Re: Re[2]: HTML vs. Adobe Acrobat

Subject: Re: Re[2]: HTML vs. Adobe Acrobat
From: David Jones/KSBEISD <David_Jones/KSBEISD -dot- KSBEISD -at- DATAHUB -dot- COM>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 08:12:48 HST

On 03/26/96 at 06:28:00 AM the wealthy and powerful Arlen.P.Walker @ jci.com
discoursed upon the subject of Re[2]: HTML vs. Adobe Acrobat:

>> Acrobat is a proprietary solution. It is not available for *all* the
platforms that are connected to the Internet.
Could be true, but I haven't looked for it on a specific platform without
finding it.<<

Ummm, let me think ... OS/2 comes to mind, with Adobe's recent announcement
that they will not be developing an Acrobat reader for that platform. (And
don't tell me they can run the Windows version -- that is not native support.)
I believe we've seen posts on this list from people who could not use
Acrobat for the Mac because it hasn't been updated to run on the newest
PowerMacs. (As a former Mac user, I wouldn't run *anything* for Mac on anything
less!) Sure, it probably will be, may already have been, but updated browsers
come out a lot faster!
Is there an Acrobat reader for VAXen? RS/6000? SGI? Sun? Amiga (there's a
lot of them still in daily use in the multimedia and broadcast industries)?
Atari ST? I know the latest versions of GhostScript can read PDF (until Adobe
does something proprietary to it), but, again, that's not native support. And
that still leaves out the vast number of text-only terminals in use on the net.
Also, what happens when Adobe's bean counters decide it's no longer
profitable to support your platform of choice? Since it's proprietary, nobody
else can develop a "freeware" or "shareware" Acrobat reader. Acrobat would have
to become the *only* way to view information from the Web before I'd want to go
through the headache of moving to a new platform just to keep the ability to
run an Acrobat reader!

>> Forgive my grumbles about Acrobat. I'm still mad at Adobe for botching
Display Postscript! <G>
But David, what do you think Acrobat *is*? ;{>}<<
A pale imitation, a limited subset. It works only as a separate application
with a specific file format.
Display Postscript was built around the idea that the imaging model for both
your screen display and your printed output should be the same -- thus doing
away with the idiotic font and graphic discrepancies we have to put up with
now. Adobe's decision to implement it as pure software, and then hitch its star
to the NeXT workstations, did it in. When I consider the intelligence and
processing power built into many PC and Mac display cards, I would love to see
real Display Postscript return, built in to accelerated display cards. Coupled
with the appropriate Windows/OS2/Mac/XWindows/etc drivers, it would work with
*all* applications, and we wouldn't need to dedicate memory or processing power
to Acrobat.

Sorry, JFOA. This probably has little connection with tech writing any more ...

David Jones, Technical Writer
David_Jones/KSBEISD -dot- KSBEISD -at- Datahub -dot- com
Kamehameha Schools Bishop Estate

DISCLAIMER:
"I do not speak for my employer, my computer, or any other living thing."


Previous by Author: Re: To Do Archives
Next by Author: Re: liability
Previous by Thread: Re[2]: HTML vs. Adobe Acrobat
Next by Thread: flowcharting (approaches & software)


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

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads