Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralPortable MacsHardwareNetworking
Applications
Mac ApplicationsEudoraFirefox / MozillaInternet ExplorerOutlook ExpressMS OfficeEntourageExcelPowerPointWordVirtual PCMedia PlayerOther MS Products
Programming
Mac ProgrammingCodeWarriorPerl
Country Specific
Australian Mac GroupUK Mac Group

Mac Forum / Applications / MS Office / October 2005



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

File sizes

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Chris - 14 Oct 2005 02:54 GMT
Hello;

Why would .doc and .rtf versions of the same Word file be significantly
different sizes? 176 Kb vs 704 Kb respectively as an example.

Also why would minor text changes in a .doc document change it from 176
Kb to 252 Kb while the .rtf version of the latter remains 704 Kb?

Curious.

Chris
Chris - 21 Oct 2005 19:05 GMT
I think I can answer my own question.

.doc files are MSWord files and rely on the coding inherent in the
program.

.rtf files are more generic and contain code that make the file more
self-sufficient to be opened by more applications.

I think.
Chris
Daiya Mitchell - 25 Oct 2005 00:02 GMT
Hi Chris,

Those are good questions.

>> Also why would minor text changes in a .doc document change it from 176
>> Kb to 252 Kb

That one, I would be a little worried--having fast saves on can balloon
size, or if you are tracking changes and don't know it.

Re rtf vs. doc size, a random check of 26 two page essays that I have
suggests that the rtf are about 8kb while the Word documents are 24kb. So
smaller.

This random link suggests that .rtf is smaller unless you've got pix, etc or
other non-text elements.
http://dolphin.upenn.edu/~danielgz/rtfvsdoc.html

I think that for very long text documents that used styles, .doc may be
smaller because it is just one style definition and a bunch of single tags,
while rtf has to use multiple tags for every formatting change. Maybe.

Here's some more testing.  I opened an 80kb Word doc (8 pages, all text) and
saved as RTF and it came out as 108KB.  Then I opened the original word doc
in TextEdit and saved as RTF and it came out 32KB.

So a theory that Word's RTF-export is kinda as inefficient as its HTML
export--designed to round-trip back into Word?  The Kind on the Word-saved
RTF is actually "MS Word RTF doc", while the TextEdit-saved is plain "Rich
Text Format".  But when I opened the Word doc in TextEdit, I lost my
numbering and my SEQ fields entirely, while in the Word-saved RTF, those got
converted to plain text.  I think that supports my theory.

(I know that none of the rtf documents in my sample of 26 were created in
Word, cause that's why I have them as rtf).

> I think I can answer my own question.
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>> Also why would minor text changes in a .doc document change it from 176
>> Kb to 252 Kb while the .rtf version of the latter remains 704 Kb?

Signature

Daiya Mitchell, MVP Mac/Word
Word FAQ: http://www.word.mvps.org/
MacWord Tips: <http://www.word.mvps.org/MacWordNew/>
What's an MVP? A volunteer! Read the FAQ: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.