Searching \ for '[OT] Adobe Acrobat Reader alternative' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=adobe+acrobat+reader
Search entire site for: 'Adobe Acrobat Reader alternative'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Adobe Acrobat Reader alternative'
2006\09\06@122318 by Denny Esterline

picon face
I don't know about you, but I'm getting tired of acrobat's grief - constant updates, bloat, nag screens, slow, etc.

http://www.foxitsoftware.com/

I'll never go back.

-Denny

(just a happy user)


2006\09\06@123801 by Rob Robson

flavicon
face
I'll second that.  Acrobat was the only app that could (and would) freeze my
Win XP Pro machine, so I replaced Acrobat with Foxit, which is staggeringly
compact by comparison.  I'll occasionally run into its limitations
(particularly with scaling and print options), but in almost two years I've
never found a need to re-install Acrobat.

RR


2006\09\06@125120 by Michael Rigby-Jones

picon face


>-----Original Message-----
>From: spam_OUTpiclist-bouncesTakeThisOuTspammit.edu [.....piclist-bouncesKILLspamspam@spam@mit.edu]
>Sent: 06 September 2006 17:23
>To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
>Subject: [OT] Adobe Acrobat Reader alternative
>
>
>I don't know about you, but I'm getting tired of acrobat's
>grief - constant updates, bloat, nag screens, slow, etc.
>
>http://www.foxitsoftware.com/
>
>I'll never go back.
>

Wow, the speed of rendering is very impressive compared to the ultra-sluggish Adobe Reader.  I can scroll through a datasheet as fast as the scroll wheel will let me and Foxit keeps up.  It did however crash whilst I was doing this!  going to give it a good workout and see how it compares in other areas though.

Like you I get very fed up with all the crap from Adobe.  Thanks for sharing.

Regards

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

2006\09\06@125343 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Rob,

On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 09:38:11 -0700, Rob Robson wrote:

> I'll second that.  Acrobat was the only app that could (and would) freeze my
> Win XP Pro machine, so I replaced Acrobat with Foxit, which is staggeringly
> compact by comparison.  I'll occasionally run into its limitations
> (particularly with scaling and print options), but in almost two years I've
> never found a need to re-install Acrobat.

Oh!  And I thought the problems (as above) that it caused under OS/2 were a compatibility issue - didn't realise it did the same in Windows!  :-)

I must have words with some people to see about porting it...

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\09\06@142927 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
This reader works FAST!

Good call, thanks!

--Bob

Michael Rigby-Jones wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2006\09\06@144143 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
Just downloaded and installed the Beta 2, wow! Like the marker functions,
and agree that it's very fast.

The only drawback is that the original AcroReader has a very nice search
engine that I use a lot.

Tamas


On 06/09/06, Howard Winter <EraseMEHDRWspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTh2org.demon.co.uk> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2006\09\06@145319 by Chris Gavin-Egan

flavicon
face
I've been using foxitpro on several machines for about a year now and
found like the rest of you that it is much better reader.

Quicker and less resource hungry, plus a miniscule download.

Personally I am now an Ubuntu (linux convert) simply due to the sheer
amount of problems windows has with security holes etc.

I have been using ubuntu for the past 2-3 months with windows 2000 as a
VM for those apps that i can't live without and haven't got around to
installing in linux. (dreamweaver )

I haven't found any good reason to go back to windows - and personally
that has seriously surprised me having tried it yearly for the past decade.

Cheers

Chris

Bob Axtell wrote:
> This reader works FAST!
>
> Good call, thanks!
>
> --Bob
>
> Michael Rigby-Jones wrote:
>  
>>  
>>    
>>> {Original Message removed}

2006\09\06@194844 by Paul Hutchinson

picon face
> -----Original Message-----
> From: piclist-bouncesspamspam_OUTmit.edu On Behalf Of Denny Esterline
> Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 12:23 PM
>
> I don't know about you, but I'm getting tired of acrobat's grief
> - constant updates, bloat, nag screens, slow, etc.
>
> http://www.foxitsoftware.com/
>

Acrobat has been aggravating me too.

Foxit Reader has a "non-commercial use" clause so I can't use it since most
of my PC's are used for some commercial work :-(.

The other available readers on Windows that are free even for commercial use
didn't impress me. So, I installed Acrobat v4.05, the last version I liked,
from http://www.oldversion.com/. It coexists nicely with more recent
versions so for the rare case that I need to read a secured PDF I can open
it with a newer version of Acrobat.

Paul

> I'll never go back.
>
> -Denny
>
> (just a happy user)

2006\09\06@213013 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Paul Hutchinson wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: @spam@piclist-bouncesKILLspamspammit.edu On Behalf Of Denny Esterline
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 12:23 PM
>>
>> I don't know about you, but I'm getting tired of acrobat's grief
>> - constant updates, bloat, nag screens, slow, etc.
>>
>> http://www.foxitsoftware.com/
>>
>>    
>
> Acrobat has been aggravating me too.
>
> Foxit Reader has a "non-commercial use" clause so I can't use it since most
> of my PC's are used for some commercial work :-(.
>  
nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more... I probably will use it anyway.
I also cheat on my taxes, some.
> The other available readers on Windows that are free even for commercial use
> didn't impress me. So, I installed Acrobat v4.05, the last version I liked,
> from http://www.oldversion.com/. It coexists nicely with more recent
> versions so for the rare case that I need to read a secured PDF I can open
> it with a newer version of Acrobat.
>  
I paid for a registered copy of Acrobat 5.x . After a few months, it
quit working and I had to reinstall
it. It wouldn't install! It wouldn't take the passcodes they sent me
over the phone! I had to rip it out.
When Acrobat 6 came along, because 5 wasn't properly installed, I was
unable to "upgrade" to 6.
Finally I ripped 'em all out and looked around for a clone. You might
try an Acrobat clone that I like.
It isn't free but almost ($40 USD, if I recall). Its called "PDFWiz". I
LOVE it.

> Paul
>
>  
>> I'll never go back.
>>
>>    
me either.

--Bob

>> -Denny
>>
>> (just a happy user)
>>    
>
>  

2006\09\06@222033 by Denny Esterline

picon face
That's funny, the "new" search tool is one of the items I hated, especialy when you open a PDF off a google search and acrobat starts searching the document - iritating.

-Denny


{Quote hidden}

2006\09\06@222612 by Denny Esterline

picon face
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesTakeThisOuTspammit.edu On Behalf Of Denny Esterline
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 12:23 PM
> >
> > I don't know about you, but I'm getting tired of acrobat's grief
> > - constant updates, bloat, nag screens, slow, etc.
> >
> > http://www.foxitsoftware.com/
> >
>
> Acrobat has been aggravating me too.
>
> Foxit Reader has a "non-commercial use" clause so I can't use it since most
> of my PC's are used for some commercial work :-(.
>

Where did you see that clause? I just read the EULA and didn't see any such thing (refreshingly short and easy EULA too, I might add)
http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/rd_eula.htm
-Denny


2006\09\06@223236 by Denny Esterline

picon face
Yeah, I ran into that too. There's a support forum for foxit and I found that item was already on the list. It seems it's fixed in Beta 2.0 (but it's beta, so who knows what else is broken :-)

-Denny

----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Fries" <spamBeGonefreezespamBeGonespamvisi.com>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <TakeThisOuTpiclistEraseMEspamspam_OUTmit.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: Adobe Acrobat Reader alternative


{Quote hidden}

> > >> {Original Message removed}

2006\09\06@230601 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 9/6/06, Denny Esterline <RemoveMEfirmwarespamTakeThisOuTtds.net> wrote:
> That's funny, the "new" search tool is one of the items I hated, especialy when you
> open a PDF off a google search and acrobat starts searching the document - iritating.
>
> -Denny
>

I totally agree with you.

Personally I use a primitive approach with PDF -- a two step procedure.
1) Generate PS file by printing to a pseudo Postscript printer (eg: to install
HP Color LaserJet 5/5M PS printer driver and choose "print to file")
2) Use the free GStools/GSview to convert the PS file to PDF

For viewing PDF, I still use the free Adobe Acrobat reader under Windows.
Under Linux, mostly I use the other open source options even though I
will install the Linux version of Adobe Acrobat as well.

Regards,
Xiaofan

2006\09\06@231826 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 9/6/06, Denny Esterline <firmwareEraseMEspam.....tds.net> wrote:

> >
> > Foxit Reader has a "non-commercial use" clause so I can't use it since most
> > of my PC's are used for some commercial work :-(.
> >
>
> Where did you see that clause? I just read the EULA and didn't see any
> such thing (refreshingly short and easy EULA too, I might add)
> http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/rd_eula.htm
> -Denny
>

http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/rd_intro.php

"Foxit Reader runs on Windows 95/98/NT/2000/XP/2003.
It is provided by Foxit Software Company free for non-commercial use."

2006\09\07@012309 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Sep 6, 2006, at 4:48 PM, Paul Hutchinson wrote:

>  I installed Acrobat v4.05, the last version I liked,

Have you tried acrobat 7?  I was asking about a lightweight
clone a while ago, and someone pointed out that the v7 reader
(especially the web browser plugin) had gotten rather smaller
and faster...

BillW

2006\09\07@020513 by Ruben Jönsson

flavicon
face
> Personally I use a primitive approach with PDF -- a two step procedure.
> 1) Generate PS file by printing to a pseudo Postscript printer (eg: to install
> HP Color LaserJet 5/5M PS printer driver and choose "print to file") 2) Use the
> free GStools/GSview to convert the PS file to PDF

So did I, until I found CutePDF. It does this in one step.

==============================
Ruben Jönsson
AB Liros Electronic
Box 9124, 200 39 Malmö, Sweden
TEL INT +46 40142078
FAX INT +46 40947388
EraseMErubenspampp.sbbs.se
==============================

2006\09\07@064516 by Ling SM

picon face

>>Personally I use a primitive approach with PDF -- a two step procedure.
>>1) Generate PS file by printing to a pseudo Postscript printer (eg: to install
>>HP Color LaserJet 5/5M PS printer driver and choose "print to file") 2) Use the
>>free GStools/GSview to convert the PS file to PDF
>
>
> So did I, until I found CutePDF. It does this in one step.

Openoffice writer (have not tried its preadseet, etc), you can export
direct to pdf.  Free, and as it is, it is more than enough to replace
microsoft office.

Ling SM

2006\09\07@072709 by Byron A Jeff

face picon face
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 12:23:24PM -0400, Denny Esterline wrote:
> I don't know about you, but I'm getting tired of acrobat's grief - constant updates, bloat, nag screens, slow, etc.
>
> http://www.foxitsoftware.com/

I just found it for a student yesterday. Couldn't get acrobat to download and install.

As a Linux guy I use xpdf almost exclusively. I rarely crack open acroread to read
PDFS.

BAJ

2006\09\07@072854 by Byron A Jeff

face picon face
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 08:05:05AM +0200, Ruben J?nsson wrote:
> > Personally I use a primitive approach with PDF -- a two step procedure.
> > 1) Generate PS file by printing to a pseudo Postscript printer (eg: to install
> > HP Color LaserJet 5/5M PS printer driver and choose "print to file") 2) Use the
> > free GStools/GSview to convert the PS file to PDF
>
> So did I, until I found CutePDF. It does this in one step.

I've settled on PDFCreator (http://www.pdfforge.org) which creates a virtual
printer that creates PDFs.

BAJ

2006\09\07@072925 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
Or go to Google's writely.com, you can import/export documents from/to MS
Office, edit them in your browser, store it and access to it anywere in the
world, share it with people as a Web page or a blog, and finally but not
least, export it to PDF...

Tamas


On 07/09/06, Ling SM <RemoveMEipal11EraseMEspamEraseMEsingnet.com.sg> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2006\09\07@073510 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 9/7/06, Ruben Jönsson <RemoveMErubenspam_OUTspamKILLspampp.sbbs.se> wrote:
> > Personally I use a primitive approach with PDF -- a two step procedure.
> > 1) Generate PS file by printing to a pseudo Postscript printer (eg: to install
> > HP Color LaserJet 5/5M PS printer driver and choose "print to file") 2) Use the
> > free GStools/GSview to convert the PS file to PDF
>
> So did I, until I found CutePDF. It does this in one step.
>

CutePDF is buggy. I could not get it installed in my work PC last time. It
often produced funny results with some MS Office file.

2006\09\07@074713 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 9/7/06, Ling SM <RemoveMEipal11TakeThisOuTspamspamsingnet.com.sg> wrote:
>
> Openoffice writer (have not tried its preadseet, etc), you can export
> direct to pdf.  Free, and as it is, it is more than enough to replace
> microsoft office.

"More than enough"? This might be true for personal use. Lots of
company invested heavily on customized templates and
applications.

To me both MS Office and OpenOffice are bloated... Much
simpler application will do the job for most people and
most companies. But people keep updating their software
and hardware following the steps of Microsoft/Intel and others...

2006\09\07@083809 by Tony Smith

picon face
> On 9/7/06, Ling SM <EraseMEipal11spamspamspamBeGonesingnet.com.sg> wrote:
> >
> > Openoffice writer (have not tried its preadseet, etc), you
> can export
> > direct to pdf.  Free, and as it is, it is more than enough
> to replace
> > microsoft office.
>
> "More than enough"? This might be true for personal use. Lots
> of company invested heavily on customized templates and applications.
>
> To me both MS Office and OpenOffice are bloated... Much
> simpler application will do the job for most people and most
> companies. But people keep updating their software and
> hardware following the steps of Microsoft/Intel and others...


You can't have "it's bloated" and "customised templates"...

What is bloated?  It's the old 20% rule, you only use 20% of a package, but
everyone uses a different 20%.

Find any review of a word processor on the web.  You will find two thing
common to all of them, one is "does this product suck?", and right before
that you'll find 300 paragraphs on the word count feature.

Word count?

For anyone who is not a writer (more specifically a journalist), word count
is bloat.  Journalists care because they have a limited amount of space to
fill, any extra gets cut off.

If the word count bit sucks or is missing, the product gets a bad review.
Period.

I don't think Word is bloated.  I want styles, outline view, document map,
templates, grammar check, versioning, master documents, autocorrect, mail
merge (especially to email, that's handy), fields (nice if database actually
worked), tables (with gritted teeth), columns, bookmarks, sections,
security, macros and all the other stuff no-one else uses.  Word count can
go, that's just useless bloat :).

In truth, I think most people would be happy with WordPad.

Tony

2006\09\07@085354 by PicDude

flavicon
face
I've compared some of these in the past -- pdf reader and writer alternatives
vs. acrobat.  The quality of the fonts rendered by foxit is inferior than
that of Adobe's.  Also, some writers (I can't remember the names right now),
generate larger PDF files than Adobe's.  So check/compare to ensure that the
quality, etc fits your needs.

Cheers,
-Neil.


On Thursday 07 September 2006 06:27, Byron A Jeff wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2006\09\07@093009 by Ling SM

picon face
>>Openoffice writer (have not tried its preadseet, etc), you can export
>>direct to pdf.  Free, and as it is, it is more than enough to replace
>>microsoft office.
>
>
> "More than enough"? This might be true for personal use. Lots of
> company invested heavily on customized templates and
> applications.

Guess there is not many choices if it is customised.  Then again, if it
 not personal, there is also not much choice with your apps unless you
are the IT department.

> To me both MS Office and OpenOffice are bloated... Much
> simpler application will do the job for most people and
> most companies. But people keep updating their software
> and hardware following the steps of Microsoft/Intel and others...

My plan is invest or "uninvest" myself out of ms office/product.  Not
sure what  openoffice will lead, but away from MS should be correct now
they are so desperate.

Ling SM

2006\09\07@094014 by Paul Hutchinson

picon face
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesKILLspamspammit.edu On Behalf Of Denny Esterline
> Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 10:26 PM
>
> Where did you see that clause? I just read the EULA and
> didn't see any such thing (refreshingly short and easy EULA
> too, I might add)
> http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/rd_eula.htm
> -Denny

The non-commercial clause is on the web page as some else pointed out but,
as you saw,  missing from the EULA.

I contacted Foxit Software about the discrepancy and their response was
rather surprising. They responded that they absolutely do not want
commercial usage. They are certain that that the web page text overrides the
EULA and that no one besides me would possibly be confused. The replies from
them did make me think that they were either not very proficient in English
or, possibly teenage kids, although they do show a US office address on
their site.

I told them that I would follow there wishes and not use the reader. I also
suggested they ask their lawyer about this issue because AFAIK in court the
EULA will override a not readily visible web page statement.

Paul  

2006\09\07@095937 by Paul Hutchinson

picon face
> -----Original Message-----
> From: piclist-bouncesSTOPspamspamspam_OUTmit.edu On Behalf Of William Chops Westfield
> Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 1:20 AM
>
> On Sep 6, 2006, at 4:48 PM, Paul Hutchinson wrote:
>
> >  I installed Acrobat v4.05, the last version I liked,
>
> Have you tried acrobat 7?  I was asking about a lightweight
> clone a while ago, and someone pointed out that the v7 reader
> (especially the web browser plugin) had gotten rather smaller
> and faster...

Yes, on multiple PC's with various versions of Windows, and it has all the
same annoyances that v5 and v6 have. As far as I can tell v4 does everything
that v5, 6 & 7 do except for handling documents with DRM.

Paul  

>
> BillW

2006\09\07@100816 by Paul Hutchinson

picon face
> -----Original Message-----
> From: spamBeGonepiclist-bouncesSTOPspamspamEraseMEmit.edu On Behalf Of Byron A Jeff
> Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 7:29 AM
>
> I've settled on PDFCreator (http://www.pdfforge.org) which
> creates a virtual printer that creates PDFs.

I second that recommendation, been using it since the early releases in
2002. Judging by the quality of the recent releases I think it is going to
be better than Adobe's offerings when it hits a 1.0 release.

Paul

>
> BAJ

2006\09\07@124524 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Tamas Rudnai wrote:

> Or go to Google's writely.com, you can import/export documents from/to MS
> Office, edit them in your browser, store it and access to it anywere in
> the world, share it with people as a Web page or a blog

However, I'm not sure that's such a good idea if you don't want to share it
with everybody as a blog :)

Gerhard

2006\09\07@134422 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Paul Hutchinson wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: KILLspampiclist-bouncesspamBeGonespammit.edu On Behalf Of Byron A Jeff
>> Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 7:29 AM
>>
>> I've settled on PDFCreator (http://www.pdfforge.org) which
>> creates a virtual printer that creates PDFs.
>>    
>
> I second that recommendation, been using it since the early releases in
> 2002. Judging by the quality of the recent releases I think it is going to
> be better than Adobe's offerings when it hits a 1.0 release.
>
> Paul
>
>  
>> BAJ
>>    
>
>  
I use WinPDF for this (printing to PDF). Its about $25 USD and I've used
it for 2 years now. Never a problem.

--Bob

2006\09\07@161855 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
Theoretically it is just as safe as a web based e-mail client, (such as
Gmail, Hotmail or Yahoo). Sometimes a centralized computing is much safer
than the distributed one. So for example in your personal computer it is
your responsibility to do backups, if you do not do it you risk that your
files will be lost at some point, while in that web page it's Google's task
to provide the security and availability. I do not know, time will tell if
your client is safer with having the chance to get infected by a spyware and
gain a hacker a full access to your files or a provider that you may have
the feeling that they control you by sitting on your sensible data.

Tamas


On 07/09/06, Gerhard Fiedler <EraseMElistsspamEraseMEconnectionbrazil.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2006\09\07@194615 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Tamas Rudnai wrote:

> Sometimes a centralized computing is much safer than the distributed one.
> So for example in your personal computer it is your responsibility to do
> backups, if you do not do it you risk that your files will be lost at
> some point, while in that web page it's Google's task to provide the
> security and availability.

>From the terms at http://www.writely.com/?action=terms: "You agree that
Google has no responsibility or liability for the deletion or failure to
store any Content and other communications maintained or transmitted by
Google services."

That's not the backup policy I would want to rely on :)

Gerhard

2006\09\09@035218 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
That's what happens when I do not read the EULA carefully :-)


On 08/09/06, Gerhard Fiedler <@spam@lists@spam@spamspam_OUTconnectionbrazil.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2006\09\09@041959 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Tamas Rudnai wrote:
>> > Sometimes a centralized computing is much safer than the distributed
>> one.
>> > So for example in your personal computer it is your responsibility to
>> > do
>> > backups, if you do not do it you risk that your files will be lost at
>> > some point, while in that web page it's Google's task to provide the
>> > security and availability.
>>
>> >From the terms at http://www.writely.com/?action=terms: "You agree that
>> Google has no responsibility or liability for the deletion or failure to
>> store any Content and other communications maintained or transmitted by
>> Google services."
>>
>> That's not the backup policy I would want to rely on :)
>
> That's what happens when I do not read the EULA carefully :-)

For most people, Google would still be a much safer alternative. :)  Having
been burned a few times, I still don't backup my personal stuff as often as
I should. However, the stuff I work on at work is backed up daily, and the
tapes are stored in a fireproof safe.

Best regards,

Vitaliy

2006\09\12@183052 by stef mientki

flavicon
face
Byron A Jeff wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 12:23:24PM -0400, Denny Esterline wrote:
>  
>> I don't know about you, but I'm getting tired of acrobat's grief - constant updates, bloat, nag screens, slow, etc.
>>
>> http://www.foxitsoftware.com/
>>    
>
> I just found it for a student yesterday. Couldn't get acrobat to download and install.
>
> As a Linux guy I use xpdf almost exclusively. I rarely crack open acroread to read
> PDFS.
>
> BAJ
>  
as everyone seems to be so lyric about Foxit,
here some negative experience:
- it prints very bad, going outside the the paper
- it doesn't remember any of it's settings

So I'm going back to Acrobat Reader 5.0 !

cheers,
Stef

2006\09\12@200049 by Rolf

face picon face
Denny Esterline wrote:
> I don't know about you, but I'm getting tired of acrobat's grief - constant updates, bloat, nag screens, slow, etc.
>
> http://www.foxitsoftware.com/
>
> I'll never go back.
>
> -Denny
>
> (just a happy user)
>
>
>  
The Foxit 2.0 has been released today (no longer Beta), I'll give that
one a whirl. See what happens.

Rolf

2006\09\12@203759 by Rolf

face picon face
Rolf wrote:
> Denny Esterline wrote:
>  
>> I don't know about you, but I'm getting tired of acrobat's grief - constant updates, bloat, nag screens, slow, etc.
>>
>> http://www.foxitsoftware.com/
>>
>> I'll never go back.
>>
>> -Denny
>>
>> (just a happy user)
>>
>>
>>  
>>    
> The Foxit 2.0 has been released today (no longer Beta), I'll give that
> one a whirl. See what happens.
>
> Rolf
>  
Initial impressions:
1. fonts do not render as clearly as Adobe. I feel like the screen is
blurry in Foxit, but Adobe is sharp.
2. The "Fit Width" Option does not fit things the way I would expect.
Lots of border on each side of page. Fit Page puts it at 80% zoom, when
100% zoom shows the complete page on my screen.
3. Printing for me was fine.
4. Load time is substantially improved (Compared to Adobe).
5. Not integrated with FireFox...
6. Diagrams in DataSheets are not rendered as cleanly  in Foxit as they
are in Adobe (Circuit lines that all appear with the same width in Adobe
have varying widths in Foxit). Printing the same page from both Foxit
and Adobe produced *identical* results (and I tried *very* hard to see
differences - even putting both prints together with a bright light
behind it - exactly the same), even with the diagrams that looked
different on screen.

I'd summarize that my initial impression is that Foxit is quicker, but
at the expense of on-screen render quality.

I'll keep it as my default PDF viewer for a while, and get a better feel
for it.

Rolf

2006\09\13@013357 by Denny Esterline

picon face
> > The Foxit 2.0 has been released today (no longer Beta), I'll give that
> > one a whirl. See what happens.
> >
> > Rolf
> >  
> Initial impressions:
> 1. fonts do not render as clearly as Adobe. I feel like the screen is
> blurry in Foxit, but Adobe is sharp.

Hmm.. I think just the opposite, at least on my computer with LCD screen, Adobe fonts don't render as dark - they almost look grey instead of black.

{Quote hidden}

Ok, side by side comparison with the same Mchip app note file -yep the graphics don't seem to be as clear. Of coarse when I open Adobe, first it complaind about the file needing a newer version of Acrobat (even though the app note is dated 2005, and Acrobat was updated a couple weeks ago)

> I'd summarize that my initial impression is that Foxit is quicker, but
> at the expense of on-screen render quality.
>
> I'll keep it as my default PDF viewer for a while, and get a better feel
> for it.
>
> Rolf

Either way, I just like the idea that I have a choice. It was probably just a foolish assumption, but before I was under the impresion that PDF was a propriatary format and I _had_ to use Acrobat to read them.

-Denny


2006\09\13@022635 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
Well, PDF was invented by Adobe (as well as PostScript if I remember well).
It is the same as for 'DOC' format you have to use WinWord -- well, now you
can import it with numerous of different office applications such as
OpenOffice, but it does not look like the very same. BTW with OpenOffice you
can create PDF documents even with links, so it is not just a PDF
printerdriver.

Tamas


On 13/09/06, Denny Esterline <spamBeGonefirmwarespamKILLspamtds.net> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2006\09\13@062624 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Rolf wrote:

> I'd summarize that my initial impression is that Foxit is quicker, but
> at the expense of on-screen render quality.

That's my experience, too. I'm using an LCD screen, and the LCD rendering
option in Foxit makes it even worse.

FWIW, this is something where OpenExpert may help a bit
http://www.baxbex.com/openexpert.html. It adds a configurable "Open with"
menu entry to the Explorer context menu.

Gerhard

2006\09\13@084112 by Dave Lag

picon face
Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> Rolf wrote:
>
>
>>I'd summarize that my initial impression is that Foxit is quicker, but
>>at the expense of on-screen render quality.
>
>
> That's my experience, too. I'm using an LCD screen, and the LCD rendering
> option in Foxit makes it even worse.
>
> FWIW, this is something where OpenExpert may help a bit
> http://www.baxbex.com/openexpert.html. It adds a configurable "Open with"
> menu entry to the Explorer context menu.
>
> Gerhard
>

Isn't that the same as adding programs to the sendto folder?

2006\09\13@113710 by Paul Hutchinson

picon face
> -----Original Message-----
> From: .....piclist-bouncesspam_OUTspammit.edu On Behalf Of Tamas Rudnai
> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 2:27 AM
>
> Well, PDF was invented by Adobe (as well as PostScript if I
> remember well). It is the same as for 'DOC' format you have
> to use WinWord -- well, now you can import it with numerous

PDF is an open standard, Word DOC is a proprietary standard.

The PDF format has always been a freely available standard from Adobe. You
can get the recent standards documents here:
partners.adobe.com/public/developer/pdf/index_reference.html
FYI - PDF v1.3 = Acrobat 4 ... PDF v1.6 = Acrobat 7

AFAIK - Microsoft does not openly publish format standard's for the Word DOC
format.

Paul

{Quote hidden}

2006\09\13@211838 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Paul Hutchinson wrote:

> PDF is an open standard, Word DOC is a proprietary standard.

> AFAIK - Microsoft does not openly publish format standard's for the Word DOC
> format.

Not quite true:

www.microsoft.com/office/xml/default.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2005/nov05/11-21EcmaPR.mspx

Gerhard

2006\09\13@212504 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Dave Lag wrote:

> Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
>> FWIW, this is something where OpenExpert may help a bit
>> http://www.baxbex.com/openexpert.html. It adds a configurable "Open with"
>> menu entry to the Explorer context menu.
>
> Isn't that the same as adding programs to the sendto folder?

No. The sendto folder has always the same content, the options in this
"open with" submenu change with the file type. You can add programs that
are always present, but you also can add programs that are only present for
a certain file type. It wouldn't make much sense to have Foxit and Acrobat
available for Orcad files... so you can make them available only for PDFs.

Gerhard

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2006 , 2007 only
- Today
- New search...