*Actually we are talking about Word to Publisher. To my lay brain, it seems to
have allot to do with it. It is technically possible that Publisher could deal
with Word documents.
You need to take a deep breath. Relax. Now breathe out.
1. Analog states that the Copy/Paste from Microsoft Word...word processor...
(which isn't an object based program, doesn't use text boxes by default,
doesn't support color printing for commercial support, doesn't offer the
layout/snap to features), to Microsoft Publisher...a Desktop Publishing
program... is horrible and should be 100% clean of formatting flaws when
carried over because they are from the same software manufacturer. Sounds
like a good wish, but you are correct, this is not feasible (at least not
with their current technology).
2. So if we were to compare Apples to Apples, lets just use Corel for this
analogy. We have Corel WordPerfect 12...word processor. And then we have
(your choice of the two) Corel Ventura...Desktop Publishing program. If you
were to Copy/Paste from Corel WordPerfect 12 into Corel Ventura 10, you have
formatting loss as you would with Word and Publisher. Corel makes both
programs, and they are NOT compatible in the way you mention. And let me
repeat the quote from Analog "It is just asking too much to be able to paste
a Word doc into Publisher and have it come out looking right. You just want
too much from M$..." So in this scenario, it appears that you want too much
from Corel as well.
3. And Oranges to Oranges now. Adobe PageMaker (we will pretend this is a
word processor) and Adobe InDesign...Desktop Publishing program. Yup, you
guessed it...same thing. Format loss. Same company.
Have you thought about carrying out a mature reply while addressing my
questions?
if Acrobat can process a Word doc into a decently renderable
pdf file, then it should have been trivial for Publisher to grab a Word doc and
make it look decent in Publisher. Should I talk slower, Robin?
Do you know what Acrobat is???! It's is a program DESIGNED for the EXCHANGE
of EXISTING publications, documents, spreadsheets etc throughout businesses
and corporations to share. Now r e m e m b e r , I said EXISTING
publications. Acrobat is a big ol engine for conversion to a standard format
(PDF) which can be printed by a commercial printer, or viewed in Adobe
Reader for general business use. Acrobat CANNOT be used to convert say, and
Adobe Illustrator file to be read in Adobe Pagemaker.
So NOW what you are saying (I wish you would quit changing the subject) is
that you want Publisher AND Word to have a built in engine so that Word can
Convert to Publisher without formatting loss. But EVEN Adobe can't do this.
Adobe needs a PDF READER to read it's exported files. So now, if you want
Microsoft to have a common exportable and readable file that doesn't have
any formatting loss, and then be able to open it up in a similar program
such as Adobe Reader, Microsoft ALREADY does this. It's called MODI -
Microsoft Office Document Imaging. How do they relate?
1. Adobe Acrobat - Adobe PDF printer driver = Microsoft Office Document
Image Writer printer driver (included with all Office 2003 apps)
2. Adobe Reader = Microsoft Office Document Imaging (included with all
Office 2003 apps)
You say Acrobat can process a Word doc into a decently renderable pdf file.
Well, Microsoft Office Document Image Writer can also turn a Publisher,
Word, Powerpoint, Project, Excel, OneNote, Access, Outlook, Visio (etc.)
decently renderable mdi file which can be viewed in Microsoft Office
Document Imaging (which as I mentioned, is included with ANY Office
standalone prodcut or Office Suites). And not ONLY that, but Microsofot
Office Document Imaging can ALSO render other Office Suites, such as Corel
WordPerfect, OpenOffice.org, or even say Adobe PageMaker. It operates in a
similar way you would create at PDF file. If you were to say open Corel Draw
12, and then go to File > Print and you chose Microsoft Office Document
Image Writer printer driver (instead of Adobe PDF printer driver), you would
get a decently renderable output which can be viewed in MODI (yes, that is
WTF that is!)
Ahh, still not quite a Jedi I see. Much to learn, you have.
*Sorry, but they are not.
Do you have a cite or link that states otherwise? You mean that since 1986,
the $40,000,000,000 Microsoft has spent on Research & Development has gone
to waste, and that they are not a smarter, more efficient, innovative
company because of it? Wouldn't you think that if they were not a smart
company, that their sales would be down? Up until last year, only 3 of the 7
business units were profitable. And now, in 2004, 4 of the 7 business units
are profitable. They consistently have increased not only revenue, but
income as well. But I seriously would like to see a cite or link that
states "Sorry, but they are not"
Like I said, it's a good wish, and I think you shoud send it to
(e-mail address removed) . But ya just can't single out MS, because I have not
seen a SINGLE software company that can do what you have wished for.
Before you reply, do me a favor....READ my replies. And if you have anything
of importance or value you to add, address the post properly.
--
Brian Kvalheim
Microsoft Publisher MVP
http://www.publishermvps.com
~pay it forward~
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers no rights.
