I assume it is these tools that WORD uses to "save as" from .doc to rtf?? If so, it would seem easier to use WORD to do the converting yes??
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Fortunately Microsoft have documented the tools to make .DOC to .RTF > conversion easy. > > (see > >http://msdn.microsoft.com/archive/default.asp?url=/archive/en-us/dnarvbtips/html/msdn_msdn118.asp > ) > > We bundled this code into an executable that traversed nominated > directories and magically converted all .DOCs to .RTFs. > > The disk space requirement of the resulting files was about 10%. > > If anyone wants the (windows) executable I can Email it. > > GC > > > > ----- Forwarded by Glenn Cogle/IT/CHCBANKP/WHNZ on 22/08/2002 12:08 ----- > > > newslett@orcon > > .net.nz To: CLUG ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > cc: > > 22/08/2002 Subject: Re: This mornings Press > > 11:35 > > Please respond > > to newslett > > > > > > > > > > While I agree with you Nick 100% (and you are not alone in this boat) I > am a firm believer in this: where there's a will there's a way. > > Will it get harder or easier to make the switch later?? Since I think > we'd both agree it will be harder as M$ increases its lock in tactics > wouldn't it be prudent to START your migration now?? > > I did this a while back with almost all my legacy WORD docs. I opened > them and then selected save as "rtf" (not OS but damn close, and it is > an Open Protocol). This takes all of about 5 seconds in total (per doc) > to convert to rtf. Since WORD worries about the formatting conversion > hassles, it's actually pretty easy. Once converted (so far, I've seen it > retains all .doc formatting specs as well) the docs are openable and > able to be modidfied in any wordprocessor with rtf support (almost all). > Plus you free disk space because rtf is not as bloated as .doc. You ever > saved a BLANK .doc document?? Look at the size. CRAZY. Let's say you had > 200 major WORD docs to convert at say 5 seconds each, that is approx 17 > minutes worth of conversioin time for you or your staff. Not too hard to > swallow right?? Once you verify that they converted as you wish, blow > out the .docs. Poof, ur outta lockin. > > Now if you choose, you may swith to Linux on the desktop. Ever used Abi > word?? It looks/functions almost exactly like MS Word. I bet if you > stuck it in front of your secretary she'd be productive instantly, or > within minutes, they are so functionally similar. Plus, I bet she's one > of "those" secretaries that can turn a 5 line email into a .doc document > ATTACHED to an email. Even if she doesn't I have honestly received this > myself. Why not use txt in the email???? Just so it looks purrty?? You > are right, some education is necessary but 5 minutes here and there is a > small price to pay for freedom IMHO. > > At the end of emails that I attach rtf's to, I put something like this: > > P.S. I attach a document in RTF format for you. RTF format can be > viewed in any wordprocessor, i.e. Microsoft Word. > > This serves two purposes, educates people who have never heard of rtf > and also downgrades WORD to the simple wordprocessor it actually is. > > I also urge you to start saving (by default) into rtf format for your > future. Saying, "it's just too hard" will not fix your problems and will > only serve to entrench (enslave??) you even further with MS, to such a > point where you really will have few options despite how painful (or > costly) it becomes to remain an MS faithfull. > > You speak of OSS needing to open/modify .doc docs flawlessly. I > disagree. Why waste a monstrous amount of developer time on something > that can be undone with a wave of M$'s incompatibility "upgrade" wand?? > There are sufficient changes to the .doc format between WORD versions to > break compatibility when using the SAME app, not to mention a OSS > hacked/reverse engineered effort at same. Talk to MS if it upsets you > that OSS cannot interact with their proprietary formats, for that is > where the true blame lies. > > Linux IS (mostly) ready for the desktop, albeit with SOME migration > issues. It comes down to this. A little pain now or a LOT later....it's > everyone's choice.... > > Just my .0002c worth.... > > Regards, > > Jason Greenwood > > Nick Rout wrote: > >>>Here here, it PISSES me off that Linux isn't really taken seriously on >>>the desktop as I happily use it everyday. >> >> >> >>The answer is, IMHO, twofold. >> >>1. legacy business data - the main one being ms word documents. Do not >>try and sell me linux or open source word processors that will open >>complex word documents 100% correct every time. It does not happen. I >>have 171MB legacy word docs that I may want to use at any time,thats >>right goddamn now, not once I have fiddled around for twenty minutes >>resetting stuff or finding where the headers & footers & para numbereing > > went. > >>2 closely allied, training. The average secretary/wp operator etc is not >>as adept at change as a geek who likes to fiddle and is prepared to play >>with some software for hours playing with the features, finding how it >>works etc. I don't have time to train my secretary on openoffice or >>retrain her on word perfect (she probably last used 5.1). Put most >>office workers in fronnt of a new program and they spin out. >> >>Now theres a lot happening to the desktop and its better every day. But >>Neal's article was about what is REALLY happening in business out there >>NOW. What is really happening in businesses is services - mail, file, >>print, database. It is a positive spin for linux so I wonder why it is >>getting bashed?? >> >>P.S If I was setting up my own business now I probably would go for >>star/open office on linux, but now its too hard to change. >>-- >>Nick Rout >>Barrister & Solicitor >>Christchurch, NZ >>Ph +64 3 3798966 >>Fax + 64 3 3798853 >>http://www.rout.co.nz >> > > > > > > > *************************************************************************** > This may contain privileged and confidential information intended only for > the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient > of this message, any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of > this message is prohibited. Any views expressed in this message are those > of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of > Wilson & Horton Limited. > For more information on Wilson & Horton please visit our web site at > http://www.wilsonandhorton.co.nz > *************************************************************************** >
