TOT problem with Word 2007

~BD~ wrote:

Perhaps you can also advise me - is there a wealth of 'computer'
knowledge on this group?

It's Usenet, so a large proportion of us are the Internet early-adopter
techie types.

Dave Farrance wrote:
wrote:

Perhaps you can also advise me - is there a wealth of 'computer'
knowledge on this group?

It's Usenet, so a large proportion of us are the Internet early-adopter
techie types.


Is that a tentative 'yes' from you, Dave?!!

On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 07:00:22 -0800 (PST), Dave W
wrote:

The view also depends on what printer is attached.

Not quite. It depends on the user's or failing that the system's
default printer.

Another good reason for pdf.

How is pdf supposed to help? It's just another piece of black box
coding which usually makes a mess of anything you feed to it.

It's too boring to regurgitate it all, so see previous threads here
for the many, many reasons why pdf is crap.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

We were about to embark at Dover, when (Jim Lesurf)
came up to me and whispered:

appy to leave theological
arguments over "emacs vs vi" and "!StrongEd vs !Zap" to others.

Nano vs Vim in my office :-/

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
IF you think this http://bit.ly/u5EP3p is cruel
please sign this http://bit.ly/sKkzEx

---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Max Demian wrote:
Use WordPad (free with Windows) if you just want a simple word processor.

But I thought the idea was to make it as simple as a typewriter?

Typewriters aren't simple as you can't correct errors before you print.

--
Max Demian

In article ,
Max Demian wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Max Demian wrote:
Use WordPad (free with Windows) if you just want a simple word
processor.

But I thought the idea was to make it as simple as a typewriter?

Typewriters aren't simple as you can't correct errors before you print.

Given they 'print' with each keystroke, not surprising. But of course some
could - they had a correcting ribbon.

--
*If a turtle doesn't have a shell, is he homeless or naked?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Bill Wright
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

Is it the case that word docs may 'reflow' the format when loaded on a
difference machine with different settings? I recall someone telling
me this. But since I don't use Word I have no idea if it is so.

All kind of weird things can happen if you open a .doc on a different
machine. For this reason I usually sends docs out as pdfs.

Sorry if this dissapoints you, but a PDF can also have a different
appearance on another machine for various reasons. Depends on the details
of both the PDF and the rendering system. I'd agree it is likely to be a
more reliable bet than Word doc, though.

I know it isn't perfect but it's a better bet than Word, as you say.
I've experimented a bit with this between the computers here (which are
very varied) and I didn't notice anything much.

Bill

~BD~ wrote:

Yes. But I decided against it.

Bill

Fair enough! :-)

Will you share your reason?

I lack patience, in a nutshell.

Bill

Dave Farrance wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:

Jim Lesurf wrote:

Is it the case that word docs may 'reflow' the format when loaded on a
difference machine with different settings? I recall someone telling me
this. But since I don't use Word I have no idea if it is so.
All kind of weird things can happen if you open a .doc on a different
machine. For this reason I usually sends docs out as pdfs.

For a short while, I did the same, for the same reason, and I assumed that
if recipients wanted to extract text from the document, they could use
Adobe Reader's text-copy feature. But I got a couple of replies asking if
I could send the documents in Microsoft Word format, so that's what I
always do now with documents in cases where the recipient is allowed or
expected to re-format the content. It does seem to cause the least grief.
Sigh. It offends my sensibilities as an open-standards enthusiast.
Part of my reason for doing it is to make it harder for people to lift
text. I know they still can, but it isn't as obvious to the average
technophobe. My attitude is that if they want a quote they can ask me to
send the relevant passage as .txt.

However I wanted to copy some text from a website that had been rigged
to stop people copying from it, so just pressed Print Screen then OCRed
the result.

I sometimes send display notices to sheltered housing managers for them
to pin up (warning the tenants of a no-telly + re-tune day usually) and
I've learnt not to send .doc files! PDFs are risky because often they
say they can't open them (!) so I have resorted to .jpgs which for some
reason they all seem to be able to open. One lady defeated me though.
She has yellow paper in her printer (don't ask; I don't know) and since
I'd used colours the result was weird. Anyone know where I get get white
ink?

Bill

This gets weirder. I've just this minute had the same problem with
another file. It couldn't be deleted, moved, or renamed because 'it was
open'. That file has never been opened anywhere except on my PC, so it
was with little hope that I found it using the laptop and attempted to
re-name it. It worked fine!

Bill