Is Pub 2003 better than 2003

[David Jacobs]

Publisher 2002, after using 2000, is rubbish. The text box edges are now a hatched, thick line. What happened to the nice crisp ones in 2000? When trying to group things, I end up grouping borders and shapes. What happened to the easy, clean grouping in 2000. Even the icon that is in 2002 is unclear - are they grouped, are they not grouped? Pub 2002 has been the bain of my DTP. Think I'll teach myself 'InDesign'.

.......or is 2003 any better

Yours in disgust....

 

[Brian Kvalheim - [MS MVP]]

Hi David Jacobs ([email protected]),
in the Microsoft® newsgroups
you posted:

|| Publisher 2002, after using 2000, is rubbish. The text box edges
|| are now a hatched, thick line. What happened to the nice crisp ones
|| in 2000? When trying to group things, I end up grouping borders and
|| shapes. What happened to the easy, clean grouping in 2000. Even
|| the icon that is in 2002 is unclear - are they grouped, are they not
|| grouped? Pub 2002 has been the bain of my DTP. Think I'll teach
|| myself 'InDesign'.

|| ......or is 2003 any better?

2003 is much improved. The text boxes have been addressed, but "grouping"
has not been changed. What other issues are you having with 2002? Are you
aware that Publisher 2003 requires Windows 2000/XP or newer?
--
Brian Kvalheim
Microsoft Office Publisher MVP
Official Publisher MVP Site:
http://www.kvalheim.org

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers no rights.

 

[Dave Parker]

I am also disappointed with Pub 2002. In the past, I had
no problem with importing photos. With 2003, they are
VERY fuzzy and impoossible to use.

When I open old publications that worked fine before
2002, the pictures again are junk. Is this a known
problem with 2002?

 

[Brian Kvalheim - [MS MVP]]

Hi Dave Parker ([email protected])
in the Microsoft® newsgroups
you posted:

| I am also disappointed with Pub 2002. In the past, I had
| no problem with importing photos. With 2003, they are
| VERY fuzzy and impoossible to use.

I have NEVER seen this in any publications that I have used. Can you send me
one of your troublesome files? (e-mail address removed)

--
Brian Kvalheim
Microsoft Office Publisher MVP
Official Publisher MVP Site:
http://www.kvalheim.org

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers no rights.

 

[°°°MS°Publisher°°°]

You are the first person to have any issues with photographs in Publisher
2003.
If I had a dollar for every picture I have merged to Publisher 2003 and sent
to offset printing and printed out on a colour laser printer in the last
five months I would mega Mega MEGA rich. I would even be richer than the
Valley Courier news paper tycoon, which would be on a par with Michael
Jackson's wealth, and that would be saying something!!!

Overall Publisher 2003 has been magnificent. There are a few
annoyances/bugs and one major one, that a small percentage will have issues
with, and your photo issue is most definitely not one of them.
--

 

[Dave Parker]

Sample pub is on its way.

 

[Dave Parker]

My issue is not with 2003, it is with 2002.

 

[Mike Koewler]

David,

Trust me, the newspaper business is not what it is cracked up to be.
Alas. :-(

Mike

 

[Brian Kvalheim - [MS MVP]]

Hi Dave Parker ([email protected])
in the Microsoft® newsgroups
you posted:

| I am also disappointed with Pub 2002. In the past, I had
| no problem with importing photos. With 2003, they are
| VERY fuzzy and impoossible to use.
|
| When I open old publications that worked fine before
| 2002, the pictures again are junk. Is this a known
| problem with 2002?

We have solved the problem over email. It was the View > Pictures > Detailed
Display was not checked.

--
Brian Kvalheim
Microsoft Office Publisher MVP
Official Publisher MVP Site:
http://www.kvalheim.org

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers no rights.