OT: Best Resolution Image File to Import into Word?

It's a while since I have done much schematics design (I do mostly programming), and I never did a lot of analogue, but I only ever used multi-instance parts in cases where the exact choices was irrelevant - things like simple logic gates. When you want to use a double op-amp chip (or whatever), make the part a double op-amp chip and connect it the way you want - it is far clearer to the schematic designer, the pcb designer, and anyone else involved. And there is no possibility for a re-numbering to change the design.

No one suggested OpenOffice - use /LibreOffice/. It is sad the mess Oracle made of OpenOffice, continuing the schism started by Sun's poor development process. But it has been many years now for people to learn that OpenOffice is history, while LibreOffice is the office suite with many more features (including far better SVG support).

So is Vim and Roff if you like stone age tools. But the whole point of Word is that you should be able to restyle a document easily and then have it print on any decent printer and still look exactly the same.

Your statement is equivalent to saying this Swiss Army Knife is really good if you only use it as a bottle opener.

As is replacing one with another under some circumstances the old data stays in the file forever but doesn't display and cannot be deleted.

I don't know why you have such a downer on Excel - it is far more logically consistent than the unholy mess that is Word and mock ups done in a spreadsheet have completely different defects to programming languages which makes it ideal for generating test data and the like.

It has its problems. The random number generator is demonstrably crap (and not an implementation of WH as Mickeysoft claim). Some of the statistic functions are dodgy too but overall it is a useful tool.

Worth considering PNG with a palette of 4 colours if you have any diagonal lines or curves. That way anti-aliasing will still work.

If you get unlucky on some printers monochrome single pixel lines can vanish depending on how crudely it samples the original image. There is a bad bug of this sort in Paintshop Pro's JPEG chroma subsampling (actually most of the chroma sampling options in X4 are wrong). It leads to funny artefact effects in the sky or areas of mostly red.

That has never been a point for Word - and has never been the case in practice. Word has traditionally modified its page size and margins, and therefore layout and page breaks, whenever you choose a different printer for printouts. Fonts change between computers, layout details change between Word versions.

The aim of Word has been to let anyone make a half-decent document. It has never been to allow people to make /decent/ documents - that really is very difficult with Word. And decent, portable documents? Forget it.

Excel is okay for some uses - but has some serious pains compared to LibreOffice Calc, and for the few uses I have of a spreadsheet program, switching from LibreOffice to Excel would be a jump back to wax tablets and abacuses. Some of my gripes are:

1. Excel translates function names for different language versions. That sounds nice - but makes it a bugger to deal with a mixed language environment.
2. Excel has hopeless handling of text-based formats like tab separated value files, comma separated value, etc. It is especially bad at dealing with date formats and decimal points or decimal commas. With Calc, you can choose all the details when you load or save your files. With Excel, you need to change your OS region settings to tell the system you live in a different part of the world, restart your Excel (and possibly all your MS Office software, and possibly Windows), and hope that it works /this/ time.
3. If you have data tables with some missing values, and you draw graphs of them, Excel treats the missing data as 0. Calc treats missing data as missing.

Excel is faster at handling very large spreadsheets and graphs than LibreOffice, however - so it wins on that point.

Don't forget Tang! (Available at Walmart)

The stuff was NOT a product of the space program. It was an already existing product which was CHOSEN by the space program.

Moon rock turned out to be really boring. A lot of it has been lost.

How so?

I don't think the manned spaceflight program created any of those. Imagine what might have been invented with all the money and talent that went onto packing people into smelly cans, doing silly experiments.

All that we have learned is that space is a very hostile place for humans.

If you don't mind, I'd rather forget Tang.

It was formulated in 1957 and sold in 1959. The first manned spaceflight was in 1961 and very likely didn't involve Tang.

The space program has a history of falsely claiming to invent things, like teflon.

No. That is all a complete idiot like you thinks we learned.

I like to keep things standardized and not have two different CAD models for the same dual or quad part. A decent CAD program should have a means to turn off swap in the properties, it ain't rocket science.

And some of it has been stolen. There was no way of knowing in advance how boring or interesting they might be. It was interesting to get materials that have isotopic signatures different to the Earth. Some of the moon rocks are amongst the oldest known to science - no erosion recycling the rocks.

Mechanical seals vs classic packed glands on the water pump. You could argue that nuclear subs also donated this for the greater good. Basically spacecraft and submarines have a lot in common - a pressure vessel designed for men to live inside in a hostile environment.

Apollo was a spectacular and fine scientific program and inspired a lot of people to go into science - myself included.

We knew that pretty much from the first Russian spacewalk which very nearly went wrong. The poor cosmonaut had to drop the pressure in his suit to the point where he nearly passed out to get back into the airlock. It basically stretched and ballooned up under pressure.

Automatic TOC, date auto-complete, things like that. There's a checklist of about 50 "features" that I all turn off.

My docs look just the way I want them to look. I only use one font, arial, the only variations being size and bold. I find over-fonted docs to be ugly. I do sometimes use red text in drafts, as reminders to review stuff. That seems to work fine.

As I said, it works fine (Word 2010/Win7), and is absolutely reliable, if you use it right. I am *not* forced to use corporate-standard templates and styles and macros, which many people are. You should see some of the horrors that I get from customers.

I create docs the way I want them. Why would I want to restyle?

I have not had problems printing, on my several printers, networked copiers, or to PDFs. Maybe if you load up Word with macros and styles and features and fonts, you will have problems.

That's absurd. But I don't want an IoT Bluetooth app-connected solar powered digital pocket knife.

I delete pics before putting new ones in their place. I'd do that if I were working with paper and library paste. Word does not hang onto the deleted pics.

I don't see any of that happen. The only difference I see between multiple printers and digital copiers is mildly different color rendering.

We export finished docs to customers and our web site as PDFs.

I leave big spreadsheets and such to the accounting-oriented people who actually enjoy doing that sort of thing. Such people do exist.

A job which is far easier with LibreOffice, and gives better results. For example, you /can/ use tables of contents, pdf indexes, clickable links and cross-references, etc., and get them to work properly in the final pdf. The result looks like a reasonably professional document rather than an amateur "print out to pdf" that you usually get from Word.

I am thinking more of "My program generated 5000 lines of data and I want a convenient ad-hoc way to look at some graphs of it". LibreOffice makes such imports vastly easier than Excel, but it's slower to handle the data.

Oh, you are so far above such lowly works.

You are truly a pathetic example of a wannabe human.

you are right,

annotation with "Reset, but do not swap any annotated multi-unit parts" works as expected

but if you want to annotate added parts with out resetting the existing annotation it gets quirky

I really do not like any postscript stuff. IMO too amateurish.

SVG looks very nice, I tried it after Lasse pointed out a link with a SVG user language script for Eagle. However, SVG isn't properly understood by Windows 7 and cannot be rotated. 90 degree rotation is usually required when placing schematics into module specs. Maybe Windows 10 can handle it but I would not touch that OS again, not even with a 10ft pole.