N individual jobs matching the n sections, AND a HUGE job with n times as many pages as the individual job. I can tell this was the case when I looked at the job queue of my printer: it showed Is set, stapling all these pages together. But I think when directed to a printer, it would try printing the whole document for the last section, and, if staple option I tried directing the printing to either PDF or MS Document writer but neither generated any output for the last section. The first two sections seem to match the actual two sections, while the third seems to be the However, when I stepped through the Macro, there are THREE sections. So there should be two sections in the merged document. Do I need to alter the Macro at all, or is there a better way to do things in Word now? PrintOut Range:=wdPrintFromTo, From:="s" & i, To:="s" & iĭoes anyone know how I can fix this issue in Word 2010. I've looked at a number of old posts around, which indicate a reg hack for Publisher (described at - but I dont think it applies to Word 2010).Įlsewhere, I've found an old Macro which should do the trick, but we've seen some odd behaviour. This means the printer isn't able to determine where one doc finishes and the next starts, so it just staples the whole lot together in one go. In a number of old posts, Word is sending the whole mail merge batch as one job. We have checked through the printer settings and everything indicates that it should print as expected, however as described She needs to print each job as a 3 page document, collated and stapled. So I'm thinking of buying this collator (affordable and in good condition), hoping to save time, but I'm trying to figure out if a suction collator is really going to make a difference in terms of productivity over a friction one, I'm not totally convinced.We have a client who is trying to do a mail merge in Word 2010. They recommend Giroform digital, which is 20#, is more expensive than 16# litho and is not available from our usual supplier. The carbonless we use is not in the Konica Minolta recommendations here in Europe (in France to be more precise). until now we respect the technician's instruction to avoid NCR volumes on the press but if this is no longer the case, as we are at the end of our contract, I fear that they will increase our price per click. some forms have the 1st part in full color but not the following ones many recurring jobs have sheet colors with specific orders that our customers are used to I wish I didn't have to assemble anymore too.īut I'm going to have to continue for several reasons: Jwheeler, have you observed this problem and what consequences does it have concretely?įinally, I think that a suction assembler would be better suited for carbonless copies coming off the press (it has only 3 thanks for your concern about our process and for all the clarification. We could use the press more, at least when there is no back side (it systematically jams on the back side on 16#), but the technician who maintains it strongly advised me against printing carbonless regularly or in quantities greater than a few thousand sheets because, according to him, it cause a build up of chemical on the rollers in the machine that should be avoided. The numerous stops on the collator make us lose a lot of time, the rest works well except for the Comcolor which stops regularly too (double or false starts whatever the feed settings and even when changing the rollers). The carbonless is then assembled with the collator (the duplicator has only one feeder). We mainly use a "traditional" Riso duplicator to print on 16# carbonless, as well as a Riso inkjet (Comcolor) and a Konica Minolta C2060 digital press for very short runs (16# or 20#). The eventual acquisition of the Duplo 10-60 is due to an opportunity.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |