Re: HTML vs. Adobe Acrobat

Subject: Re: HTML vs. Adobe Acrobat
From: David Blyth <dblyth -at- QUALCOMM -dot- COM>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 13:05:46 -0700

>>Adobe does _not_ connect to the Internet except via a browser.

>InternetLink is an extension (plug-in) for Adobe Acrobat Exchange 2.0.

Arlen's right. I should revise my statement to read....

Adobe does _not_ connect to the Web except via a browser.

or perhaps....

Adobe does _not_ connect to the Internet, except via a helper.

>Yes, it still means you have two applications running. (I don't know about
>the rest of you, but my system doesn't have any problem keeping an idle
>Acrobat reader running in the background when I'm working with something
>else.

Why spend the RAM when you don't have to? Not all of us have that much
RAM. I get all of the same functionality as Adobe Acrobat with Netscape 2.0
(or MS Internet Exploder 3.0) plus Adobe Amber - plus I get all of:

o NewsWatcher without spending more RAM

o Gopher without spending more RAM

o FTP without spending more RAM

o A Eudora-like mailer (I admit it!) without spending more RAM

Plus I can read (but not write):

o Word files without spending more RAM

o Excel files without spending more RAM

o MacroMedia Director files without spending more RAM

o Movies, audio, animation, 2 more Multimedia packages, and Java files
(plus some other stuff I forget) without spending more RAM

One detects a subtle pattern here. Netscape 2.0 is an Operating System
to the Internet. Adobe Acrobat 2.0 is not. If I use Netscape 2.0,
I get all of the above for about 7.5 Mbytes RAM. If I use Adobe Acrobat,
I get all of the above for:

3+ Mbytes RAM for Adobe Acrobat
4.0 Mbytes RAM for Excel
3+ Mbytes RAM for Word
2+ Mbytes RAM for Eudora
7.5 Mbytes RAM for Netscape (to connect to the Web anyway)

(List continues)

I have 16 Mbytes of RAM - and I use all of it already. Why should I
switch to Adode Acrobat when I can still read PDF files for free?

David Blyth - Web Site Developer
QUALCOMM
Standard disclaimers apply (obviously)


Previous by Author: HTML vs. Adobe Acrobat
Next by Author: Re: HTML vs. Adobe Acrobat
Previous by Thread: Re[2]: HTML vs. Adobe Acrobat
Next by Thread: Re: HTML vs. Adobe Acrobat


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

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads