Re: HTML vs. Adobe Acrobat

Subject: Re: HTML vs. Adobe Acrobat
From: David Blyth <dblyth -at- QUALCOMM -dot- COM>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 13:08:55 -0700

Arlen>Adobe's reader is freely available and easily installed.

I agree. The major problem is that people aren't installing it.

Ben> HTML looks like the long-term investment to me (whew!).
Ben> In other words, yes, Adobe's going to get bigger, but
Ben> HTML is going to get bigger still, IMHO.

Amen.

Arlen>I wonder if sometime in the future PDF might not replace
Arlen>HTML as the lingua franca of the web

The Internet runs on speed, _not_ lingua franca.

HTML is virtually instant. PDF is dead slow.

Speed trumps appearance on the Internet.

Netscape offers great speed. Acrobat offers great
appearance.

The rest of the Internet runs on connections (to people, new
information, or to products).

Netscape offers e-mail, news, ftp, VRML, chat-rooms,
plug-ins, Java, Javascript, helpers, and other features.

Acrobat offers slow helpers.

Guess which one I think will succeed.

(Beeep!).


David (The Man) Blyth
Technical Writer & Web Site Designer
Qualcomm

The usual disclaimers apply - I don't speak for QUALCOMM, they don't speak
for me....


Previous by Author: Zippy, no sig.
Next by Author: HTML vs. Adobe Acrobat
Previous by Thread: Re: HTML vs. Adobe Acrobat
Next by Thread: Re[2]: HTML vs. Adobe Acrobat


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads