TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
If your EPS are indeed vector, don't convert to a bitmapped format such as
TIF or BMP. If you are on a Mac, WMF might not work for you . . . and it
might not work for complex images.
I'm not sure what embedding the file in Word will do for you, I would,
instead, import the EPS by reference into your Doc file (or Fm for that
matter) to keep the Word file size down. Then, look at the memory in your
printer. Printers with little RAM will choke on EPS (I realize most
PostScript printers have realistic amounts of memory but, since RAM is
cheap, maybe a memory boost might make a dramatic difference for your
printer).
Best regards,
Sean
sean -at- quodata -dot- com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Plato [SMTP:intrepid_es -at- yahoo -dot- com]
> Word is not the problem. This behavior is normal if you use EPS files.
>
> EPS graphics are vector-based which neither Word or Frame can handle very
> well.
> Word has to store a binary of the graphic in the Word file and then load
> a
> converter when it needs to print or display it. This eats up cycles and
> space.
>
> Covert the EPS graphic to TIF, BMP or WMF (preferred) and then re-embed it
> in
> the word doc. Ideally, use a graphics program like Paint Shop Pro or
> PhotoShop
> to save off the file. Resize if necessary. Don't link to the image, embed
> it
> in-line in the Word doc.
>
> This should dramatically reduce the Word file size.
