SOLVED: How to download an ISO image for Office 2007 Pro in the year 2018

Rene Lamontagne wrote:

My icons are not hidden so I don't have to click the small caret.

Thanks for explaining the discrepancy where we don't differ realistically
on the facts.

We only differ in philosophy.

The need is there to safely disconnect, even as I always wait for the file
transfer to finish, but I /still/ get corruptions if I don't use the
two-step or three-step process of "safely disconnecting hardware".

To me, the main issue, philosophically, since the risk is corruption of
data, is whether Microsoft (or the USB standard) should or even /could/
have made safe-disconnection automatic just like it's automatic that our
white backup lights go on when we shift the transmission into reverse?

On 03/02/2018 3:32 PM, ultred ragnusen wrote:
ultred ragnusen wrote:

I have too many computers to want to have a USB attached to each one, but
what I could use is a battery backup for the house that kicks in more
quickly than does the generator.

I meant UPS (not USB).
Mea culpa...


I believe Paul Mentioned a *Tesla Power Wall*

Rene

ultred ragnusen
Sat, 24 Feb 2018
18:04:01 GMT in alt.windows7.general, wrote:

Mike S wrote:

Are you saying Windows physically damaged your hdd, or is it
possible you could simply no longer boot from it?

There is absolutely no doubt (based on my tests) that the HDD is
undamaged and that the only problem is that an errant Microsoft
Windows 10 update bricked the operating system.
http://wetakepic.com/images/2018/02/...update_010.jpg

I believe you're using the term bricked in error here...You aren't
dealing with fuxored firmware. You have full access to the software
in question and can repair at will without much of anything getting
in your way.

Trust me, since 6:29am on the 25th of January, I have spent
umpteen hours running all the possible options that come up in the
default Microsoft Windows 10 recovery console, as had Microsoft
telephone tier 2 tech support at +1-800-642-7676.
http://wetakepic.com/images/2018/02/...em_restore.jpg

Any of you thought to check event viewer logs? Sometimes, they
provide quite useful information. Especially for the purposes of
debugging.

That was the last time I was able to boot...where three days in a
row, the Windows 10 Update failed, and when the PC booted
overnight, it never came back.
http://wetakepic.com/images/2018/02/...tup_repair.jpg

It's difficult to do remote diagnostic work in some cases. Especially
if one doesn't know what the original owner has already tried for
repairs. You may infact have made things worse in your hasty effort
to fix it...

Thanks for the advice, but Windows bricked itself, where we tried
resetting the OS using the recovery console.
http://wetakepic.com/images/2018/02/24/reset_pc_02.jpg

You're using the wrong terminology....And what do you mean by
resetting the OS exactly? Have you backed up the data you care about
onto external media? If not, that's the first thing you should be
doing, before you continue with blind 'click this, push this, cross
your fingers' repair efforts. While it's unlikely you'd lose access
to your data in most cases, I have no idea what you might attempt to
do to repair the machine; so for that reason, it's best for you to
copy your data off the machine before you attempt further repairs.

If you just want it fixed fast and don't care to do some real
troubleshooting, backup your data and reload the machine.

It failed.
http://wetakepic.com/images/2018/02/24/reset_pc_04.jpg

Currently, I'm working with the various suggested recovery
mechanisms: * TestDisk
* Recuva
* PhotoRec
* DDRescue
* Knoppix
etc.

Umm. I mean no offense when I tell you this, but, you don't seem to
know what you're doing.




--
Don't become the next David Brooks cyberstalking victim!
Visit https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php (10/10 WOT)
to learn more. If you've already become a victim or know someone who
has, you can provide the following information to them, your lawyer,
local law enforcement, etc.
https://www.devon-cornwall.police.uk - His local police. Report?
David Brooks (BoaterDave)
Jersey Cottage 86 Granary Lane
Budleigh Salterton Devon EX9 6ER United Kingdom
Phone: 44-1395-443340 (H) 07974-193550 (M)
Email(s): ,

On 03/02/2018 3:40 PM, ultred ragnusen wrote:
Rene Lamontagne wrote:

My icons are not hidden so I don't have to click the small caret.

Thanks for explaining the discrepancy where we don't differ realistically
on the facts.

We only differ in philosophy.

The need is there to safely disconnect, even as I always wait for the file
transfer to finish, but I /still/ get corruptions if I don't use the
two-step or three-step process of "safely disconnecting hardware".

To me, the main issue, philosophically, since the risk is corruption of
data, is whether Microsoft (or the USB standard) should or even /could/
have made safe-disconnection automatic just like it's automatic that our
white backup lights go on when we shift the transmission into reverse?


I would think they could, Think Hot plug bays for hard drives,. I have
one built into the top of my Coolermaster Case. I can hotswap two and a
half inch SSDs to my hearts conntent.

Rene

Rene

In alt.comp.os.windows-10 Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
On 2/3/2018 23:59, Shadow wrote:

Link does not exist, but I think you typoed
Office 2007 reached its end of support on October 10, 2017.
BTW LibreOffice support never ends.


Office 2007 is good enough for most users. Could someone tell me what's
special with Office 2010, 2013 and 2016? Cloud? Come on... we don't
usually share data with others....

To me, nothing. Ha. I still prefer the older versions. I was using 2K
SP3 until October 2016 until my HDD crashed hard. And then, I installed
2003 which was fine. And then I got a free 2007 so I installed it. Also,
I use LibreOffice.

--
Quote of the Week: "When the ants unite their mouths, they can carry an elephant." --Mossian Proverb
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail privately. If credit-
| |o o| | ing, then please kindly use Ant nickname and URL/link.
\ _ /
( )

ultred ragnusen wrote:

Rene Lamontagne wrote:

One seven minute downtime in 2 years.

Would your internal Sata drive keep running during a power outage??
You must have discovered perpetual motion if they do.

As usual, you bring up a valid point, but the SATA-power question
doesn't really doesn't change the fact that you don't pull your SATA
drive out of the port and its cables don't get knocked or pulled out
without thinking about it consciously and opening up the case of the
computer (which isn't gonna realistically happen).

Having noted that huge difference, I would like you to expound
though, on that fact which you noted, which is what does happen when,
say, the power goes out when a SATA drive is being written to by
Windows?

Does that (admittedly rare) occurrence chance corruption of the entire
disk (which is what I've seen with USB drives)?

I don't provide any promises, I'm just telling what works fine for
me, Other people can make their own choices.

As long as you note, realistically, that if you improperly disconnect
USB drives in Windows, there is a reasonably high chance of
corruption, I'm ok with you stating that leaving the chainsaw in the
nursery never hurt your kids.

Your Experienced!!! At What???

Data corruption. If you want, I can even dig up the threads, but the
last time I trusted a USB drive for backup was years ago.

That's a **** poor analogy if I ever heard one.

I agree that it's more emphatic than it needs to be, but my point was
simply that the fact you never had an accident doesn't mean that
riding a motorcycle is more dangerous than driving a SUV.

A USB drive is far more dangerous than most other types of drives with
respect to operating-system induced corruption. That's a fact, which
we can debate the percentage of danger of, but which is a fact
nonetheless, just as riding a motorcycle is inherently more dangerous
than is driving a car.

If you have a power or data interruption when using a USB drive on
Windows, you definitely risk corruption of the HDD contents.
Period.

Versus a Sata drive which runs on air ?

Air is good. I love air. Whatever suggestions you can impart for
backing up over the air is good for me and good for the tribal
knowledge.

I don't disagree with any of your statements - I only disagree with
your assessment of risk from those frail USB drives.

I don't need your references.

Good. I didn't want to have to dig up the obvious.

To be sure, I do not mean to be combative in the least ... I
simply mean to be factual and honest with those facts.

Neither I, but you brought this on to yourself.

We agree on almost everything other than the risk assessment of those
frail USB drives. Let's leave it at that, because I've been burned
and you have not been burned, so you haven't sworn off what I have.

It's sort of like someone having been burned by cheap Chinese brake
discs, who swears them off, even though someone else does just fine
with them.

I would like to know more about how you set up air SATA because
that's a good idea, as long as it's feasible. Do you mean over the
Wi-Fi LAN?

You may want to consider a Wireless NAS device.

There are caddy-like devices that you put in your own SATA drive

or Wireless NAS that have hard drives pre-installed internally.

Backups are done over WiFi.

Assuming both computer and NAS are 802.11ac transfer speeds are

acceptible.

802.11ac is rated at 1.3 Gps but you'll never see that in

real world application.

I have used them at customer sites where network drops were not

available and have had very few problems.

Note: The NAS is on your internal LAN and is therefore succeptible

to corruption via malware (CryptoLocker etc...)

Easily thwarted with complex password restrictions.

I use pre- and post- job options in my backup software

to map a drive to the NAS prior to the job running and

un-map the drive after completion.

This minimizes the time that the NAS is accessible from the Computer.

Just a suggestion for over "air" backup.


JT



--

On Fri, 2 Mar 2018 13:28:57 -0800, ultred ragnusen
wrote:

Ken Blake wrote:

But that's a very different statement from your "compatible with MS
Office documents ... they're not." Your statement implies that they
are completely incompatible, and that's not at all true. For most
people, and the documents that they create or receive from others,
they are close enough to being completely compatible that getting them
instead of paying for Microsoft Office is a good choice.

We only disagree on one thing, and one thing only, with respect to
compatibility, which is that if /one/ necessary document is incompatible,
then I must /purchase/ Microsoft Office.

Period.

Once I've purchased Microsoft Office, then I'm gonna /use/ Microsoft
Office, where, trust me, I don't buy anything I don't have to buy, nor do I
load software just for the fun of learning about all the ways they screw up
the design in the user interface.

It's sort of like the same philosophy that dictates that police in the USA
have guns on their belt and why they are trained in how to use them.

We only disagree in philosophy.

You seem to think that the small number of incompatible documents justifies
the need /not/ to pay for and install and learn and use Microsoft Office.



No, I said nothing like that. Whether you should get Microsoft
Office, OpenOffice, LibreOffice, or anything else depends on you, what
your needs are, and your likes and dislikes are. What's right for one
person isn't necessarily right for everyone.

For some people LibreOffice or OpenOffice is the right choice. For
others, Microsoft Office is. For still others (me for example),
neither is the right choice.

In message , ultred ragnusen
writes
Rene Lamontagne wrote:

But that's ONLY 2 clicks, Surely you can manage that! even if you are in
your 80s.
I am 84 and I don't have too much trouble with it. :-)

I said three, I meant three, and I count three.

It's interesting that those who have a point to prove tend to underestimate
the clicks if they want to prove it's not onerous, just as those who want
to show that it's onerous tend to overstimate the clicks.

But I just checked, and it's what I said it was.

I plug in USB stick which automatically loads drivers for "Drive K:"
http://wetakepic.com/images/2018/03/...eenshot305.jpg

1. I find & click the tiny caret icon on the taskbar (show hidden icons)
http://wetakepic.com/images/2018/03/...eenshot306.jpg
2. I find & click the usbstick icon "Safely Remove Hardware & Eject Media"
http://wetakepic.com/images/2018/03/...eenshot307.jpg
3. I find & click the "Eject Ultra" line specific to that Drive K:
http://wetakepic.com/images/2018/03/...eenshot308.jpg
A message pops up saying it's safe to eject
http://wetakepic.com/images/2018/03/...eenshot309.jpg

We don't disagree meaningfully in facts - we only disagree in philosophy.

You feel it's OK to have three clicks to make it safe to pull a USB stick
out, where I feel that this is two and even three clicks too many, since it
should be designed to be automatic.

Think about it philosophically, as you would this automotive scenario:

You feel it's OK to have three clicks to turn white backup lights on when
you shift the car into reverse, where I feel that this is two or three
clicks too many, since it should be designed to be automatic, or at worst,
one click.

We don't disagree on facts ... we disagree on philosophy.

If you want something to happen, and if it doesn't happen things could get
catastrophic, then you should design it such that it happens every time.

If by 'onerous' you mean 'unnecessarily takes up my valuable time',
don't you think all your pointless arguing about two or three clicks is
far more 'onerous' than your actually performing the two or three
clicks?
--
Ian

ultred ragnusen wrote:
[...]
While I live in what appears to be the third world of power reliability
(the power goes out, on average, about a dozen times a year in the
California Santa Cruz Mountains), I'm /mostly/ talking about yanking the
USB cable out without performing the multi-step hardware shutdown process.

I was lulled into complacency because your data isn't corrupted every time
you yank a USB device out of its port without the multi-step shutdown
process being elicited, but I was taught a hard lesson by more than one
corruption, the worst of which was on a large USB drive just after backing
up large amounts of data, which subsequently had to be recovered
painstakingly with Recuva (flat, and missing key elements of the file
names) because I didn't realize until (months?) later that Windows had
corrupted the frail USB drive.

An improper disconnect will not cause the amount of data loss you
mention. At most you will lose (part of) or two files.

So "just after backing up large amounts of data", you must have done
much more than just a single impoper disconnect, otherwise you would not
have to use Recuva, but just a simplae chkdsk.

At that point, which wasn't my first rodeo with the inherent corruptability
of those frail USB drives, I swore them off forever.

As others have pointed out as well, your problems have nothing to do
with USB per se, but just with improper disconnects. Any other (than
USB) interface would give similar - if not worse - problems.

Anyway, you *did* disable write-caching on "those frail USB drives",
didn't you!?

In message , ultred
ragnusen writes:
[]
We agree on everything.

Never (-:! But that's the joy of usenet, or one of them. Sometimes
arguments can get to the angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin point, or pointless
just repeated contradictions, but sometimes - and, I'd say, often in the
case of the 'groups I'm reading this in (XP and 7) - they can bring up
useful new aspects of the subject. (Or, as in the case of this thread,
wander _far_ off the original subject, but still be interesting!)
[]
If you want people to have backup lights when they back up, you make it
automatic.

Those would be lights that come on when you image your HD? [You do use
the other term in a later thread: I'd say in UK we _never_ use the term
"backup" in that sense, only the computer one, hence my momentary
confusion!]
[]
It's just a dumb dumb dumb default.
It should be automatic, or a single step. Period.

Otherwise, everyone isn't going to do it every time.

Any case where there is a physical disconnection is going to run the
risk of corruption - especially where the connection is also supplying
power to the external drive (I use an externally-powered dock).

Out of curiosity: in your vast experience, have you ever experienced
corruption when you _have_ followed the two necessary steps? (Three if
you leave the first one at default, granted.)

It's the nature of humans to skip steps that shouldn't have been there in
the first place.

I fail to see how, with a physical disconnect, there isn't the necessity
for such a process; it could be reduced to one step, granted, but it's
always going to be needed, unless some sort of interlock was designed
into the connector, which it wasn't (presumably because it would have
increased the cost of the connectors considerably [and been something
else to go wrong]).
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Veni, Vidi, Video (I came, I saw, I'll watch it again later) - Mik from S+AS
Limited ), 1998

In message , ultred ragnusen
writes:
[]
I never claim to know what I don't know, and, if I did, in the haste of
writing a Usenet article (which is an ad-hoc discussion and not a well
vetted thesis), I'm sure you'll let me know when I'm full of ****.

We sometimes will (-:. But as you say, it's usually a freewheeling
discussion, so sometimes we just let it fly. [Until it hits the fan (-:]
[]
whether USB connected disc drives can be corrupted if you disconnect them
improperly.

I think part of the problem - and reason the argument has gone on so
long - is that the USB industry has managed to get some of us (including
me some of the time) to accept a change of meaning of the word
"disconnect". To me, the fundamental meaning is the physical act of
separating connectors. They have got us to use/accept the same word for
the entire process, meaning the clicking and waiting parts, not just the
physical movement part. Ideally, we need another word for that part, but
I can't think of one: dismounting, perhaps, but that has a whiff of
UNIX/Linux about it (and earlier than that, still makes me think of
horses).
[]
And by the way, most of those participants who I greatly respect
probably have less experience than I do. That doesn't mean they know
less than I do

That's a good point. Especially as I get older (I'm a relative chicken
compared to you two, at 57), I encounter young men who know far more
than I do - and certainly have far more experience - in their fields;
car mechanics, for example.

As a respectful aside, I have to point out that each of us has their
skills, where, for example, it hurts my eyes to see "who" used when "whom"
belongs in the sentence, where my only point is that we're each experienced
and knowledgeable in different things.

Mine too - the transposition of "your" and "you're" (which has come up
at least once even in this thread) is another example. But such eye-pain
is, arguably, actually _our_ problem, in that it slows down _our_
reading of the sentence, where what was actually _meant_ is usually
clear. (It's a valid moan where whatever grammatical fault it is _does_
make the meaning less clear.)

Many of us have multiple higher degrees, but each degree is in a different
field and where you guys are the experts on Windows 10 in this ng, not me.

(I have just a single Desmond, from over 30 years ago; I'd claim
breadth, and experience, rather than depth or formal qualifications.
[The degree was in electronics; computing as such was hardly available
here then.] And I _try_ not to say my way is best, only where it works
for me. I fail sometimes!)

Bear in mind that I ask questions here for two reasons:
1. To increase my knowledge and capabilities on Windows 10, and,
2. Always, always, to add value to the tribal knowledge of the group.

Can we find another term for what you mean by "tribal"?
1. "Tribal" implies secret: not all tribes share their knowledge. So
it's the opposite of what you intend it to mean.
2. As used here, it is often accompanied by the strong _impression_ -
whether intentional or not - of "this is my way and it's better".
[3. It is mostly used by one person (-:]
I'm not going to lay down an alternative, but I'm going to _suggest_
"shared".

You should evidence of both of those inherent in the OP, do you not?

Ouch, that sentence hurt _my_ eyes! Here were my thought processes as I
tried to parse it:
1. Did he mean "showed" rather than "should"?
2. Or did he intend "evidence" to be a verb (something you "should" do)?
I gave up (-:, as it didn't matter.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Veni, Vidi, Video (I came, I saw, I'll watch it again later) - Mik from S+AS
Limited ), 1998

In message , Ken Blake
writes:
[]
A generator which "kicks in soon after the power shuts down" is next
to useless as far as a computer is concerned. What you need is a UPS
that keeps the computer running when the power goes out, so you can
stop all the programs that are running and shut the computer down

Agreed.

gracefully. As Paul said, "a UPS capable of a "two minute warning is
sufficient for this job. But two minutes is on the low side, and I
Agreed again.
would prefer one that gives me a little more time, mine gives me about
10-15 minutes. They are inexpensive; you can get a good one on
Amazon.com for $57.49, but I would recommend them to everyone even if
you had to pay three times the price. The risk of not having one is
too great.

Not that I'm disagreeing, but the main trouble with them (all, but
possibly more the cheaper ones) is that you _ought_ to monitor the
battery capacity, which _does_ deteriorate over the years - without any
obvious indication. And something you _ought_ to do, is rarely something
you _do_ do, in many cases.

FWIW I use the "poor man's UPS", which is to say I mainly work on
laptops (running on external supply). _For me_, the disadvantages -
mainly, inferior keyboards and less hardware versatility - are
outweighed by the portability. [And I haven't actually wanted to do
anything with hardware, that I can't do via USB, for ages. YMMV.] Of
course, the battery-monitoring aspects still apply, but as I _do_
occasionally move it from room to room, I get _some_ idea there (and on
this one, at least, I not infrequently get a pop-up telling me that the
battery's capacity isn't what it could be, so some monitoring is
built-in - I don't know if it's a Toshiba special or whether that's part
of Windows 7).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Science isn't about being right every time, or even most of the time. It is
about being more right over time and fixing what it got wrong.
- Scott Adams, 2015-2-2

In message , ultred
ragnusen writes:
Paul wrote:
[]
I use Safely Remove on my USB items, and don't have problems.

In the past, I often skipped that step, just as a woman can safely walk by
a bar in a short skirt many times without getting raped ... until the day
she does get raped.

Since I've experienced corruptions, I no longer walk by bars at night
wearing a short skirt. I wear a three-layer full-length outfit, which is
basically what Microsoft designed into that Safely Remove mechanism.

Although, sadly, this is a good analogy in society as it currently is, I
feel uneasy about it: it endorses the "she was asking for it" viewpoint.

There are some USB3 sticks with plastic barrels on them.
Do not buy those, as they don't control capture well enough.
I broke a pin off the plastic USB3 stick on the very first day.
That never happens with my collection of metal barrel USB3
sticks.

Interesting concept of looking at the "barrel" as all my USB sticks are
plastic "bodies" but I never looked at what you call the "barrel".

Having recently bought one of the tiny USB sticks that basically _is_
just the barrel, i. e. the metal part (_slightly_ extended, mainly just
to give a loop so you can pull it out!) is all there is, no "body" as
such, I suspect I'll never buy any other sort in future, provided I
don't find it to be unreliable or unsatisfactory in some other way (e.
g. speed, though I'm unlikely to notice that anyway as I don't transfer
huge files). I've had too many of the sort with a body become unreliable
because of damage due to how I've stored/handled them.

Also, mainly based on Paul's mention of the type of cells used in the
various capacities, I'll probably not buy any bigger than 16G, until the
more reliable sort of cell is used for larger capacities (which may
never happen), or until you can't actually _get_ such small (!) ones.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Science isn't about being right every time, or even most of the time. It is
about being more right over time and fixing what it got wrong.
- Scott Adams, 2015-2-2

In message , Rene Lamontagne
writes:
On 03/01/2018 11:42 AM, ultred ragnusen wrote:
[]
I would assume that either of the two cables on the SATA HDD would
be fine
to disconnect to isolate the HDD after use ... would you concur?

A much better solution is buying an inexpensive ($10 or so) external
USB case for it, removing it from the computer, and putting it in the
case. That's also much easier to use than it is to disconnect an
internal cable.

I'd agree - or a "dock". (Come to think of it, I don't _know_ that the
SATA connectors in a "dock" are designed for more connections than the
cables, but I'd hope they are!)

USB connections to Windows have their own horrid frailties which I'd
rather
not tempt fate upon ever again!

There are two aspects to the frailty: data, and power. The dock I have
(and some external housings, especially those for 3.5" drives rather
than 2.5") has external power. The cheap housings (I've seen them for
less than 2 pounds, including a tiny screwdriver!) do not.

One of the 2 cables is a power cable, Pulling either one will isolate
the drive.

Rene


Somewhat academic as you (ultred) have acknowledged Paul's warning that
they're not designed for constant disconnection/reconnection anyway, but
disconnecting the power would still leave the (unpowered) electronics
connected to the other end. Probably not important for SATA (I think it
certainly degraded IDE), but I'd still feel uneasy about it. (The power
is actually the larger one, because they used the same pins as for the
data one, so had to use lots of them. I don't think that was good, but
we're stuck with it.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Science isn't about being right every time, or even most of the time. It is
about being more right over time and fixing what it got wrong.
- Scott Adams, 2015-2-2

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

Not that I'm disagreeing, but the main trouble with them (all, but
possibly more the cheaper ones) is that you _ought_ to monitor the
battery capacity, which _does_ deteriorate over the years - without any
obvious indication. And something you _ought_ to do, is rarely something
you _do_ do, in many cases.

Even my somewhat old UPS has a self-test function,
which runs once a day. (That's not the same as
pressing the self-test on the front, which
switches the unit to battery momentarily. Proving
it's actually a UPS :-) )

The internal self-test amounts to applying a load
to the battery for a few seconds, then measuring
the voltage drop. This gives an estimate of
battery impedance. The lower the voltage drops,
on a light loading, the more likely it is the
battery is toast.

After ten years of usage, my UPS used to let out
a single "beep" once a day. At first, I thought a
fire alarm in the house needed a battery change.
After a while, it occurred to me "you know, that's
not a fire alarm, that's not the CO monitor - something
else in here has a beeper". And eventually (without
verifying), I figured out it was the UPS. It
would beep once, after its daily load test. it
has no LEDs to communicate with, so it couldn't
"latch" the test result in any way, for presentation.

Once I put a new battery in it, and the battery
got charged up, there was no more "single beep"
like that.

Modern UPS come with tiny LCD displays or the like,
or they communicate via USB (have a more full interface),
and for those the "self-test status" may be more evident.
My UPS doesn't seem to have a processor. I looked
over the PCB and couldn't see anything high-tech
enough to pass for a processor. The PCB was covered
in jelly-bean logic. The feature set of the UPS is
quite impressive for such a crude set of chips.
Today, a small (and cheap) processor could replace
at least half the logic on that board. Some of the
processors hobbyists use, have multiple ADC channels,
so the chip can measure things. And those are ideal
for a UPS (detect a brownout, adjust the boost, etc).

Paul