two page view.

And to what advantage? To rob the benefit earlier system offered!

Making changes for sake of change is not prudent. It must serve some purpose.

At least, not kill something that was functional.

Re: so you can't really compare to what was in Word 2007

Yes, there is a very good reason to compare.

It is no good saying "you can't compare" without bothering to understand why those changes were made, in first place, and did they serve, or, kill the purpose.