Prev: binbot
Next: Snow Leopard Safari Tabs
From: Geico Caveman on 30 Sep 2009 15:30
iWork'09

I have a document with some Endnote citations. On export to Word, it
warns that merge fields have been converted to text.

When I open the document in Word, sure enough, the bibliography is pure
text (all field codes are gone) and useless for further work.

It appears that Pages does not really work that well for technical
documents. No figure captions, no table captions, and now this. Its sad
to see this since I like the look better, but that is obviously not
enough.

From: David on 30 Sep 2009 18:36
In article <200909301230168930-spammersgohere(a)spaminvalid>,
Geico Caveman <spammers-go-here(a)spam.invalid> wrote:

> iWork'09
>
> I have a document with some Endnote citations. On export to Word, it
> warns that merge fields have been converted to text.
>
> When I open the document in Word, sure enough, the bibliography is pure
> text (all field codes are gone) and useless for further work.
>
> It appears that Pages does not really work that well for technical
> documents. No figure captions, no table captions, and now this. Its sad
> to see this since I like the look better, but that is obviously not
> enough.

It is a strange program - when I open docs in RTF format that come from
my HP scanner and OCR they are a mess - nothing at all like the
original. Yet opening the same doc in Word (mac 2004) results in a damn
good editable copy of the original.

Why? Beats me, and it is a shame cause I like using it more than Word

David
From: P. Sture on 1 Oct 2009 15:04
In article <postings-3BC7A2.08362501102009(a)news.bigpond.com>,
David <postings(a)REMOVE-TO-REPLYconfidential-counselling.com> wrote:

> It is a strange program - when I open docs in RTF format that come from
> my HP scanner and OCR they are a mess - nothing at all like the
> original. Yet opening the same doc in Word (mac 2004) results in a damn
> good editable copy of the original.
>
> Why? Beats me, and it is a shame cause I like using it more than Word

How does TextEdit fare with the same RTF files? Just curious.

--
Paul Sture
From: Geico Caveman on 2 Oct 2009 15:30
On 2009-09-30 15:36:27 -0700, David
<postings(a)REMOVE-TO-REPLYconfidential-counselling.com> said:

> In article <200909301230168930-spammersgohere(a)spaminvalid>,
> Geico Caveman <spammers-go-here(a)spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> iWork'09
>>
>> I have a document with some Endnote citations. On export to Word, it
>> warns that merge fields have been converted to text.
>>
>> When I open the document in Word, sure enough, the bibliography is pure
>> text (all field codes are gone) and useless for further work.
>>
>> It appears that Pages does not really work that well for technical
>> documents. No figure captions, no table captions, and now this. Its sad
>> to see this since I like the look better, but that is obviously not
>> enough.
>
> It is a strange program - when I open docs in RTF format that come from
> my HP scanner and OCR they are a mess - nothing at all like the
> original. Yet opening the same doc in Word (mac 2004) results in a damn
> good editable copy of the original.
>
> Why? Beats me, and it is a shame cause I like using it more than Word
>
> David


I guess Pages does not have a complete implementation of RTF, or the
OCR software uses some MS Word specific extensions that Pages cannot
support.

Personally, I would not use Pages or Word. My tool of choice has always
been LaTeX. Its power, ease of use (for technical stuff), and quality
of output is unmatched by any tool I know of. Only TeXmacs (which
unfortunately does not have a stable Mac native version) comes even
close.

But I am stuck with a lot of LaTeX illiterate colleagues :(

 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: binbot
Next: Snow Leopard Safari Tabs