large rtf file

[Nita]

I have a 1.86Gig rtf file, which is a book that I own, that I scanned
in, as a series of images that got put into a rtf format file, is there
anyway to open this file, as word 2000 won't open it because it's too
large. Would open office have more sucess? I just want to be able to
save it to a pdf file so I dont keep buggering up the book while away
on trips (book of maps)

Thxs in advance

[TyBreaker]

Post by Nita
I have a 1.86Gig rtf file, which is a book that I own, that I scanned
in, as a series of images that got put into a rtf format file, is there
anyway to open this file, as word 2000 won't open it because it's too
large. Would open office have more sucess? I just want to be able to
save it to a pdf file so I dont keep buggering up the book while away
on trips (book of maps)
Thxs in advance

RTF is a text format so can you run a file splitter over it and break
into smaller sections. Then you just need to top and tail the joins
with a valid RTF header and footer. To find out what to put as the
start of file and end of file, just see what is there presently.

[The Old Bloke]

Post by Nita
I have a 1.86Gig rtf file, which is a book that I own, that I scanned
in, as a series of images that got put into a rtf format file, is there
anyway to open this file, as word 2000 won't open it because it's too
large. Would open office have more sucess? I just want to be able to
save it to a pdf file so I dont keep buggering up the book while away
on trips (book of maps)
Thxs in advance

I use PDF4U for general conversions to PDF. It's free to try. I have never
tried it with large files, but it's free to try. I just tried it on a rtf
file that had graphics in it and it worked all OK.

Pls let me know how you go

[Ernest]

Post by Nita
I have a 1.86Gig rtf file, which is a book that I own, that I scanned
in, as a series of images that got put into a rtf format file, is there
anyway to open this file, as word 2000 won't open it because it's too
large. Would open office have more sucess? I just want to be able to
save it to a pdf file so I dont keep buggering up the book while away
on trips (book of maps)
Thxs in advance

Not surprised that word has an issue. I am writing a story in
MS Word at the moment 1.6 MB as a .doc file, save it to .rtf
and it drops to 1.3 MB open in Wordpad and resave and it
drops to a 0.62 MB .rtf file - what is lost, the excess formatting
crap that Word adds - should see what it does to html files.

By the way all three copies display the same in Wordpad
and Word.

The problem will be that MS Word opens the whole document
and has a hernia trying to put 1.86 gig into RAM and virtual
memory. Open Office has a better memory management
and will p-robably handle it OK. Can't give and exact answer
as I have NEVER heard of anyone with such a large .rtf file
before.

May I suggest that you try turning it into a .html format with
the images in a related folder and link entries for the images.
This will even simplify the matter for later if you want to make
it available over the Interrnet.


Regards,

Deadly Ernest
(all typos fault of server or
other gremlins)

[JJJ]

Post by Nita
I have a 1.86Gig rtf file, which is a book that I own, that I scanned
in, as a series of images that got put into a rtf format file, is there
anyway to open this file, as word 2000 won't open it because it's too
large. Would open office have more sucess? I just want to be able to
save it to a pdf file so I dont keep buggering up the book while away
on trips (book of maps)
Thxs in advance

Are you assuming that Acrobat will have no problem opening a 1.86GB PDF
file?

[Colin ®]

Post by JJJ

Post by Nita
I have a 1.86Gig rtf file, which is a book that I own, that I scanned
in, as a series of images that got put into a rtf format file, is there
anyway to open this file, as word 2000 won't open it because it's too
large. Would open office have more sucess? I just want to be able to
save it to a pdf file so I dont keep buggering up the book while away
on trips (book of maps)
Thxs in advance

Are you assuming that Acrobat will have no problem opening a 1.86GB PDF
file?

Doubt it.

I got a P4 1.8 with 512 of RAM to load a 500 Mb Word file ( Office 2003).
The file was built up by copy/pasting a series of 50-100 Mb files with
photos/text. It is a book for publication.

It jammed the PC, mouse action was taking minutes to respond, task manager
was useless at stopping it.

Took a reboot to finally stop it. Maybe if you could get it all in RAM it
might be better - who knows (shrug)

[TyBreaker]

Post by Colin ®

Post by JJJ

Post by Nita
I have a 1.86Gig rtf file, which is a book that I own, that I scanned
in, as a series of images that got put into a rtf format file, is there
anyway to open this file, as word 2000 won't open it because it's too
large. Would open office have more sucess? I just want to be able to
save it to a pdf file so I dont keep buggering up the book while away
on trips (book of maps)
Thxs in advance

Are you assuming that Acrobat will have no problem opening a 1.86GB PDF
file?

Doubt it.
I got a P4 1.8 with 512 of RAM to load a 500 Mb Word file ( Office 2003).
The file was built up by copy/pasting a series of 50-100 Mb files with
photos/text. It is a book for publication.
It jammed the PC, mouse action was taking minutes to respond, task manager
was useless at stopping it.
Took a reboot to finally stop it. Maybe if you could get it all in RAM it
might be better - who knows (shrug)

I have to say, I'm not sure your problem is Word or the document size.
It simply sounds like you've got insufficient RAM for such a task.

[Colin ®]

I have to say, I'm not sure your problem is Word or the document size. It
simply sounds like you've got insufficient RAM for such a task.

Yep, I think you are probably correct.

The point was to indicate what happens with Word and big docs. in a pretty
normal PC. Who has 2 Gb plus of RAM aboard and who knows if the PDF
converters can handle that size doc anyway.

[Rod Speed]

Post by Colin ®

Post by TyBreaker
I have to say, I'm not sure your problem is Word or the document size.
It simply sounds like you've got insufficient RAM for such a task.

Yep, I think you are probably correct.

Nope, thats what virtual memory is about.

Post by Colin ®
The point was to indicate what happens with Word and big docs. in a
pretty normal PC. Who has 2 Gb plus of RAM aboard

Thats what virtual memory is about.

Post by Colin ®
and who knows if the PDF converters can handle that size doc anyway.

Unlikely that they need to keep it all in ram.

[TyBreaker]

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Colin ®

Post by TyBreaker
I have to say, I'm not sure your problem is Word or the document size.
It simply sounds like you've got insufficient RAM for such a task.

Yep, I think you are probably correct.

Nope, thats what virtual memory is about.

Post by Colin ®
The point was to indicate what happens with Word and big docs. in a
pretty normal PC. Who has 2 Gb plus of RAM aboard

Thats what virtual memory is about.

Post by Colin ®
and who knows if the PDF converters can handle that size doc anyway.

Unlikely that they need to keep it all in ram.

Virtual memory is not an unlimited supply. I recall that the
recommended size of the Windows swap file is the amount of your physical
RAM plus 11 MB. I have also been told that reserving even more space
doesn't achieve anything simply because of the way Windows uses the swap
file. So 512MB RAM plus 523MB swap still is insufficient for fitting a
1.8GB file into memory. Especially since it's got heaps of other stuff
in that memory as well.

Now I might be wrong in some details here as I'm simply passing on what
I've heard but the symptoms are symptomatic of a VM issue.

[Rod Speed]

Post by TyBreaker

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Colin ®

Post by TyBreaker
I have to say, I'm not sure your problem is Word or the document
size. It simply sounds like you've got insufficient RAM for such a
task.

Yep, I think you are probably correct.

Nope, thats what virtual memory is about.

Post by Colin ®
The point was to indicate what happens with Word and big docs. in a
pretty normal PC. Who has 2 Gb plus of RAM aboard

Thats what virtual memory is about.

Post by Colin ®
and who knows if the PDF converters can handle that size doc anyway.

Unlikely that they need to keep it all in ram.

Virtual memory is not an unlimited supply.

Correct, but XP will tell you if the drive
with the page file is running out of space.

Post by TyBreaker
I recall that the recommended size of the Windows swap file is the amount
of your physical RAM plus 11 MB.

Thats always been a completely mindless 'recommendation'

The size of the swap file depends on what physical ram
you have and what the apps will be using. And the swap
file size DROPS as the amount of physical ram increases too.

Post by TyBreaker
I have also been told that reserving even more space doesn't achieve
anything simply because of the way Windows uses the swap file.

Only by the same pig ignorant fools that proclaimed that previous crap.

Post by TyBreaker
So 512MB RAM plus 523MB swap still is insufficient for fitting a 1.8GB
file into memory. Especially since it's got heaps of other stuff in that
memory as well.

Correct, but anyone with any sense lets win manage the swap file.

Post by TyBreaker
Now I might be wrong in some details here as I'm simply passing on
what I've heard but the symptoms are symptomatic of a VM issue.

You need to get your hearing tested.

[TyBreaker]

Post by Rod Speed
You need to get your hearing tested.

I don't think so, I think you are just a social cripple. Did someone
offend you here or did you just not get any last night?

[Rod Speed]

Post by TyBreaker

Post by Rod Speed

Post by TyBreaker
Now I might be wrong in some details here

In every single one, actually.

Post by TyBreaker

Post by Rod Speed

Post by TyBreaker
as I'm simply passing on what I've heard

But are so stupid that you dont understand the basics.

Post by TyBreaker

Post by Rod Speed

Post by TyBreaker
but the symptoms are symptomatic of a VM issue.

You need to get your hearing tested.

I don't think so,

Not a shred of evidence that you are actually capable of thought.

You clearly dont have a fucking clue about what virtual
memory is about, or anything else at all, either.

Post by TyBreaker
I think

Not a shred of evidence that you are actually capable of thought.

Post by TyBreaker
you are just a social cripple.

You couldnt bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag, child.

Post by TyBreaker
Did someone offend you here

Nope. I just rubbed some stupid little pig ignorant
kid's nose in its terminal pig ignorant stupiditys.

Post by TyBreaker
or did you just not get any last night?

'thought' that one up all by yourself did you child ?

[TyBreaker]

Post by Rod Speed
Nope. I just rubbed some stupid little pig ignorant
kid's nose in its terminal pig ignorant stupiditys.

*giggle* dummy spit

[steam3801]

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 15:21:40 +1100, TyBreaker

Post by TyBreaker

Post by Rod Speed
Nope. I just rubbed some stupid little pig ignorant
kid's nose in its terminal pig ignorant stupiditys.

*giggle* dummy spit

Please do not feed the trolls :) :)

[Rod Speed]

Post by TyBreaker

Post by Rod Speed
Nope. I just rubbed some stupid little pig ignorant
kid's nose in its terminal pig ignorant stupiditys.

*giggle* dummy spit

Village eejut immitations aint gunna save your bacon, child.

[Colin ®]

Virtual memory is not an unlimited supply. I recall that the recommended
size of the Windows swap file is the amount of your physical RAM plus 11
MB. I have also been told that reserving even more space doesn't achieve
anything simply because of the way Windows uses the swap file. So 512MB
RAM plus 523MB swap still is insufficient for fitting a 1.8GB file into
memory. Especially since it's got heaps of other stuff in that memory as
well.
Now I might be wrong in some details here as I'm simply passing on what
I've heard but the symptoms are symptomatic of a VM issue.

I think you are back in in Win98 days when it <may> have been true.

My XP 512 Mb RAM boxes allocate around 760Mb to VM when set to auto on
startup.

Clearly, as Windows is managing it, it can increase if it needs it. You can
see how much is in use at any time anyway.
I would have thought XP could handle a 2 odd Gb VM - maybe not. Or maybe its
Word having a brain fart.

I couldn't tell as I lost any usable mouse/KB reponse

[Ernest]

Post by Colin ®

Virtual memory is not an unlimited supply. I recall that the recommended
size of the Windows swap file is the amount of your physical RAM plus 11
MB. I have also been told that reserving even more space doesn't achieve
anything simply because of the way Windows uses the swap file. So 512MB
RAM plus 523MB swap still is insufficient for fitting a 1.8GB file into
memory. Especially since it's got heaps of other stuff in that memory as
well.
Now I might be wrong in some details here as I'm simply passing on what
I've heard but the symptoms are symptomatic of a VM issue.

I think you are back in in Win98 days when it <may> have been true.
My XP 512 Mb RAM boxes allocate around 760Mb to VM when set to auto on
startup.
Clearly, as Windows is managing it, it can increase if it needs it. You can
see how much is in use at any time anyway.
I would have thought XP could handle a 2 odd Gb VM - maybe not. Or maybe its
Word having a brain fart.
I couldn't tell as I lost any usable mouse/KB reponse

XP uses double your RAM as its limit to the size of the VM,
and it is a limit. It . My understanding is that the Windows
VM limit has always been double the RAM.

I think is is Word that is having the hernia. You may wish to try
opening the file in Open Office. Using Open Office in a Linux
environment would be better as Linux has a better way of
handling its versiion of VM and can use more than double if
set up with more. A few years ago at a Linux TAFE course
the info supplied was to usa a default swap partition of two
and a half times you RAM; but can allocate moe if you wish.


Regards,

Deadly Ernest
(all typos fault of server or
other gremlins)

[Colin ®]

Post by Ernest
XP uses double your RAM as its limit to the size of the VM,
and it is a limit. It . My understanding is that the Windows
VM limit has always been double the RAM.

So, XP will only go up to 2 X RAM if self managing. Wonder what happens if
you set it higher.
Also, that means with 512 physical and 1Gb VM, total memory would be 1.5.
Should have been enough for the 500Mb file.

Post by Ernest
I think is is Word that is having the hernia. You may wish to try
opening the file in Open Office.

Agree, I reckon its a Word thing. Might try OO if/when I get a disk with the
file on it.

Colin

[Rod Speed]

Post by Colin ®

Post by Ernest
XP uses double your RAM as its limit to the size of the VM,
and it is a limit. It . My understanding is that the Windows
VM limit has always been double the RAM.

So, XP will only go up to 2 X RAM if self managing.

That is complete and utter pig ignorant drivel.

Post by Colin ®
Wonder what happens if you set it higher.

Works fine except in the sense that with say 1G
of physical ram, you arent likely to need 2G of VM.

Post by Colin ®
Also, that means with 512 physical and 1Gb VM, total memory would be 1.5.
Should have been enough for the 500Mb file.

Corse it is.

Post by Colin ®

Post by Ernest
I think is is Word that is having the hernia. You may wish to try
opening the file in Open Office.

Agree, I reckon its a Word thing.

Yep, almost guaranteed.

Post by Colin ®
Might try OO if/when I get a disk with the file on it.

[Ernest]

Post by Colin ®

Post by Ernest
XP uses double your RAM as its limit to the size of the VM,
and it is a limit. It . My understanding is that the Windows
VM limit has always been double the RAM.

So, XP will only go up to 2 X RAM if self managing. Wonder what happens if
you set it higher.
Also, that means with 512 physical and 1Gb VM, total memory would be 1.5.
Should have been enough for the 500Mb file.

Post by Ernest
I think is is Word that is having the hernia. You may wish to try
opening the file in Open Office.

Agree, I reckon its a Word thing. Might try OO if/when I get a disk with the
file on it.
Colin

A couple of points here Colin

1. The default setting used by Win XP and Win 2K when
they set aside the amount of disc space reserved for the
VM is 2 x the RAM and they then limit the amount of usable
VM to that limit. From memory Win NT and Win 98 did the
same, but I do not currently have any boxes up and running
with them.

When in auto manage mode Win 2K and Win XP use only
the amount of reserved are as they currently need, this saves
on the use of RAM. In order to use the VM some of the RAM
is used to note what is stored in the VM areas - the more VM
in use the less RAM available for othe things.

It used to be possible to set the VM at a higher level, say 3 x
or 4 x or more, but then our start to lose available RAM as
it is used to manage the VM - soon you get to the point where
the system is doing little more than swapping small amounts
of data into and out of the VM as there is not enough RAM
left to do much.

2. If you have 512MB Ram and 1 GB VM then your usable
amount of RAM, once the 1 GB is full, should be about 256 MB
of the RAM as most systems will need about 1 MB of RAM
to manage about 4 or 5 MB of VM.

Rod

If you think I am wong and the info that I was taught at TAFE
and passing on is wrong, please post the full technical details.
preferably with some sources, for our illuminations instead
just claims like bullshit and wrong - too often in the past your
such claims have been proven wrong, that is why so many
ignore your posts.


Regards,

Deadly Ernest
(all typos fault of server or
other gremlins)

[Rod Speed]

Post by Ernest

Post by Colin ®

Post by Ernest
XP uses double your RAM as its limit to the size of the VM,
and it is a limit. It . My understanding is that the Windows
VM limit has always been double the RAM.

So, XP will only go up to 2 X RAM if self managing.
Wonder what happens if you set it higher.
Also, that means with 512 physical and 1Gb VM, total memory
would be 1.5. Should have been enough for the 500Mb file.

Post by Ernest
I think is is Word that is having the hernia. You
may wish to try opening the file in Open Office.

Agree, I reckon its a Word thing. Might try
OO if/when I get a disk with the file on it.

A couple of points here Colin
1. The default setting used by Win XP and Win 2K when they set
aside the amount of disc space reserved for the VM is 2 x the RAM

Complete pig ignorant drivel.

Post by Ernest
and they then limit the amount of usable VM to that limit.

Complete pig ignorant drivel.

Post by Ernest
From memory Win NT and Win 98 did the same,

Complete pig ignorant drivel.

Post by Ernest
but I do not currently have any boxes up and running with them.
When in auto manage mode Win 2K and Win XP
use only the amount of reserved are as they
currently need, this saves on the use of RAM.

More complete pig ignorant drivel.

Post by Ernest
In order to use the VM some of the RAM is used
to note what is stored in the VM areas - the more
VM in use the less RAM available for othe things.

Even someone as stupid as you should realise that
the amount of physical ram used to keep track of
what is in the VM is a tiny subset of the VM used.

Thats what pages are about, stupid.

Post by Ernest
It used to be possible to set the VM at
a higher level, say 3 x or 4 x or more,

It still is.

Post by Ernest
but then our start to lose available RAM as it is used to
manage the VM - soon you get to the point where the
system is doing little more than swapping small amounts
of data into and out of the VM as there is not enough
RAM left to do much.

Not a fucking clue, as always.

And even someone as stupid as you should realise that
the less physical ram you have the MORE you need VM.
THATS THE WHOLE POINT OF VM.

If you have say 1 or 2G of physical ram,
you wont be using much VM at all.

Post by Ernest
2. If you have 512MB Ram and 1 GB VM then your
usable amount of RAM, once the 1 GB is full, should
be about 256 MB of the RAM as most systems will need
about 1 MB of RAM to manage about 4 or 5 MB of VM.

Complete and utter pig ignorant drivel. You dont
need anything like 20% of physical ram to keep
track of what pages are in the VM, stupid.

Post by Ernest
Rod
If you think I am wong and the info that I was taught at TAFE
and passing on is wrong, please post the full technical details.

Dont need to bother with that, you drivel is obvious drivel with even
just that mindlessly silly line of drivel about how much physical ram
is needed to keep track of what pages are in the VM alone.

Hint for the terminally stupid. You dont need anything like
20% of a page to keep track of what pages are in the VM.

And YOU made that stupid pig ignorant claim about Win
not allowing the VM to be more than 2X the physical ram
so YOU get to post the substantiation for that stupid
pig ignorant drivel. THATS how it works.

Post by Ernest
preferably with some sources, for our illuminations
instead just claims like bullshit and wrong

Caught lying again. Most obviously with your mindlessly
silly howler about more VM being needed when the
amount of physical ram is increase. Even someone as
stupid as you should be able to grasp that with a system
that has 1-2G of physical ram, you need fuck all VM with
most systems.

<reams of your desperate attempts to bullshit your
way out of your predicament flushed where it belongs>

Post by Ernest
Deadly Ernest

Pathetic, really.

[TyBreaker]

Post by Ernest
Rod
If you think I am wong and the info that I was taught at TAFE
and passing on is wrong, please post the full technical details.
preferably with some sources, for our illuminations instead
just claims like bullshit and wrong - too often in the past your
such claims have been proven wrong, that is why so many
ignore your posts.

Rod is a social cripple in real life too. The reason why he is on here
all the time is because he fears people and this is the only forum he
can reveal his inner self anonymously.

He responds in flippant derogatory remarks because he really has no idea
and cannot justify himself as well as being ignorant in any ability to
present an actual answer.

Now watch for the dummy spit hehe. You won't hear anything
comprehensible in his reply :)

[Rod Speed]

Some gutless fuckwit desperately cowering behind
TyBreaker <***@hotmail.com> wrote just the
puerile shit thats always pouring from the back of it.

[Rod Speed]

Post by Ernest

Post by Colin ®

Post by TyBreaker
Virtual memory is not an unlimited supply. I recall that the
recommended size of the Windows swap file is the amount of your
physical RAM plus 11 MB. I have also been told that reserving even
more space doesn't achieve anything simply because of the way
Windows uses the swap file. So 512MB RAM plus 523MB swap still is
insufficient for fitting a 1.8GB file into memory. Especially
since it's got heaps of other stuff in that memory as well.
Now I might be wrong in some details here as I'm simply passing on
what I've heard but the symptoms are symptomatic of a VM issue.

I think you are back in in Win98 days when it <may> have been true.
My XP 512 Mb RAM boxes allocate around 760Mb to VM when set to auto
on startup.
Clearly, as Windows is managing it, it can increase if it needs it.
You can see how much is in use at any time anyway.
I would have thought XP could handle a 2 odd Gb VM - maybe not. Or
maybe its Word having a brain fart.
I couldn't tell as I lost any usable mouse/KB reponse

XP uses double your RAM as its limit to the size of the VM,

Complete and utter pig ignorant drivel.

Post by Ernest
and it is a limit. It . My understanding is that the
Windows VM limit has always been double the RAM.

Its complete and utter pig ignorant drivel.

And terminally stupid too. You need MORE
VM when you have less physical ram, stupid.

Post by Ernest
I think is is Word that is having the hernia. You may wish to try
opening the file in Open Office. Using Open Office in a Linux
environment would be better as Linux has a better way of
handling its versiion of VM and can use more than double if
set up with more. A few years ago at a Linux TAFE course
the info supplied was to usa a default swap partition of two
and a half times you RAM; but can allocate moe if you wish.

Just another clown that doesnt actually have a fucking clue.

Post by Ernest
Deadly Ernest

Pathetic, really.

[Rod Speed]

Post by TyBreaker

Post by Colin ®

Post by JJJ

Post by Nita
I have a 1.86Gig rtf file, which is a book that I own, that I
scanned in, as a series of images that got put into a rtf format
file, is there anyway to open this file, as word 2000 won't open
it because it's too large. Would open office have more sucess? I
just want to be able to save it to a pdf file so I dont keep
buggering up the book while away on trips (book of maps)
Thxs in advance

Are you assuming that Acrobat will have no problem opening a 1.86GB
PDF file?

Doubt it.
I got a P4 1.8 with 512 of RAM to load a 500 Mb Word file ( Office
2003). The file was built up by copy/pasting a series of 50-100 Mb
files with photos/text. It is a book for publication.
It jammed the PC, mouse action was taking minutes to respond, task
manager was useless at stopping it.
Took a reboot to finally stop it. Maybe if you could get it all in
RAM it might be better - who knows (shrug)

I have to say, I'm not sure your problem is Word or the document size.
It simply sounds like you've got insufficient RAM for such a task.

Thats what virtual memory is all about.

[Colin ®]

Post by Rod Speed

Post by TyBreaker
I have to say, I'm not sure your problem is Word or the document size.
It simply sounds like you've got insufficient RAM for such a task.

Thats what virtual memory is all about.

Yep, I would have thought so to.

But the farting around and all the disk thrashing seemed to indicate it just
couldn't decide WTF to do.

As it got bigger I could see the slowdown growing, especially when you tried
moving in the document. The last 100 Mb totally fucked it.

XP Pro, Seagate 7200-2 disk, tons of space.

Couldn't do any tests as I had loaned the PC to a friend. I would have
swapped in another 512 out of this box if I had it at home.

I'll get the CD one day and do some playing around - curiosity again :-)

[Rod Speed]

Post by Colin ®

Post by Rod Speed

Post by TyBreaker
I have to say, I'm not sure your problem is Word or the document
size. It simply sounds like you've got insufficient RAM for such a
task.

Thats what virtual memory is all about.

Yep, I would have thought so to.
But the farting around and all the disk thrashing seemed to indicate it
just couldn't decide WTF to do.
As it got bigger I could see the slowdown growing, especially when
you tried moving in the document. The last 100 Mb totally fucked it.

Bet it woulnt have made any difference if you say doubled the physical ram.

Post by Colin ®
XP Pro, Seagate 7200-2 disk, tons of space.
Couldn't do any tests as I had loaned the PC to a friend. I would have
swapped in another 512 out of this box if I had it at home.
I'll get the CD one day and do some playing around - curiosity again :-)

Did you ever have the balls to resolve your networking problem ?

[Geoffw]

my word 2000 indicates a maximum file size of 32 meg (from
the help files)

Geoff

Post by Nita
I have a 1.86Gig rtf file, which is a book that I own,

that I scanned

Post by Nita
in, as a series of images that got put into a rtf format

file, is there

Post by Nita
anyway to open this file, as word 2000 won't open it

because it's too

Post by Nita
large. Would open office have more sucess? I just want

to be able to

Post by Nita
save it to a pdf file so I dont keep buggering up the book

while away

Post by Nita
on trips (book of maps)
Thxs in advance

[The Old Bloke]

Your problem is with Word 2000.

The max file size is 32meg, excluding embedded graphics.

see http://support.microsoft.com/kb/211489/en-us

Post by Nita
I have a 1.86Gig rtf file, which is a book that I own, that I scanned
in, as a series of images that got put into a rtf format file, is there
anyway to open this file, as word 2000 won't open it because it's too
large. Would open office have more sucess? I just want to be able to
save it to a pdf file so I dont keep buggering up the book while away
on trips (book of maps)
Thxs in advance

[The Old Bloke]

Sorry, on rereading the OP, you knew that. I didn't

Post by The Old Bloke
Your problem is with Word 2000.
The max file size is 32meg, excluding embedded graphics.
see http://support.microsoft.com/kb/211489/en-us

Post by Nita
I have a 1.86Gig rtf file, which is a book that I own, that I scanned
in, as a series of images that got put into a rtf format file, is there
anyway to open this file, as word 2000 won't open it because it's too
large. Would open office have more sucess? I just want to be able to
save it to a pdf file so I dont keep buggering up the book while away
on trips (book of maps)
Thxs in advance

[TyBreaker]

Post by The Old Bloke
Your problem is with Word 2000.
The max file size is 32meg, excluding embedded graphics.
see http://support.microsoft.com/kb/211489/en-us

Post by Nita
I have a 1.86Gig rtf file, which is a book that I own, that I scanned
in, as a series of images that got put into a rtf format file, is there

Hmmm, but it's mostly images so I doubt he's anywhere near the 32 MB
text limit. After all, the entire bible is about 2MB of text so how
much could he have written in text alone?

[The Old Bloke]

Fair enuff

Post by The Old Bloke
Your problem is with Word 2000.
The max file size is 32meg, excluding embedded graphics.
see http://support.microsoft.com/kb/211489/en-us

Post by Nita
I have a 1.86Gig rtf file, which is a book that I own, that I scanned
in, as a series of images that got put into a rtf format file, is there

Hmmm, but it's mostly images so I doubt he's anywhere near the 32 MB text
limit. After all, the entire bible is about 2MB of text so how much could
he have written in text alone?
--
______ ___ __
/_ __/_ __/ _ )_______ ___ _/ /_____ ____
/ / / // / _ / __/ -_) _ `/ '_/ -_) __/
/_/ \_, /____/_/ \__/\_,_/_/\_\\__/_/
/___/
There are 10 types of people in this world; those who understand the
binary numbering system and those who don't.

[The Old Bloke]

I've lived my life being wrong!

Post by The Old Bloke
Your problem is with Word 2000.
The max file size is 32meg, excluding embedded graphics.
see http://support.microsoft.com/kb/211489/en-us

Post by Nita
I have a 1.86Gig rtf file, which is a book that I own, that I scanned
in, as a series of images that got put into a rtf format file, is there

Hmmm, but it's mostly images so I doubt he's anywhere near the 32 MB text
limit. After all, the entire bible is about 2MB of text so how much could
he have written in text alone?
--
______ ___ __
/_ __/_ __/ _ )_______ ___ _/ /_____ ____
/ / / // / _ / __/ -_) _ `/ '_/ -_) __/
/_/ \_, /____/_/ \__/\_,_/_/\_\\__/_/
/___/
There are 10 types of people in this world; those who understand the
binary numbering system and those who don't.

[Colin ®]

Post by The Old Bloke
I've lived my life being wrong!

Really ? I thought it was just me.

[Ernest]

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 20:10:52 +1100, TyBreaker

Post by TyBreaker

Post by The Old Bloke
Your problem is with Word 2000.
The max file size is 32meg, excluding embedded graphics.
see http://support.microsoft.com/kb/211489/en-us

Post by Nita
I have a 1.86Gig rtf file, which is a book that I own, that I scanned
in, as a series of images that got put into a rtf format file, is there

Hmmm, but it's mostly images so I doubt he's anywhere near the 32 MB
text limit. After all, the entire bible is about 2MB of text so how
much could he have written in text alone?

The word text file also includes the formatting
commands and they can seriously bloat a file.
I have a document at the moment that has
level 1 and level 2 headers in it and the rest
is text saved as a MS Word 2003 doc file it
is 1.657 MB, opened in opened in Wordpad
and saved as a .rtf file it is 0.645 MB, less than
half. Checking the file using other utilities I
found that the rest was generic text formatting
instructions inserted by Word. If you want a
real shock use Word to create a document as
HTML and then examine the code in Notepad
and see that 75% is excessive unused Word
format instructions.

Have you tried opening the file on Wordpad?

Regards,

Deadly Ernest
(all typos fault of server or
other gremlins)

[Nita]

Thanks for all the tips guys, am trying opening it in wordpad as I
speak, but look like it's going to spit the dummy again, might take it
to work and try open office. As for the RAM and VM discussion, I have
1gig of RAM, so that being said it should open without a problem, if I
have doublt that in VM.

Will try splitting the file up, as wordpad didn't cut it.

Again, thanks for those that did make constructive comments, Rod, as
always it's nice to see that the newsgroups will always have large post
numbers, even if ore than half of those are utter BS that have no
worth, other than to satisfy your sad existance:)

[Colin ®]

Post by The Old Bloke
Your problem is with Word 2000.
The max file size is 32meg, excluding embedded graphics.
see http://support.microsoft.com/kb/211489/en-us

Fuck - that explains a lot - everything. This book has shit loads of photos
hence its file size and is around the 500 page mark too .

Another case of RTFM. It's really not my problem, I just lent her a PC but ,
I guess I will have to get a bit involved as it's going pear shaped.

1000Kb is a BIG doc for me.

No idea what size it is as text.

Will look at the KB later - wonder what the limit is for embedded pictures.

Looks like it will left as a series of chapters and indexed that way.

Thanks

Colin