It probably is how MS Word implements Save-As...
I had to convert 755 .docs to .rtf, so laziness prevailed and the execuable
was born.
GC
----- Forwarded by Glenn Cogle/IT/CHCBANKP/WHNZ on 22/08/2002 12:53 -----
newslett@orcon
.net.nz To: CLUG
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
22/08/2002 Subject: Re: .doc vs .rtf
(formerly "Re: This mornings
12:15 Press")
Please respond
to newslett
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
>
***************************************************************************
>
***************************************************************************
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
***************************************************************************
