TOT problem with Word 2007

In article , Dave Farrance
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

Well, I don't really regard PDF as being 'open' in every sense. Yes,
there are published specs and you can use non-Adobe software (as I
routinely do). But being commercial they can 'control' use if they
choose.

Adobe released all remaining restrictions on the published PDF standard
in 2008, and granted royalty-free rights to all Adobe patents covering
PDF.

Did they at the same time pre-grant that they would openly publish the
details of all future versions and that the same would always apply to
them?

As I think I have already indicated, I do think PDF is a pretty good way to
communicate laid out text, etc, that may be printable. But you may need to
beware of the 'sprat to catch a mackeral' approach which can morph into
'embrace, extend, consume'. The commercially standard way to do this is to
'give away' Version N, then develop N+X and lead people into finding they
need it because many files use it. Then point out that N+X is still
controlled, then lead to N+X+Y which competitors can't deal with because
they aren't given the format spec and are forbidden.

Even when not, developing N+X along with your commercial software keeps you
ahead of any possible competition - and may inconvenience users, and mean
they keep getting files they can't use.

Overall, I'd agree that Adobe have played fairly nicely, thus far. But
things can change. Ask the people in the USA who used GIFs for years, then
got a letter from a lawyer. Bear in mind that the USA is the country of
'software patents' that can be surprisingly wide-claiming, etc.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Jim Lesurf wrote:

For some time (before I gave up on them for other reasons) Electronics
World would only accept Word docs and diagrams as bitmaps. If you look back
at past issues you can see where this produced crappy looking 'piles of
bricks' diagrams like lousy screenshots. They seemed either too lazy or too
dumb to deal with anything else. So giving them vector/object diagrams that
would look good when printed was impossible.

I had exactly the same problem some years ago with a mag. On one
occasion they must have also reduced the resolution of the .bmp they'd
insisted on because the printed result had illegible graphics text.

For years now I've sent graphics as low compression .jpgs if they have
originated as photographs, or as high res .pdfs if they are diagrams
etc. By high res I mean an approximation of 300dpi on the printed page.
Not all that high in fact, but it works fine.


OTOH Others accept whatever works well. So for some I send RTF text and
PDF or PS for vector diagrams, graphs, etc. That lets them get excellent
printed results. So a matter of the recipient having the necessary clue and
being motivated to produce good printed results.

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.

Well, I don't really regard PDF as being 'open' in every sense. Yes, there
are published specs and you can use non-Adobe software (as I routinely do).
But being commercial they can 'control' use if they choose.
My attitude is one of philistine ignorance, I'm sorry to say. Like the
man who knows which beers he likes, but knows nothing about the
difference between fizz and real ale.
I suppose most computer users are like that. Life's too short to peel
olives.

Bill

Jim Lesurf wrote:

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.

It certainly tends to be better than Word, yes. But it still can foul up at
times. Sometimes quite subtly. e.g. in one case I found PDF documents where
all the 'holes' in glyphs like 'o' or 'p' were filled in on a Windows box,
but fine on a Mac. All using Adobe software. Turned out to be a 'winding
rule' bug in one version that tripped over some fonts that were rarely
used.

A very common problem is the fact that certain vertical letter strokes
are thickened by perhaps 50%. This can cause 'll' to appear as a block.

Bill

David_B wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:
~BD~ wrote:

Yes. But I decided against it.

Bill

Fair enough! :-)

Will you share your reason?

I lack patience, in a nutshell.

Bill


I understand! :-)

When I visit that link now http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us I see this:

http://i40.tinypic.com/muaa28.jpg

It's a "We are sorry" page. Do you see that, or something different?


The Microsoft Answers site seems to be back up again now.

I'd be grateful if others would report what *they* now see. TIA.

In message , Bill Wright
writes
Jim Lesurf wrote:

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.
It certainly tends to be better than Word, yes. But it still can
foul up at
times. Sometimes quite subtly. e.g. in one case I found PDF documents where
all the 'holes' in glyphs like 'o' or 'p' were filled in on a Windows box,
but fine on a Mac. All using Adobe software. Turned out to be a 'winding
rule' bug in one version that tripped over some fonts that were rarely
used.

A very common problem is the fact that certain vertical letter strokes
are thickened by perhaps 50%. This can cause 'll' to appear as a block.

One version of Foxit Reader used to do this (but later got fixed).
That's when I made PDF X-Change Viewer my normal reader.
--
Ian

In article , John
Rumm
wrote:
On 12/12/2011 11:03, tony sayer wrote:


Mind you I was in a customers premises a few months back where they to
save costs were using Open Office and one of the staff commented that
it,

" Was no bl**dy good as it keeps saving it wrong so it can't be opened
by anyone else" seems she didn't know that you can save in more then
the one format and obviously couldn't be arsed to read the help files..

More to the point, you can change the default save format as well -
making always save in MS word format if that takes your fancy.

My reaction to the above was to wonder if the complainer was simply saving
files with the permissions set so that only they could read them. Does look
like "workman blame tools" senario given only the complaint to go on.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 20/12/2011 09:40, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In [email protected] w.co.uk, John
Rumm
wrote:
On 12/12/2011 11:03, tony sayer wrote:


Mind you I was in a customers premises a few months back where they to
save costs were using Open Office and one of the staff commented that
it,

" Was no bl**dy good as it keeps saving it wrong so it can't be opened
by anyone else" seems she didn't know that you can save in more then
the one format and obviously couldn't be arsed to read the help files..

More to the point, you can change the default save format as well -
making always save in MS word format if that takes your fancy.

My reaction to the above was to wonder if the complainer was simply saving
files with the permissions set so that only they could read them. Does look
like "workman blame tools" senario given only the complaint to go on.

I expect it was a case that they saved docs in odf format, and then
emailed them to Word users who complained...

(seems fair enough - a bit of retribution for all the times folks email
word docs assuming everyone will be able to read them ;-)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In message , fred writes


From memory that was around version 1.8.7, now at 1.9.something I think
and problems are fixed. I still have the pre toolbar 1.8.5 and wouldn't
be without it, currently using the installer version for the integrated
right click functionality.

Downloads back to 1.8.5. here
http://www.filehippo.com/download_unlocker/history/

--
David