Talk:Microsoft Publisher/Archive 1

MS Publisher files

"For those who need to work with Publisher files, but lack the core application there is amazingly a solution. Ask the creator of the Publisher file to reopen it in Publisher and save each page as an EMF (enhanced metafile). These load almost perfectly into both OpenOffice Draw on Linux and Adobe Illustrator on the Mac or Windows. The result can then be easily re-exported as a PDF file."

Is this really appropriate for an encyclopedia??

I think it does belong, but written in a better fashion. Maybe something like, "Publisher can also export documents as EMF (enhanced metafile), a more universal format." Any comments?

Indeed: quite apart from the fact that this is not a how-to compilation, whether or not such a solution is "amazing" entirely a matter for the reader to decide.

I agree with all of the above and have made a change along that line, as well as excising the in-depth instructions on how to import EMFs elsewhere and easily export to PDF. As well, I removed the part where the author said "Broadly speaking, there is little Microsoft Publisher can do that cannot be done with OpenOffice.org Draw" (or words to that effect). While I have not used OpenOffice.org Draw, everything I found indicates it's a vector art program like Adobe Illustrator or CorelDRAW! and not a desktop publishing or page layout program. Being able to manipulate text doesn't make it a layout program, and unless I'm missing something, OpenOffice.org Draw isn't designed for that. If someone out there uses OOD and knows something about it I don't, by all means correct me on it. Indy 15:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

w8t, wat does publisher do? make newsletters?75.7.18.93 05:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)jamielover (soz i forgot my password)[reply]

Also, it's not that 'amazing' - unless screwed up shadows and pictures that look like they were outlined in charcoal come under the heading of 'almost perfect' ;-) 109.150.149.217 (talk) 10:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)<sfsdsdsfs>gvsfsv[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move, Microsoft Publisher should be moved to Microsoft Office Publisher, the current official name. User:Southcarolina2007 and User:Beaufort2007 tried to move it by cut and paste. This is not allowed according to Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page. Now it has to be moved by an administrator. --Neo-Jay 12:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose per WP:NC(CN). Everyone calls it "Microsoft Publisher" (or just "Publisher"), I've heard maybe one person refer to it as Microsoft Office Publisher. Stannered 12:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hjfjhgjhtuythjgjgjghjtufhgjgjghkjluouyutyrtwrwrewxbcnbvbm, jfgyutryt';ll4574e6rymiked89ut5789uw879tr7ytuierw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.129.29 (talk) 01:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 12:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inferior to Adobe . . .

"...but inferior to page layout programs such as Adobe Systems' InDesign and Quark, Inc.'s QuarkXPress".

I'm not sure if this is appropriate. I happen to agree with the statement but this is my subjective view. I think one needs to be careful when calling products superior or inferior when they are made by different companies, unless the company itself (i.e. Microsoft) explicitly states this to be the case. Would Microsoft like to think that their publishing solution was 'inferior' to those of its competitors? Probably not.

Perhaps a fairer statement would be to say, for example, that it is "targeted at home users" or something along those lines. I've updated the article to say this, unless anyone has objections --Christopher 20:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a problem with the tone of the whole article. It sounds like it was written by someone in Adobe's marketing department. Westwind273 03:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree. It seems the problem with dislike of MS creeping into tone in this article has spanned at least 12 years... 71.179.84.225 (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Professional SKU

Hi User:Stannered. I dont know what SKU means - I once had MS Office 97 Professional and MS Publisher 97 wasn't included. Necessary Evil 21:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A SKU is short for "Stock Keeping Unit", and refers to "Standard", "Professional", "Small Business Edition", "Premium", etc. From what I can tell, some versions of Office 97 Pro came without Publisher, where some came with. Stannered 15:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ValuPack came with Publisher 98, but it was on a seperate disc. Douglas C (talk) 08:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OH NO!!

I can't insert an animated GIF button (I have 2003). Will you PLEASE help me?? PNiddy Go! 0 19:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest " https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=inserting+animated+gif+buttons+in+publisher+2003 " may be your best bet. Or possibly the help system that's built into Office 2003 and is rather better than the modern one because it doesn't have to send each and every request through Bing with an inexplicable 10-second delay before you get your useless so-called results back?

Or... I'unno, try not to make webpages with animated GIFs any more? They're so 1998, darling. Or learn how to put the HTML code for a flippin' image in by hand? (IE... less-than, img src = "yourfilename.gif", greater-than) ... I assume you're making a webpage because there's nothing else this would be useful for anyway.

And yes I know the request is almost 7 years old ... someone else may have use of the answer ;) 193.63.174.211 (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Pub2000.PNG

Image:Pub2000.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Pub2003.PNG

Image:Pub2003.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Pub97.PNG

Image:Pub97.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really original MS?

Because (without any comparison with others in the genre) this program was rather good and quite unbuggy when I first encountered it a few centuries ago, I assumed that it (or its originator) had recently been bought by the tho$e people. This article implies that they actually created--didn't just acquire or plagiarise--a program that, while possibly lacking in desirable features and possibly overpriced (I wouldn't know as it came 'free' in a package deal), was definitely useful and apparently not defective, buggy, or destructive, didn't invite klingons to take control of your pc, etc. Is this true?

I really don't know what you're trying to insinuate here. Is the suggestion that Microsoft did the same as they've done in many other cases - found a half decent but undeveloped program of a type they don't currently have, made by a small time publisher, and bought up the rights (or indeed the entire company), gave it a spit-polish and released it as their own product? It wouldn't be unusual, but they do then go on to improve the base code quite a bit. I don't recall Publisher being that buggy, even in the early versions, just maybe sometimes a bit short on features vs even something like Serif Pageplus (which was its early 90s rival). Can you say what program it is you were thinking of, at all? 193.63.174.211 (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL This argument goes on all the time. No worries. We elderly personal computer folks generally accept that (1) the original product was BASIC, (2) the first OS was sort of borrowed, and (3) everything since is a combination of those two methods of acquisition. LOL In any event, Microsoft has only been caught and successfully prosecuted a few times so overall they're just your average successful large corporation. 'Nuff said. As regards Publisher ... in this case, although likely influenced by already-existing giants like Adobe Pagemaker, it appears to be home-grown. It is widely held that Publisher was the result of efforts by Microsoft product-development managers, Karen Fries and Barry Linnett. They, and Bill's wife-to-be, Melinda French, would go on to create BOB; the shortest lived OS in Microsoft history I think. LOL Anyhoo, Publisher works fairly well but let us not go into the massive problem that is Publisher document sharing. LOL JimScott (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- I've got a question: Can I publish a microsoft front page webpage with this program? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.198.62.101 (talk) 14:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC) --Alkhowarizmi (talk) 13:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, yes? I thought a sort of Frontpage-Express was basically built into Publisher since 2000 (if not 97 in fact)? In fact, most of the Office apps can do something of the sort, but Publisher is the most comprehensive, as it has templates and the like for it. That said, I can't see them in 2010, but the need for such things has very much diminished in the intervening years and MS would probably prefer you use their Live blogger service instead... 193.63.174.211 (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For Pub 2010, new web page creation has been disabled. One can still open and edit Pub 2003 / 2007 files but cannot publish same as before (no FTP only save to HD in a specific way and use 3rd party to publish). The rational given was that the web has changed so much that Microsoft decided to focus on Publisher's print side. The true goal becomes evident at the end of this article: push folks over to the "new" Microsoft HTML editor, Expression Web (which subsequently died in 2013 as it was folded into Visual Studio 2013). As one college prof told me, "Follow the bouncing ball ..." (it was a Physics experiment but works here as well LOL). JimScott (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems quite subjective

The article seems to be written by someone that doesn't like Microsoft Office Publisher. It focuses on the negative aspects, and shortcomings and doesn't highlight the positive aspects of the application and what it offers. It should also be noted what the target audience is for Microsoft Office Publisher and how its purpose differs from the other Microsoft Office products. Yesurbius (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC) - Agree completely. Did Adobe staff write this? 99.62.94.31 (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Updating 2010 icon to 2013 icon

File:Microsoft-Publisher-2013-Icon.svg

I hope someone can update the 2010 icon with the new 2013 version when the time is right.
The new icon is at: File:Microsoft-Publisher-2013-Icon.svg
Zywxn | 09:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

So, just what is...

...a "service internal machine"? That clarification note has been sitting a while ;) 193.63.174.211 (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Googling "service internal machine" turns up a grand total of *four* pages, including this talk page. Searching for the plural (which is the exact text in the article) finds eight pages. I think someone just made it up. 74.192.36.96 (talk) 04:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Codename Lisa (talk) 12:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2016

Hi,

Please can someone update the current stable release and picture to Microsoft Publisher 2016 217.179.29.29 (talk) 12:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Microsoft Publisher. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Microsoft Publisher. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100316160043/http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/publisher/HA102339061033.aspx to http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/publisher/HA102339061033.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Microsoft Publisher 2019.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Microsoft® Publisher 2016" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Microsoft® Publisher 2016 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 15#Microsoft® Publisher 2016 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BD2412 T 04:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]