Microsoft Publisher - 2002 versus 2003 file too large

Author

2002 versus 2003 file too large

chris

2004-04-26, 10:31 pm

Have read everyones comments on 2003 version too large compared to 2002
version for publishing to the web.

I have spent two days trying to upload my old web site from 2002 to 2003. it
is RIDICULOUS.

I have a 10mb server usage and this 2003 version converts my 1mb site to 64
mb. My Graphics are the major reason for my site, not text!

Is it impossible to reduce back to a logical size within 2003 without having
to change my original graphics that were perfect in 2002 edition?

It would seem to me that I have wasted my money on buying 2003 version if I
cannot upload my graphics do web without having to reduce pixels on hundreds
of images.(I may add I was so excited by the new updates in this software,
but now it would seem to no avail if I can't use it).

To get my site happening I have reverted back to 2002 edition.

David has said that this file size is its major downside.....if this is the
case I cannot use this program and would like to know if I can get a refund.

Signed a very tired small business operator who fears they may hve wasted
good money and good time.

chris

David Bartosik - MS MVP

2004-04-26, 10:31 pm

I've been communicating customer complaints to the PG, would you mind
posting your url for reference.

--
David Bartosik - MS MVP
for Publisher help:
www.davidbartosik.com
enter to win Pub 2003:
www.davidbartosik.com/giveaway.aspx

"chris" <clewis28@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:e5oDvk9KEHA.3216@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>
>
>
> Have read everyones comments on 2003 version too large compared to 2002
> version for publishing to the web.
>
> I have spent two days trying to upload my old web site from 2002 to 2003.
it
> is RIDICULOUS.
>
> I have a 10mb server usage and this 2003 version converts my 1mb site to
64
> mb. My Graphics are the major reason for my site, not text!
>
> Is it impossible to reduce back to a logical size within 2003 without
having
> to change my original graphics that were perfect in 2002 edition?
>
> It would seem to me that I have wasted my money on buying 2003 version if
I
> cannot upload my graphics do web without having to reduce pixels on
hundreds
> of images.(I may add I was so excited by the new updates in this software,
> but now it would seem to no avail if I can't use it).
>
> To get my site happening I have reverted back to 2002 edition.
>
> David has said that this file size is its major downside.....if this is
the
> case I cannot use this program and would like to know if I can get a
refund.
>
> Signed a very tired small business operator who fears they may hve wasted
> good money and good time.
>
> chris
>
>

chris

2004-04-26, 10:31 pm

My URL is
http://www.users.bigpond.com/clewis1955/page7.html

Is there any way I can resolve this or maybe I should just continue to use
2002 version until something is done to rectify this issue

thanks chris

Postal address: Box 444, Coolangatta, QLD Australia.4225

"David Bartosik - MS MVP" <forums@davidbartosik.com> wrote in message
news:ebVU5L#KEHA.2976@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I've been communicating customer complaints to the PG, would you mind
> posting your url for reference.
>
> --
> David Bartosik - MS MVP
> for Publisher help:
> www.davidbartosik.com
> enter to win Pub 2003:
> www.davidbartosik.com/giveaway.aspx
>
>
> "chris" <clewis28@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:e5oDvk9KEHA.3216@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
2003.[color=darkred]
> it
> 64
> having
if[color=darkred]
> I
> hundreds
software,[color=darkred]
> the
> refund.
wasted[color=darkred]
>
>

David Bartosik - MS MVP

2004-04-30, 4:30 am

I view your site and see it's version 2000 being used.
As far as site file sizes and image sizes that would be the better option
(refer to http://www.davidbartosik.com/pub11.htm)

--
David Bartosik - MS MVP
for Publisher help:
www.davidbartosik.com
enter to win Pub 2003:
www.davidbartosik.com/giveaway.aspx

"chris" <clewis28@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:OVGlgF$KEHA.1340@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> My URL is
> http://www.users.bigpond.com/clewis1955/page7.html
>
> Is there any way I can resolve this or maybe I should just continue to use
> 2002 version until something is done to rectify this issue
>
> thanks chris
>
> Postal address: Box 444, Coolangatta, QLD Australia.4225
>
> "David Bartosik - MS MVP" <forums@davidbartosik.com> wrote in message
> news:ebVU5L#KEHA.2976@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
2002[color=darkred]
> 2003.
to[color=darkred]
> if
> software,
is[color=darkred]
> wasted
>
>

analog@logwell.com

2004-06-10, 4:15 am

Did you get a refund, or some other satisfaction in this matter?

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 07:55:30 +1000, "chris" <clewis28@bigpond.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>Have read everyones comments on 2003 version too large compared to 2002
>version for publishing to the web.
>
>I have spent two days trying to upload my old web site from 2002 to 2003. it
>is RIDICULOUS.
>
>I have a 10mb server usage and this 2003 version converts my 1mb site to 64
>mb. My Graphics are the major reason for my site, not text!
>
>Is it impossible to reduce back to a logical size within 2003 without having
>to change my original graphics that were perfect in 2002 edition?
>
>It would seem to me that I have wasted my money on buying 2003 version if I
>cannot upload my graphics do web without having to reduce pixels on hundreds
>of images.(I may add I was so excited by the new updates in this software,
>but now it would seem to no avail if I can't use it).
>
>To get my site happening I have reverted back to 2002 edition.
>
>David has said that this file size is its major downside.....if this is the
>case I cannot use this program and would like to know if I can get a refund.
>
>Signed a very tired small business operator who fears they may hve wasted
>good money and good time.
>
>chris
>