| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 113901 | 2010-11-09 02:35:00 | PDF Add-On? | B.M. (505) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1151546 | 2010-11-09 06:49:00 | I do have open office and quite like it. I'll see what happens if I use that and get back. ;) |
B.M. (505) | ||
| 1151547 | 2010-11-09 06:50:00 | I thought so. So it's not what was asked for is it? | Snorkbox (15764) | ||
| 1151548 | 2010-11-09 07:02:00 | Ok, I opened the Word Document with Open Office and exported it as a pdf. Went well, looks good, and now down to 8.47meg. :thumbs: Hmmmm, don’t know what you guys think, but it looks to me like the Open Office conversion is the way to go? :confused: Anyone else feel like doing a similar experiment to confirm my findings? :D |
B.M. (505) | ||
| 1151549 | 2010-11-09 07:07:00 | So you are only worried about the size of the final document then rather than how it renders? | Snorkbox (15764) | ||
| 1151550 | 2010-11-09 07:20:00 | I thought so. So it's not what was asked for is it? Is that a problem? Suggesting alternatives? :rolleyes: |
SoniKalien (792) | ||
| 1151551 | 2010-11-09 07:22:00 | So if you would explain your testing procedures I might give it a go. The original post was an add on to convert Word 2002 to PDF and several replies were given and all would work. Then you moaned about the file size produced by converting the Word doc to PDF. Did you retype the original in Open Office and then save as PDF? If so you can type faster than I've ever seen for a 11.1 meg doc. :) |
Snorkbox (15764) | ||
| 1151552 | 2010-11-09 07:22:00 | Is that a problem? Suggesting alternatives? :rolleyes: No. But if you don't have OO or want it then it's not a viable alternative. |
Snorkbox (15764) | ||
| 1151553 | 2010-11-09 07:25:00 | Well, the size of the file is a primary consideration, (E-Mailing purposes) but not if there is noticeable deterioration in quality. So far I have two conversions that are larger than the original, one significantly, and another that is significantly smaller and I can’t find any difference between any of them. :confused: |
B.M. (505) | ||
| 1151554 | 2010-11-09 07:25:00 | Snork - are you just having a bad day then? Do you need a hug? :p | SoniKalien (792) | ||
| 1151555 | 2010-11-09 07:30:00 | Well, the size of the file is a primary consideration, (E-Mailing purposes) but not if there is noticeable deterioration in quality. So far I have two conversions that are larger than the original, one significantly, and another that is significantly smaller and I can’t find any difference between any of them. :confused: OK. But then you can always try file compression if you want a smaller file can't you? |
Snorkbox (15764) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 | |||||