[[email protected]]

I am having difficulty in deciding if word 2003 is the right
application for me. Typically I am doing reports which must contain a
lot of images, unfortunately the combined total size of these images
translate to a very large and unmanageable file size.

Q. Does any body think there is a more appropiate app.?
Q. Is there a way of optimising the file size without loosing out on
quality?
Q. Is there a way of referencing the images, without permanently
attaching them?


Thanks,

Chris

[Summer]

You can create a project folder and inside that folder place your document
and all your Images in an Image folder and LINK the images to the document
to keep the size down.
wrote in message
...
I am having difficulty in deciding if word 2003 is the right
application for me. Typically I am doing reports which must contain a
lot of images, unfortunately the combined total size of these images
translate to a very large and unmanageable file size.

Q. Does any body think there is a more appropiate app.?
Q. Is there a way of optimising the file size without loosing out on
quality?
Q. Is there a way of referencing the images, without permanently
attaching them?


Thanks,

Chris

[DeanH]

Word is a very effective application for this type of document.
Possibly MS Publisher could be a more appropriate application if the final
document is to be a professionally printed document, but as I tend to always
use Word, I shall expound its virtues.
I am constantly having to have images embedded (instead of linked) in my
documents as they have to be delivered to external users.
I use a combination of JPG, PNG, and wmf file formats (dependant on the type
of original image type - raster/meta) to reduce the file size of the images,
this can be very effective without losing too much quality.
If quality has to be "top-notch" maybe linking the images and then PDFing
the final document (multiple choices of final quality output settings
available) which can reduce the file size.
I frequently have Word documents with over 400+ pages, 100+ images and the
file size will be a manageable 10MB.
Having a good working practise with Word usually keeps the files small and
less likely to corrupt, my general philosphy is to maintain as few a number
of styles as possible, alway paste content as Unformatted Text (to ensure no
extraneous and possible corrupt styles are imported), images always inline
with text (or in a borderless table cell for word wrapping), as few a number
of Section Breaks as possible and use Page Break Before instead of Manual
Page Breaks.

FYI, there are a number of reasons for excessive file size, including:

1. Fast Saves: Disable this at on the Save tab of Tools | Options.

2. Preview Pictu Clear the check box on the Summary tab of File |
Properties.

3. Versions (File | Versions): Make sure "Automatically save version on
close" is not turned on.

4. Revisions (Tools | Track Changes):
Highlight Changes: Make sure "Highlight changes on screen" is turned on
(or that "Final Showing Markup" is displayed).
Accept/Reject Changes: If "Accept All" or "Reject All" is available then
revisions are present; accept or reject all changes, then turn Track Changes
off.

5. Keep track of formatting (Tools | Options | Edit). This is reportedly a
major cause of file bloat in Word 2002 and above.

6. Embedded True Type fonts (Tools | Options | Save); embedding fonts should
be avoided wherever possible.

7. Embedded linguistic data (Tools | Options | Save).

8. Embedded graphics: When feasible, it is preferable to link the graphics.
That is, when you insert the graphic, click the arrow beside Insert in the
Picture dialog and choose Link to File rather than Insert or Insert and Link.

9. Embedded objects: These are even worse than ordinary graphics saved with
the document. If you see an { EMBED } code, the graphic is an OLE object.
Unless you need to be able to edit the object in place, unlink it using
Ctrl+Shift+F9.

10. File format: Make sure you are saving as a Word document; in some cases
..rtf (Rich Text Format) files are significantly larger than .doc files.

11. Document corruption: See
http://www.mvps.org/word/FAQs/AppErrors/CorruptDoc.htm.

Best of Luck
DeanH

" wrote:

I am having difficulty in deciding if word 2003 is the right
application for me. Typically I am doing reports which must contain a
lot of images, unfortunately the combined total size of these images
translate to a very large and unmanageable file size.

Q. Does any body think there is a more appropiate app.?
Q. Is there a way of optimising the file size without loosing out on
quality?
Q. Is there a way of referencing the images, without permanently
attaching them?


Thanks,

Chris

[CyberTaz]

Not to contradict Dean's offerings, but unless you have his level of
experience & expertise in managing such docs in Word you may be in for more
of an uphill battle than you might think:-) There may also be other
considerations involved - there really isn't enough detail in your post to
offer an "absolute" recommendation, but you may want to consider a pro-level
page layout (Desk Top Publishing) app such as Adobe InDesign. CS3 is the
current version but if expense is a consideration you may be able to pick up
the CS2 version for less on Ebay or some-such.

WRT the images & file size - the critical issue there is having them
properly produced in a graphics editor *before* they ever go into the
intended document. Everything from print dimensions to ppi (resolution),
color & file type should be done based on how the document/images will be
printed. These considerations may vary a bit depending on whether the images
are rasters or vectors, but any control is better off not being excercised
in a text-based app unless absolutely necessary.

Linking vs. embedding of the images provides pros & cons as Dean indicated,
but with a program like InDesign you can link as the doc is being edited &
convert the links to embedded images at press time. If you link in Word to
maintain a smaller working size you do have the option to break the links
later but the linked objects, themselves, don't get embedded - instead Word
retains the data required for screed display which may not be sufficient for
the level of print quality expected.

Quality DTP software (IMHO) more than pays for itself many times over &
provides significant layout & typography advantages. As powerful a word
processing program as Word is it is a real beast when it comes to page
layout:-) For those who have built a career on mastering Word's behaviors &
idiosyncracies, complex document structures can be effectively created, but
for those who need to produce such work as only a *part* of what their job
entails it can eat you alive:-) Additionally, you can still do your copy in
Word if you wish, then import it to the publication file.

One other note: It probably wouldn't hurt to beef up your system - more RAM,
increased HD capacity & more powerful graphics card - in order to improve
performance regardless of which software you decide to use.

--
HTH |:)
Bob Jones
Office:Mac MVP


wrote in message
...
I am having difficulty in deciding if word 2003 is the right
application for me. Typically I am doing reports which must contain a
lot of images, unfortunately the combined total size of these images
translate to a very large and unmanageable file size.

Q. Does any body think there is a more appropiate app.?
Q. Is there a way of optimising the file size without loosing out on
quality?
Q. Is there a way of referencing the images, without permanently
attaching them?


Thanks,

Chris