Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Booklet printing (was: Windows/wordperfect to Macbook Pro)

Expand Messages
  • John Rethorst
    ... Diane, this is very interesting. Past posts on this list have asked about booklet printing, and various solutions, or partial solutions, have been offered,
    Message 1 of 15 , Jun 25, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In wordperfectmac@yahoogroups.com, Diane Mettam <dmettam@...> wrote:

      > I've made a few concessions. I only use WP for
      > booklets - WP is the ONLY word processor that could
      > subdivide pages and then logically print the pages so
      > that you could come out with a book with pages 1 and
      > 8, and 2 and 7 on opposite sides, for instance.

      Diane, this is very interesting. Past posts on this list have
      asked about booklet printing, and various solutions, or
      partial solutions, have been offered, but you may have a
      better solution. Could you post a step-by-step guide? I
      can put a copy in the Files section here for permanent
      reference.

      Thanks,
      John R.
    • George B. Richardson
      Hi, Diane, Word has a Make It Fit equivalent called Shrink to fit . I use it so often that I elevated it to my standard toolbar. I don t remember exactly
      Message 2 of 15 , Jun 26, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi, Diane, Word has a "Make It Fit" equivalent called "Shrink to
        fit". I use it so often that I elevated it to my standard toolbar. I
        don't remember exactly where it is in Word, but if you search Word
        Help for Shrink to fit, it should show up.

        As for MacLinkPlus Deluxe, I own the current version and have owned
        its prior incarnations for close to 20 years. It's a great program,
        but I now find that I virtually never use it because the applications
        that I use already have translators. I also found that MLP does not
        do anywhere near as good a job as NeoOffice in translating and
        retaining the formatting in WP documents. NeoOffice's limitation, as
        noted, is that you cannot save it as a WP document.

        By the way, Joe, I don't know that folks who simply prefer WP to
        other word processing programs would appreciate being characterized
        as "hobbyists".

        Over to you,

        George Richardson



        At 9:20 PM -0700 6/25/08, Diane Mettam wrote:
        >I've had great luck with Parallels running Windows XP. Despite
        >Parallels claim to run W2K, I could never get it to completely
        >install.
        >
        >I've made a few concessions. I only use WP for booklets - WP is the
        >ONLY word processor that could subdivide pages and then logically
        >print the pages so that you could come out with a book with pages 1
        >and 8, and 2 and 7 on opposite sides, for instance.
        >
        >I dearly miss the "Make It Fit" option, and can't seem to find it's
        >equivalent in any other program. I so hate having a few lines of
        >spare print on a final page.
        >
        >I also miss being able to right, center, or left justify on the same
        >line, and of course "Reveal Codes" is sadly missed, but I will give
        >these things up and learn to live with Neo Office for the joy of
        >running my Mac 90% of the time.
        >
        >Thanks for the info on maclinkplus. That's a new one to me! Diane
        >
        >--- Joe Edgell <<mailto:joeedgell%40mac.com>joeedgell@...> wrote:
        >
        >>Lots of folks in this forum are hobbyists who love getting old
        >>copies of WordPerfect running on their Mac. Unless you're such a
        >>hobbyist, I would suggest one of several options:
        >>
        >>1. Download a free copy of NeoOffice which can open them, but must
        >>then save to Word or Opendoc format. It's free and can be found at
        >><http://www.neooffice.org/>http://www.neooffice.org/>
        >>
        >>2. Purchase a copy of MacLinkPlus Deluxe which does a decent job of
        >>converting back and forth between formats, including WordPerfect
        >>and Word. Trial versions can be downloaded from
        >><http://www.maclinkplus.com/>http://www.maclinkplus.com/>
        >>
        >>3. Install Windows on your Mac using Parallels
        >>desktop for Mac <http://www.parallels.com/en/products/desktop/> or
        >>VMWare's Fusion
        >>(<http://www.vmware.com/products/fusion/>. You will, of course,
        >>need a licensed copy of Windows.
        >>
        >>Hope this helps. I'm sure others will chime in with their faves......
        >>
        >>Joe
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>>On 25 Jun 2008, at 12:22, ekvaters wrote:
        >>>
        After many years on the windows system using Wordperfect, I have
        bought a Macbook Pro. I have transferred my Wordperfect (and Word)
        documents onto my Mac. I would like to know what I can do to open the
        Wordperfect (.wpd) documents.
        --
        <:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>
        George B. Richardson PC; 650.324.4801
        Mediation and Collaborative Professional
        Certified as a Specialist in Family Law by the
        California State Bar Board of Legal Specialization

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • John Rethorst
        ... Agreed. If you keep the old turntable and tube amp running for their antique value, you re clearly a hobbyist. If you do so because you subscribe to the
        Message 3 of 15 , Jun 26, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In wordperfectmac@yahoogroups.com, "George B. Richardson" <gbr@...> wrote:

          > By the way, Joe, I don't know that folks who simply prefer WP to
          > other word processing programs would appreciate being characterized
          > as "hobbyists".

          Agreed. If you keep the old turntable and tube amp running for their
          antique value, you're clearly a hobbyist. If you do so because you
          subscribe to the sizable body of serious opinion holding that analog
          sound is better than its replacement, you are not a hobbyist; you
          simply like listening to high quality sound reproduction.

          If you keep the old Leica in repair for historical reasons, you're a
          hobbyist. If you do so since you judge its image quality better
          than that 10 megapixel computer with a lens in front of it, you are
          not a hobbyist; you simply like high quality photographs.

          Newer ain't always better. I switched from MS Word to WP because
          it was the best writing tool I could find. I still think so.

          John R.
        • Rick Albright
          I know I m drifting off-topic a bit here, but can t resist making a few connections. 1) Recent news stories report a steady increase in sales of vinyl LPs and
          Message 4 of 15 , Jun 27, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            I know I'm drifting off-topic a bit here, but can't resist making a
            few connections. 1) Recent news stories report a steady increase in
            sales of vinyl LPs and turntables over the past few years. 2) There's
            one place where the term "tube amp" is not an anachronism: most
            electric guitarists still prefer the sound of tube amps, which
            continue to be made. (In fact the whole world of vintage guitars
            seems to be in opposition to our culture's desire for the latest and
            greatest, with the 1950s seen as the Golden Age). 3) I still
            regularly use my 1976 Nikon F2 and 1969 FTN, because I prefer their
            picture quality, though I do make a concession to modernity by
            getting photo CDs from Kodak--and I'm laboriously scanning and color
            correcting thousands of fading slides to try to preserve them. I
            don't consider myself a Luddite.

            BTW, closer to the topic at hand: I'm finishing up a book manuscript
            in WordPerfect. (It's an academic book.) Much as I love the program,
            I had been giving serious thought to doing future academic writing in
            Word, just because it seems so inevitable and universal; but all the
            previous drafts of this book were in WordPerfect, so I figured I may
            as well continue for the time being. My attitude was, okay, I'll do
            this one in WordPerfect, and then think about changing over. Now I'm
            less sure. Part of it is the comfort level; I'm more familiar with
            the WP way of doing things, and, yes, I can usually do it in Word,
            but it takes me longer and seems harder to do. And WP's amazingly
            powerful macro language, and John Rethorst's sets of macros, seem
            unparalleled. As one example, I was able to do some things that gave
            me a level of control over the formatting of my endnotes that just
            didn't seem possible (or easy) In Word. I don't want to rekindle that
            old Word vs. WordPerfect debate here. (And no doubt, Word experts
            would say that I could do everything I needed to in Word.) I'm just
            bringing this up to say that working so intensely with WP again has
            made me realize anew just how unique it is. And because I had to
            reformat almost the entire document in a different style, I can't
            even calculate how much time I saved by using Reveal Codes, because I
            was able to completely eliminate any unexpected wacky formatting by
            knowing just where to position the cursor when I made a change. All
            stuff that has been said before, but worth repeating, I guess.

            Thanks to John and all the knowledgeable, helpful people on this list.

            Rick Albright

            On Jun 26, 2008, at 7:59 PM, John Rethorst wrote:
            > Agreed. If you keep the old turntable and tube amp running for their
            > antique value, you're clearly a hobbyist. If you do so because you
            > subscribe to the sizable body of serious opinion holding that analog
            > sound is better than its replacement, you are not a hobbyist; you
            > simply like listening to high quality sound reproduction.
            >
            > If you keep the old Leica in repair for historical reasons, you're a
            > hobbyist. If you do so since you judge its image quality better
            > than that 10 megapixel computer with a lens in front of it, you are
            > not a hobbyist; you simply like high quality photographs.
            >
            > Newer ain't always better. I switched from MS Word to WP because
            > it was the best writing tool I could find. I still think so.
            >
          • Diane Mettam
            Well put, Rick! Diane ... From: Rick Albright To: wordperfectmac@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 6:14:50 AM Subject: Re:
            Message 5 of 15 , Jun 27, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              Well put, Rick! Diane


              ----- Original Message ----
              From: Rick Albright <logres@...>
              To: wordperfectmac@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 6:14:50 AM
              Subject: Re: [wpmac] Re: "hobbyists" (was: From Windows/wordperfect to Macbook Pro)


              I know I'm drifting off-topic a bit here, but can't resist making a
              few connections. 1) Recent news stories report a steady increase in
              sales of vinyl LPs and turntables over the past few years. 2) There's
              one place where the term "tube amp" is not an anachronism: most
              electric guitarists still prefer the sound of tube amps, which
              continue to be made. (In fact the whole world of vintage guitars
              seems to be in opposition to our culture's desire for the latest and
              greatest, with the 1950s seen as the Golden Age). 3) I still
              regularly use my 1976 Nikon F2 and 1969 FTN, because I prefer their
              picture quality, though I do make a concession to modernity by
              getting photo CDs from Kodak--and I'm laboriously scanning and color
              correcting thousands of fading slides to try to preserve them. I
              don't consider myself a Luddite.

              BTW, closer to the topic at hand: I'm finishing up a book manuscript
              in WordPerfect. (It's an academic book.) Much as I love the program,
              I had been giving serious thought to doing future academic writing in
              Word, just because it seems so inevitable and universal; but all the
              previous drafts of this book were in WordPerfect, so I figured I may
              as well continue for the time being. My attitude was, okay, I'll do
              this one in WordPerfect, and then think about changing over. Now I'm
              less sure. Part of it is the comfort level; I'm more familiar with
              the WP way of doing things, and, yes, I can usually do it in Word,
              but it takes me longer and seems harder to do. And WP's amazingly
              powerful macro language, and John Rethorst's sets of macros, seem
              unparalleled. As one example, I was able to do some things that gave
              me a level of control over the formatting of my endnotes that just
              didn't seem possible (or easy) In Word. I don't want to rekindle that
              old Word vs. WordPerfect debate here. (And no doubt, Word experts
              would say that I could do everything I needed to in Word.) I'm just
              bringing this up to say that working so intensely with WP again has
              made me realize anew just how unique it is. And because I had to
              reformat almost the entire document in a different style, I can't
              even calculate how much time I saved by using Reveal Codes, because I
              was able to completely eliminate any unexpected wacky formatting by
              knowing just where to position the cursor when I made a change. All
              stuff that has been said before, but worth repeating, I guess.

              Thanks to John and all the knowledgeable, helpful people on this list.

              Rick Albright

              On Jun 26, 2008, at 7:59 PM, John Rethorst wrote:
              > Agreed. If you keep the old turntable and tube amp running for their
              > antique value, you're clearly a hobbyist. If you do so because you
              > subscribe to the sizable body of serious opinion holding that analog
              > sound is better than its replacement, you are not a hobbyist; you
              > simply like listening to high quality sound reproduction.
              >
              > If you keep the old Leica in repair for historical reasons, you're a
              > hobbyist. If you do so since you judge its image quality better
              > than that 10 megapixel computer with a lens in front of it, you are
              > not a hobbyist; you simply like high quality photographs.
              >
              > Newer ain't always better. I switched from MS Word to WP because
              > it was the best writing tool I could find. I still think so.
              >


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Joe Edgell
              Sorry it s taken me so long to respond, George, but I ve been out of the Country. As for hobbyist term, I don t see anything derogatory about it at all. I
              Message 6 of 15 , Jun 30, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                Sorry it's taken me so long to respond, George, but I've been out of
                the Country. As for "hobbyist" term, I don't see anything derogatory
                about it at all. I bicycle quite a bit. I'm not a professional
                cyclist, and I'm not a casual cyclist. Seems "hobbyist" probably
                describes me well, and I would not be offended to be called such. In
                fact, Apple's included Dictionary utility which pulls from the Oxford
                American Dictionary, among others, lists this definition:



                How bad can that be?

                Joe



                On 26 Jun 2008, at 17:34, George B. Richardson wrote:

                > By the way, Joe, I don't know that folks who simply prefer WP to
                > other word processing programs would appreciate being characterized
                > as "hobbyists".



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Joe Edgell
                According to the dictionary I cited in a prior post, an activity done regularly in one s leisure time for pleasure is a hobby and a person who pursues that
                Message 7 of 15 , Jun 30, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  According to the dictionary I cited in a prior post, "an activity done
                  regularly in one's leisure time for pleasure" is a "hobby" and a
                  person who pursues that activity is a "hobbyist." So, I think both of
                  your examples, each person clearly would be a hobbyist. That is,
                  unless the really don't like doing those activities or they don't do
                  them in their leisure time.

                  Joe



                  On 26 Jun 2008, at 19:59, John Rethorst wrote:

                  > Agreed. If you keep the old turntable and tube amp running for their
                  > antique value, you're clearly a hobbyist. If you do so because you
                  > subscribe to the sizable body of serious opinion holding that analog
                  > sound is better than its replacement, you are not a hobbyist; you
                  > simply like listening to high quality sound reproduction.
                  >
                  > If you keep the old Leica in repair for historical reasons, you're a
                  > hobbyist. If you do so since you judge its image quality better
                  > than that 10 megapixel computer with a lens in front of it, you are
                  > not a hobbyist; you simply like high quality photographs.



                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Joe Edgell
                  Odd. Apparently the text from my earlier message with the definition was deleted. Here s that definition of hobbyist: a person who pursues a particular
                  Message 8 of 15 , Jun 30, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Odd. Apparently the text from my earlier message with the definition
                    was deleted. Here's that definition of hobbyist:

                    "a person who pursues a particular hobby: a computer hobbyist."

                    And the definition of hobby:

                    "an activity done regularly in one's leisure time for pleasure"



                    On 30 Jun 2008, at 06:19, Joe Edgell wrote:

                    > Sorry it's taken me so long to respond, George, but I've been out of
                    > the Country. As for "hobbyist" term, I don't see anything derogatory
                    > about it at all. I bicycle quite a bit. I'm not a professional
                    > cyclist, and I'm not a casual cyclist. Seems "hobbyist" probably
                    > describes me well, and I would not be offended to be called such. In
                    > fact, Apple's included Dictionary utility which pulls from the Oxford
                    > American Dictionary, among others, lists this definition:
                    >
                    > How bad can that be?
                    >
                    > Joe
                    >
                    > On 26 Jun 2008, at 17:34, George B. Richardson wrote:
                    >
                    > > By the way, Joe, I don't know that folks who simply prefer WP to
                    > > other word processing programs would appreciate being characterized
                    > > as "hobbyists".
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                    >
                    >
                  • Edward Mendelson
                    I ve been using Microsoft Word for Windows to do exactly that for many years. A web search will show the method easily. I used to print booklets in WP, but
                    Message 9 of 15 , Jul 2, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I've been using Microsoft Word for Windows to do exactly that for
                      many years. A web search will show the method easily. I used to
                      print booklets in WP, but then I needed to use some accented
                      letters that WP only supported in its generic international fonts,
                      so I switched my booklet printing to Word.

                      --- In wordperfectmac@yahoogroups.com, Diane Mettam <dmettam@...> wrote:

                      > I've made a few concessions. I only use WP for
                      > booklets - WP is the ONLY word processor that could
                      > subdivide pages and then logically print the pages so
                      > that you could come out with a book with pages 1 and
                      > 8, and 2 and 7 on opposite sides, for instance.
                    • Michael
                      ... Thanks Diane. He doesn t have Word for Windoze. He has a MAC. Mike
                      Message 10 of 15 , Jul 2, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In wordperfectmac@yahoogroups.com, "Edward Mendelson" <emendelson@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > I've been using Microsoft Word for Windows to do exactly that for
                        > many years. A web search will show the method easily. I used to
                        > print booklets in WP, but then I needed to use some accented
                        > letters that WP only supported in its generic international fonts,
                        > so I switched my booklet printing to Word.
                        >
                        > --- In wordperfectmac@yahoogroups.com, Diane Mettam <dmettam@> wrote:
                        >
                        > > I've made a few concessions. I only use WP for
                        > > booklets - WP is the ONLY word processor that could
                        > > subdivide pages and then logically print the pages so
                        > > that you could come out with a book with pages 1 and
                        > > 8, and 2 and 7 on opposite sides, for instance.

                        Thanks Diane. He doesn't have Word for Windoze. He has a MAC.

                        Mike
                      • Bruce Rogers
                        Hello. I m a new member of this discussion group. I m currently a WordPerfect for Windows user, contemplating replacing my Dell laptop and considering an Apple
                        Message 11 of 15 , Jul 2, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hello. I'm a new member of this discussion group.

                          I'm currently a WordPerfect for Windows user, contemplating replacing
                          my Dell laptop and considering an Apple product for that replacement.

                          My firm uses WordPerfect as the word processor of choice (on Windows
                          machines). So I am wondering whether there is an implementation of
                          WordPerfect for a current generation of Apple laptop that would allow
                          me to remain integrated with the Windows-based group I work with.

                          I suppose one option is to run windows on a partition on the Apple
                          laptop, and to install WordPerfect for Windows and run it from that
                          partition. However I was kind of hoping to get away from the
                          perpetual operability hassles I have had to put up with since I
                          stopped using a Mac 15 years ago. Maybe that's just not a practical dream.

                          Any suggestions?

                          Bruce Rogers
                          Dallas/Fort Worth
                        • Joe Edgell
                          The oft quoted solutions, Bruce, are either the separate Windows partition and running WordPerfect under Windows using Bootcamp, the more elegant solution of
                          Message 12 of 15 , Jul 3, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            The oft quoted solutions, Bruce, are either the separate Windows
                            partition and running WordPerfect under Windows using Bootcamp, the
                            more elegant solution of running Windows within your Mac using
                            Parallels desktop or VMWare's Fusion, or converting the documents
                            using Dataviz's MacLinkPlus Deluxe. The easiest solution, if the most
                            expensive, is the VMWare or Parallels solution.


                            On 2 Jul 2008, at 12:20, Bruce Rogers wrote:

                            > Hello. I'm a new member of this discussion group.
                            >
                            > I'm currently a WordPerfect for Windows user, contemplating replacing
                            > my Dell laptop and considering an Apple product for that replacement.
                            >
                            > My firm uses WordPerfect as the word processor of choice (on Windows
                            > machines). So I am wondering whether there is an implementation of
                            > WordPerfect for a current generation of Apple laptop that would allow
                            > me to remain integrated with the Windows-based group I work with.
                            >
                            > I suppose one option is to run windows on a partition on the Apple
                            > laptop, and to install WordPerfect for Windows and run it from that
                            > partition. However I was kind of hoping to get away from the
                            > perpetual operability hassles I have had to put up with since I
                            > stopped using a Mac 15 years ago. Maybe that's just not a practical
                            > dream.
                            >
                            > Any suggestions?
                            >
                            > Bruce Rogers
                            > Dallas/Fort Worth
                            >
                            >
                            >



                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.