TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:HTML vs. Adobe Acrobat From:David Blyth <dblyth -at- QUALCOMM -dot- COM> Date:Sat, 23 Mar 1996 15:24:40 -0700
dblyth>The Internet runs on speed, _not_ lingua franca.
Arlen>You should try the Internet *I* keep seeing. Fifteen minutes at one site
Arlen>today, because the only navigation provided was in the form of 100+K
I agree that some sites are slow. I disagree that this is a function
of HTML. This is bad design, not something inherent to the language.
BTW, if you're using Netscape, try turning off image loading altogether
(Options --> Autoload images). Web site design conventions (if they
are followed) provide text only alternatives. Or just click on "Stop".
Images can be manually loaded if needed.
dblyth>HTML is virtually instant.
Arlen>On my machine they end up about the same.
Not mine. It may depend on the platform. However, HTML is ascii. PDF
is compiled binary.
dblyth>Netscape offers e-mail, news, ftp, VRML, chat-rooms,
dblyth>Acrobat offers slow helpers.
Arlen>Why is it always couched as "either/or?" "Both/and" is more like it.
This is precisely my point. "Both/And" is absolutely the way to go.
Therefore, you must use a browser, because Adobe Acrobat does not provide
"both a browser and Adobe Acrobat". Netscape 2.0 with Adobe Amber does.
That saves me about 3 Mbytes of RAM because I'm not running Adobe Acrobat.
I'm only running Netscape 2.0 - and I _still_ read PDF.
Netscape 2.0 + plug-ins also lets you:
o Read Word6 files without invoking Word (3 Mbytes RAM)
o Read Excel files without invoking Excel (4 Mbtyes RAM)
o Read Tumbleweed Envoy files without invoking Tumbleweed
o Read Macromedia files without invoking Director
To say nothing of the other 17 plug-ins.
Here's the deal. If you can show me that wasting _just_ the 3 Mbytes
of RAM used by Acrobat is a good idea, then you have a much better
chance of convincing me to run Adobe Acrobat instead of Netscape 2.0.
David (The Real One) Blyth
Technical Writer/Web Site Designer
QUALCOMM - standard disclaimers apply