jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle) (05/29/91)
Why is it that MS Word cannot handle fractional-point line widths? One example of this problem is trying to paste Claris CAD 2.0 drawings into Word and having the lines turn out a lot thicker or thinner than desired (and than appeared in output directly from Claris CAD). This was output to a LaserWriter II of some sort. Also, why can't Word position objects accurately within imported PICTS? After snapping a line to the edge of a rectangle in Claris CAD, I find that Word continues the line into the rectangle when the drawing is pasted into it. Why can't Word get these things straight, or have they in some more recent bug fix? What word processors handle these things better? Jess Holle
robertw@informix.com (Robert Weinberg) (05/29/91)
In article <1991May28.172832.21284@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle) writes: >Why is it that MS Word cannot handle fractional-point line widths? > >One example of this problem is trying to paste Claris CAD 2.0 drawings > >Also, why can't Word position objects accurately within imported PICTS? > >Why can't Word get these things straight, or have they in some more recent >bug fix? What word processors handle these things better? > I share your sentiments. I always had a great deal of frustration pasting PICTs saved from MacDraw into WORD. Curved lines always printed out a bit more jagged after pasting them into WORD, and lines often lined up different in WORD than they did in the original PICT, and printed out even a bit different than that. This is why many people have switched to FrameMaker, which has an excellent built-in graphics environment. EPS graphics, such as those from Freehand and Illustrator, WILL print out perfectly when included in a WORD document (usually). PICTs are part of the world of fast screen-drawing implemented on the Mac, but they are truly a cludge in every other aspect, IMHO. -- * Rob Weinberg, graphics & publishing ***** Does a falling tree make a sound * * {uunet,pyramid}!infmx!robertw ***** if 1: no one hears it * * => Ask me about me. ***** BUT 2: it is not known that * * => Ask Informix about Informix. ***** no one hears it? *
netnews@leadsv.UUCP (Leads Network News) (05/30/91)
The reason that this is occurring is that pictures created in other
packages are created at 300 dpi, when they are imported to WORD, they
only use 72 dpi.
`~1!2@3#4$5%6^7&8*9(0)-_=+qQwWeErRtTyYuUiIoOpP[{]}aAsSdDfFgGhHjJkKlL;:'"\|zZxXc
CvVbBnNmM,.?/
^
(what is this ------|)
JAD - '83 UIUC '85 USCgillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Don Gillies) (05/30/91)
Word 4.0 DOES supports fractional line widths on laserwriters. I believe that some of the problem is also the fault of Claris. Claris does not export what it prints; it has a custom postscript generator so that printing from (for instance) macdraw II looks better than exporting something word and printing it through word. On the other hand, I have received a fair share of grief from word, and have come to live by the following rules: (1) Align your graphics at 4x resolution in macdraw II. This will very likely make it print correctly on a postscript or quickdraw laser printer. It will most certainly fail to work correctly on a quickdraw device. It will certainly look ugly on your screen at 1x resolution (in word). Do not worry. (2) Paste the graphics into word twice (this is a tip from microsoft support). Paste it in the first time, then "copy as picture", and paste it again. This forces word to reinterpret/reprocess the graphic. I believe that sometimes this causes the graphic to print better. (3) Graphics created with Canvas almost never give me trouble in word, however, canvas 2.0 once created a graphic that would always crash our printer (from word). I have given up on canvas for that reason. Don Gillies | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign gillies@cs.uiuc.edu | Digital Computer Lab, 1304 W. Springfield, Urbana IL --