On 6/26/06, Jan T. Kim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 01:43:54PM -0500, Marc Schwartz (via MN) wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 14:02 -0400, Michael H. Prager wrote:
> > > Previous posters have argued for EPS files as a desirable transfer
> > > format for quality reasons. Thi
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 01:43:54PM -0500, Marc Schwartz (via MN) wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 14:02 -0400, Michael H. Prager wrote:
> > Previous posters have argued for EPS files as a desirable transfer
> > format for quality reasons. This is of course true when the output is
> > through a Pos
Previous posters have argued for EPS files as a desirable transfer
format for quality reasons. This is of course true when the output is
through a Postscript device.
However, the original poster is making presentations with PowerPoint.
Those essentially are projected from the screen -- and sc
On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 14:02 -0400, Michael H. Prager wrote:
> Previous posters have argued for EPS files as a desirable transfer
> format for quality reasons. This is of course true when the output is
> through a Postscript device.
>
> However, the original poster is making presentations with P
I think I was just comparing the ones that were discussed but
certainly the vector format used on Windows is normally emf or wmf
and that is what I would normally use too.
On 6/23/06, Michael H. Prager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Previous posters have argued for EPS files as a desirable transfer
