Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!brolga!uqvax.cc.uq.oz.au!vthrc From: vthrc@uqvax.cc.uq.oz.au (Danny Thomas) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps Subject: Re: Page Orientation in MS WORD Message-ID: <1991Jan10.201735.19841@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au> Date: 10 Jan 91 20:17:35 GMT Sender: news@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au Organization: VTHRC, University of Queensland Lines: 59 References:<1991Jan9.163621.2646@waikato.ac.nz> Nntp-Posting-Host: 130.102.176.150 > I am currently involved in trying to write a thesis using MS Word. A > number of my tables are very large, but fit on an A4 page if it is > orientated on its side. Does anyone know how it is possible to have > pages in both portrait and landscape orientations within a single > document. Thanks in advance for any help. My immediate thought was to use a linked set of files, as others have suggested. One problem with this is that page numbers will come out landscaped as well. On a slightly different issue, at some stage I wrote some PostScript stuff that enables selection, on a page-by-page basis, between manual and automatic paper feed (on a LaserWriter). I did this for letters so the first page was done on letterhead manually fed, while subsequent ones came from the paper tray - having multibin printer would be nice sometimes. This could probably be hacked to alter the coordinate system to correspond to landscape printing but the big difference is that Word would have made page layout decisions for portrait orientation, i.e. width, though you could probably set a negative right margin to match the page width of landscape. Perhaps another way would be to bracket the table with PostScript that does a rotate/position and restore? That would leave the page number correctly placed. It may be the best approach if you can deal with PostScript, particularly the restrictions when embedding it in Word docs. >The trick to accomplish this is to create separate documents and >to link them with the "next file" feature found in the format >document dialog box. (There are, by the way, other reasons like >speed, security, etc. for *not* making a complete thesis or book one huge >Word document/file; always a good idea to keep things in small >portions, chapters or even sections of chapters.) I agree that keeping a large document in several files has many advantages, but one limitation is that styles aren't linked, nor presumably any other parameter stored on a per-file basis. [another person warned that EndNote 1.2.1 doesn't handle linked docs] It's a pity companion programs like EndNote won't follow the linked file structure of a Word document. Does anyone know whether Mac Word 5 (I do wish vendors supporting multiple platforms could keep the version numbers in sync) will support proper handling of references as well as the announced grammar-checking? Does anyone even know when the next Word is going to be released, some wishes: * much better math layout (not that I need it, but a beta release of MathWriter 2 looked pretty impressive) * distinction between sections (a formatting unit to control num columns etc.) and chapters, a document unit. Also to allow chapter numbers and page number within chapter to be included in header/footer * much better spell checking which allows specification of variations like pluralization so you don't have to clutter a dictionary up with plural/adjective/etc forms and all combinations thereof * much faster handling of tables * genuine PostScript output: relying on the LaserWriter driver and suggesting a program can be used for DTP are mutually incompatible * better printer control. The original query is one example, another is control between manual/automatic feed on a per-page basis. Also a more flexible specification of pages, e.g. print 5-7,11,55-73 (will this arrive in System 7.1(?) with the new print manager?) * flexible macros * better positioning control, such as specification of the page number * styles on the character level * and I could go on and on, nevertheless I do use Word and appreciate many of its' features, but I confess to have not really sampled much else except for brief looks at PageMaker 3 and MacWriteII. Maybe I should have a look at Nisus. Danny Thomas Vision, Touch and Hearing Research Centre University of Queensland