 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / Applications / Word / March 2006Printing to a post script file
I have about a 100-page Word document I'm trying to output as a post script (.ps) file so that I can distill it into a PDF. Every time I do so, it breaks the resulting post script into three different files. The first one always cuts off at p. 78, then I get two smaller ones. Any ideas why it won't output this as one file? Do you have Section Breaks in the doc? That could be the cause. If so try removing the section breaks. If that isn't an option you can create the separate PDFs, then join them into a single file using one of the 'stitcher' utilities out there, such as PDF Merge, Combine PDF, etc. HTH |:>) On 2/27/06 6:10 PM, in article 1141081837.401886.231840@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com, "andy" <aselsor26@hotmail.com> wrote: > I have about a 100-page Word document I'm trying to output as a post > script (.ps) file so that I can distill it into a PDF. Every time I do > so, it breaks the resulting post script into three different files. The > first one always cuts off at p. 78, then I get two smaller ones. > > Any ideas why it won't output this as one file? Yeah, I need the section breaks. The strange thing is, I have a lot of section breaks in the document, even some where the margins change from one section to the next, but the file only gets split into 3 PDFs. And it isn't splitting on section breaks that have margin changes. Weird. Thanks for the help... > Yeah, I need the section breaks. The strange thing is, I have a lot of > section breaks in the document, even some where the margins change from > one section to the next, but the file only gets split into 3 PDFs. And > it isn't splitting on section breaks that have margin changes. Weird. > > Thanks for the help... It can be a pain tracking them down. I give up and use a PDF stitcher. It really makes a mess of trying to print double sided.  SignatureTo de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$ PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248 Hi Andy: It's not necessarily the "margin changes" that cause the splits. It happens when Apple CUPS print service believes the change made in the section break would require the printer to change to a different paper stock. Regrettably, "margin changes" is one of the settings that can produce this effect: but it's not the only one. Cheers On 28/2/06 11:14 AM, in article 1141085651.485933.173740@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "andy" <aselsor26@hotmail.com> wrote: > Yeah, I need the section breaks. The strange thing is, I have a lot of > section breaks in the document, even some where the margins change from > one section to the next, but the file only gets split into 3 PDFs. And > it isn't splitting on section breaks that have margin changes. Weird. > > Thanks for the help... SignaturePlease reply to the newsgroup to maintain the thread. Please do not email me unless I ask you to. John McGhie <john@mcghie.name> Microsoft MVP, Word and Word for Macintosh. Consultant Technical Writer Sydney, Australia +61 (0) 4 1209 1410 > Hi Andy: > > It's not necessarily the "margin changes" that cause the splits. It happens > when Apple CUPS print service believes the change made in the section break > would require the printer to change to a different paper stock. Which explains why it prints in one pass after stitching in an external application? And explains why other applications can print willy nilly with page orientation changes and any kind of margin change? I'd go for an explantion that includes the words "Word mistakenly tells CUPS..." Whoever's fault it is, it is a bug [1]. Anytime I want to print 2-up and double sided, I have to pass Word's output to Postscript to rid the work of Word's eps preview errors, Preview to convert ps to PDF. PDFlab to join the fragments up, then Cheap Imposter to do the 2-up properly. They have the gall to call it an office *productivity* tool. 1. As per your recent thread, I nominate myself as *the* user. SignatureTo de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$ PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248 Hi Elliott: Damn right it's a bug :-) The finger-pointing continues as to WHOSE bug it is. But it's a bug :-) Apple says it's "working as designed". Yup! Sure is... Microsoft says they "coded it as documented". Yup! Sure did. Still doesn't work. Still a bug. And I don't *care* what caused it :-) Cheers On 28/2/06 11:15 PM, in article 280220061215088538%nospam@yrl.co.uk, >> Hi Andy: >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > 1. As per your recent thread, I nominate myself as *the* user. SignaturePlease reply to the newsgroup to maintain the thread. Please do not email me unless I ask you to. John McGhie <john@mcghie.name> Microsoft MVP, Word and Word for Macintosh. Consultant Technical Writer Sydney, Australia +61 (0) 4 1209 1410 > Hi Elliott: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Still doesn't work. Still a bug. And I don't *care* what caused it :-) Yeah. At the risk of looking anally retentive about this, you and I both have shipped code originally based on somebody else's ratty doco. I bet you would have tested your stuff, and worked round the ratty doco. So would I. It is not like Microsoft had the rug pulled out from under their feet. Word and Word alone has misbehaved like this since the first v.X They shipped with these bugs in v.X SignatureTo de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$ PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248 On 3/3/06 3:52, in article 030320061552558724%nospam@yrl.co.uk, "Elliott Roper" <nospam@yrl.co.uk> wrote: > It is not like Microsoft had the rug pulled out from under their feet. > Word and Word alone has misbehaved like this since the first v.X > > They shipped with these bugs in v.X Just as well Apple and the MBU guys talk to each other, isn't it? Cheers, Chris Hi Chris: Communication between Apple and Mac BU is generally a lot better than I sometimes make it sound :-) However, when it's "embarrassing" and "expensive" (as this one is...) both companies fall back on the procedure in the Manual of Tact and Charm for Computer Companies: "We will tell you only what you ask, except when it would involve admitting something for which we might get sued, in which case Legal Department will not allow us to tell you at all!" In the normal course of events, either company will pick up the phone to the other. They have even been known to share the odd cleansing ale together... I'm pretty confident that the next version of Word on the Mac will not suffer from this problem :-) Hope this helps On 4/3/06 5:05 AM, in article C02E35DF.170227%chrisridd@mac.com, "Chris Ridd" <chrisridd@mac.com> wrote: > On 3/3/06 3:52, in article 030320061552558724%nospam@yrl.co.uk, "Elliott > Roper" <nospam@yrl.co.uk> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Chris SignaturePlease reply to the newsgroup to maintain the thread. Please do not email me unless I ask you to. John McGhie <john@mcghie.name> Microsoft MVP, Word and Word for Macintosh. Consultant Technical Writer Sydney, Australia +61 (0) 4 1209 1410 |
Reply to this Message |
 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
|
©2009 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.