What is “better,” you ask? Most people are not even actively aware of the existence of the .rtf format, much less of its benefits and advantages. The .rtf format is exactly what it name implies: a document that can save text with enriched format. This means it can save boldface, italics, different font types, different font sizes, headers, footers, coloured text, and most any other text formatting you can possibly think of. It can even save text boxes and other fancy Word styles, but this might be a problem. We’ll get into that later.

OK, so we’ve established .rtf and .doc to be on about the same ground. They can both save documents with special formatting. So what? Well, here’s the catch: Rich Text Format files take up much less hard drive space than ordinary Word documents. This fact is, however, commonly reversed by authorities on the subject. Many books that even care to mention the .rtf format will tell you, unhesitantly, that the .rtf format will make your files “huge.” This can be seen most recently, I believe, in the book Windows Me for Dummies by Dr. Andy Rathbone. (Note 05/2003: This article was written in late 2000. I suspect many other authors will have bashed .rtf by now.) In page 258, Dr. Rathbone clearly states, “these [.rtf] files can be huge. Don’t choose this format unless it’s the only format your friend’s word processor will accept.” The key word here is “can.” Can these files be huge? Yes they can. Are they? NO. In the vast, vast majority of cases, these files will be less than half the size of a corresponding .doc file. This is because .rtf files use text-based encoding, while Word documents use Microsoft’s own particular, copyrighted, type of encoding for its documents, which gets bigger and bulkier with each passing generation of Word. And the more complicated the encoding gets, you can guess, the more disk space each document will use, while .rtf encoding remains static and reliable.

This leads to the other significant advantage of .rtf files over .doc ones. Since .rtf saves files in a text-based encoding, it is possible to view these files in earlier versions of Windows and even old versions of Word. This might not be a common problem in the United States, but in countries where technology arrives with several months, or sometimes years, of delay, this can be a major pain. Suppose you receive an e-mail with an attachment in Word 2000 format. You’re still using Windows 95. You try to open the file. You fail. Why? It’s a superior version of Word; your word processor can’t read it. Not only is this frustrating, it forces the user to buy the new version of Word, thus perpetuating Microsoft’s dominion over the market. On the other hand, .rtf files use a constant, static encoding method. This means that if you save a document in .rtf format, anybody that has Windows on their computer—no matter which version—can view your document. You could write it in Word 2000, and a person in the Australian outback still running Windows 3.1 would be able to read it.

Rich Text Format files can also be argued to be safer than Word documents. This is also, again, because .rtf uses text-based encoding. In simple terms, it’s pretty much impossible for Word to mess up .rtf files, because they are text-based: if there is a mistake while opening the file, the worst that will happen is that Word will open it as a text file, and you’ll see something like this.

On the other hand, .doc files are encoded, and if Word messes up while it’s opening your document—especially if it’s password-protected—chances are you’ll never see your document again. Of course, the more recent versions of Word are much stronger than, for example, Word 6.0, but the precedent exists, and there is still a possibility that it may still happen.

There are two sides to every argument, however. Not everything is rosy for .rtf files; there are exceptions. .rtf files have a few drawbacks that, though not notorious, may bother some people. Probably the most significant of these is that .rtf files may not be password-protected. If you want to protect your files, you absolutely must use Word format. Personally, this does not bother me; Word tends to lose things when they are password protected. As I said, the latest versions have gotten a lot better, but I still tend to mistrust Microsoft cryptography.

The other drawback is, not surprisingly, for documents highly stratified with pictures, drawings, WordArt, and the like. These documents are the ones that, as Dr. Rathbone says, “can be huge.” In fact, this is the only way you can possibly make a .rtf file exceed the size of a .doc file. If you rely on the most often used features of a normal document—text, formatting, headers, footers, and the like—your .rtf files will always, ninety-nine percent guaranteed, be smaller than a corresponding .doc file. Again, this is because Word uses its own type of encoding for documents. .doc files are very practical for documents containing pictures and things that take up lots of hard drive space; they can compress these objects with a remarkable rate of efficiency. On the other hand, if you just want to save a letter or a homework assignment, with no fancy drawings or embellishments, .rtf files will always be the better option. At the end of the day, .rtf encoding is comparable to html documents’ encoding: simple, decipherable, practical. Word documents’ encoding, in contrast, is private and secretive.

Of course, I cannot prove any of what I have said here. I’ve never conducted a scientific experiment on this matter, and do not intend to. I simply aim to inform what I do know, based on years of experience with both formats. Try it at home: save any of your text-based files with formatting in .doc format into .rtf format. Then go to File>Open, press the “views” button, choose “details,” and sort the items by name. The .rtf file will most likely be half the size of the .doc one. I don’t expect you to have Windows 3.1 lying around, but in case you do, and are really that bored, try opening a Word 2000 (or 97 or 98, whatever you have) in Word 6.0. Can’t be done. Try it with a .rtf file. Perfect translation!

Well, now that I’ve said all this... lemme know what you think. Not that I expect you to switch to .rtf files; you’re probably real comfy with the .doc extension and don’t want to go through the trouble. Heck, I had trouble getting my own family to switch over to .rtf. But back in the days when 1.44 MB floppies were the only way to carry information around, I considered this knowledge highly valuable. I laughed at people who didn’t get it. And just because hard drive space is abundant now, it doesn’t mean I’m going to go around wasting it saving my files as .doc documents. I can only hope people who read this article learn something from it, which was the original intent—nothing else.

Daniel Alejandro González

I just read your Rich Text Format vs. Microsoft Word Documents page at http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~danielgz/rtfvsdoc.htm

I agree with most of what you say, but I did want to respond to this one thing you say:

> On the other hand, .rtf files use a constant, static encoding
> method. This means that if you save a document in .rtf format,
> anybody that has Windows on their computer-no matter which
> version-can view your document.

I'd like to point out the RTF is not a constant static thing, but rather Microsoft makes changes to the RTF spec every time they release a new version of word.

Check out http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q269/5/75.asp for version 1.6 of the spec, or for versions 1.3 and 1.5 take a look at ftp://ftp.primate.wisc.edu/pub/RTF/index.html

You can also find postings such as this one http://www.biglist.com/lists/xsl-list/archives/199902/msg00063.html which discuss how the changing RTF spec creates difficulties.

The point is, older versions of Word aren't guaranteed to be able to open RTF files made by newer versions. But things work out ok in practice because most people create simple documents that don't use the fancy features provided by the newer versions.

keep up the good work,

-brian

PS. Oh, one more thing. How sure are you about the "anybody that has Windows" comment? Is windows enough, even if you don't have Word or Office installed? (It might be. I haven't checked.)

And of course, many word processors on non-Windows operating systems (even word processors not made by microsoft) can import RTF files, so windows isn't really a requirement. Way back when I would often import RTF files with WordPerfect for Macintosh.

I RESPOND:

Indeed what Brian says is true. He's been using .rtf for about fifteen years more than I, so I won't argue with him. Thanks for the info Brian!

I read your article rtfvsdoc and was intrigued. I have struck a situation recently which demonstrates the reverse of your argument and I was wondering if you could explain to me as to why a file saved as an rtf could be bigger then its doc version by a factor of 30.

This is the case with a document I received recently that came as an attachment of file type rtf with a file size of 4,200 KB. The file is almost a text only document as it is a set of minutes. It does however, include a graphic image being the logo of the organisation at the top of page one only. I use Word 97 to open the file and the dialogue box popped up with the suggestion that the file be converted from file type rtf.

After I opened the file, I then saved it as a Word file type and the file size measures 132 KB.

I don't use rtf and am not familiar with what options it might offer. In the interests of preserving bandwidth (because I'm on a dial up connection) I have suggested to the sender that any future files they send as attachments should be first saved as .doc files. I'm happy to suggest that they continue with using the rtf type but can this be done and achieve a file size significantly less than 4,200 KB?

I have attached a copy of the graphic image for your reference (as a .doc file unfortunately!!) Because when I saved this graphic as an rtf file, the file size measured a bit over 4 MB. Does this suggest that rtf has some problem encoding or representing graphic images?

Regards,

Grant Power

I RESPOND:

Grant had the very problem Mr. Rathbone was talking about. That is why I point out once again, documents with ANY graphics, no matter how small, will balloon in size as .rtf files. You're better off with Word files if you want to include graphics.