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 <firmware@tds.net> wrote:
>
> > > 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> 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
>
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>



-- 
unPIC -- The PIC Disassembler
http://unpic.sourceforge.net
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist