For Carl: Acrobat 6

C,

What are the advantages/reasons to download and use Acrobat 6 reader over 5?

Cheers,
Jon

>What are the advantages/reasons to download and use
>Acrobat 6 reader over 5?

Easier to use, more features, supports newer version
of pdf spec.

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> >What are the advantages/reasons to download and use
> >Acrobat 6 reader over 5?
>
> Easier to use, more features, supports newer version
> of pdf spec.

Xlnt, thanks - I'll go get it.

Cheers,
Jon

Jon Szanto wrote:

>C,
>
>What are the advantages/reasons to download and use Acrobat 6 reader over 5?
>
> >
It stimulates the economy by forcing you to buy
a faster computer.

--
* David Beardsley
* microtonal guitar
* http://biink.com/db

all the stuff on my site was donme with 4, is there a problem?

David Beardsley wrote:

> Jon Szanto wrote:
>
> >C,
> >
> >What are the advantages/reasons to download and use Acrobat 6 reader over 5?
> >
> >
> >
> It stimulates the economy by forcing you to buy
> a faster computer.
>
> --
> * David Beardsley
> * microtonal guitar
> * http://biink.com/db
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/metatuning/topicId_5612.html#5614

> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > >What are the advantages/reasons to download and use
> > >Acrobat 6 reader over 5?
> >
> > Easier to use, more features, supports newer version
> > of pdf spec.
>
> Xlnt, thanks - I'll go get it.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

***Well, NB that it doesn't seem to work with Windows 98, if anybody
is still using that (I am). With that platform selected, the site
has you download version 5.0.5, which I already have...

J. Pehrson

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, David Beardsley <db@b...> wrote:
> It stimulates the economy by forcing you to buy
> a faster computer.

Well, since I already built a hefty box to power my music and sound design projects, putting some free software on there only cost me the personal time out of my life to download it and stick it on.

I wouldn't suggest it unless someone really needs it.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> ***Well, NB that it doesn't seem to work with Windows 98, if anybody
> is still using that (I am). With that platform selected, the site
> has you download version 5.0.5, which I already have...

Yep, I found that out, too, Joe. I have one box with XP, so I chose that platform and got Reader 6. Loaded it up and will use it on that machine for reading softsynth manuals to see how well/better it works...

Cheers,
Jon

>>It stimulates the economy by forcing you to buy
>>a faster computer.

For the record 6 is about the same as 5, maybe slightly
faster (on my machine).

>Well, since I already built a hefty box to power
>my music and sound design projects, putting some free
>software on there only cost me the personal time out
>of my life to download it and stick it on.
>
>I wouldn't suggest it unless someone really needs it.

Thing is, everyone's going to have to do it eventually.
Why put it off?

-Carl

Jon Szanto wrote:

>--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, David Beardsley <db@b...> wrote:
> >
>>It stimulates the economy by forcing you to buy
>>a faster computer.
>> >>
>
>Well, since I already built a hefty box to power my music and sound design projects, putting some free software on there only cost me the personal time out of my life to download it and stick it on.
>
>I wouldn't suggest it unless someone really needs it.
>
>Cheers,
>Jon
>
> >

I purchaced a new 3 gigHz machine at the end of July,
but had downloaded Acrobat 6 on my own machine
a few months before.

--
* David Beardsley
* microtonal guitar
* http://biink.com/db

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> Thing is, everyone's going to have to do it eventually.
> Why put it off?

Because my main machine is still running W98SE, and they don't support 6 on a platform before XP. And I am NOT one of those people slavishly upgrading, in the belief I'll be left behind. There are tools I use from DOS days that not only haven't been surpassed, they haven't been matched.

I upgrade when it makes sense, that's all.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > Thing is, everyone's going to have to do it eventually.
> > Why put it off?
>
> Because my main machine is still running W98SE, and they don't
support 6 on a platform before XP. And I am NOT one of those people
slavishly upgrading, in the belief I'll be left behind. There are
tools I use from DOS days that not only haven't been surpassed, they
haven't been matched.
>
> I upgrade when it makes sense, that's all.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

i downloaded acrobat 6.0. now i can't view your pdf file at all!
great.

however, http://www-math.cudenver.edu/~jstarret/22ALL.pdf which you
also encoded, looks fine using 6.0 to view it.

???

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:

> i downloaded acrobat 6.0. now i can't view your pdf file at all!
> great.

i'm running windows 2000 professional

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:
>
> > i downloaded acrobat 6.0. now i can't view your pdf file at all!
> > great.
>
> i'm running windows 2000 professional

Are you certain that Reader 6.0 (I'm assuming you meant that; Acrobat is actually the program that compiles the .pdf files) supports the Win2K Pro platform? It may be XP only, worth checking out...

Cheers,
Jon

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...>
wrote:
> > --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...>
wrote:
> >
> > > i downloaded acrobat 6.0. now i can't view your pdf file at
all!
> > > great.
> >
> > i'm running windows 2000 professional
>
> Are you certain that Reader 6.0 (I'm assuming you meant that;
Acrobat is actually the program that compiles the .pdf files)
supports the Win2K Pro platform? It may be XP only, worth checking
out...
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

when i went to the adobe site, i told it that i was using win2k, so
clearly it's not xp only. besides, why would it have worked on that
other pdf if my platform didn't support it?

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:
> when i went to the adobe site, i told it that i was using win2k, so
> clearly it's not xp only.

Just checking. Their download logic isn't bullet-proof: I asked for a version for W98, and it downloaded a version 5.05 file; didn't tell me it wouldn't serve up 6.0.

> besides, why would it have worked on that
> other pdf if my platform didn't support it?

Could be lots of reasons - maybe there is something in the newer file that causes the problem that the older file didn't do. When debugging software problems, there are an infinite supply of reasons.

FWIW, I don't have any problem reading your charts from the new online version, but since you did all those graphics as bitmaps, the text, when blown up, will always pixelize, get clunky, and basically suck. bmp files look best at some particular resolution, and when resolution becomes a variable your readability becomes ephemeral.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> FWIW, I don't have any problem reading your charts from the new
>online version, but since you did all those graphics as bitmaps, the
>text, when blown up, will always pixelize, get clunky, and basically
>suck. bmp files look best at some particular resolution, and when
>resolution becomes a variable your readability becomes ephemeral.

thanks jon, this was already perfectly obvious to me, what i was
wondering was why i couldn't see the graphics at their original
resolution, 1 pixel as 1 pixel, when i selected 100% zoom (this was
with version 5, which at least opened the document). carl's answer to
this seemed to be that i needed to select 100% zoom -- frustrating,
as i hope you can understand.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...>
wrote:
>
> > FWIW, I don't have any problem reading your charts from the new
> >online version, but since you did all those graphics as bitmaps,
the
> >text, when blown up, will always pixelize, get clunky, and
basically
> >suck. bmp files look best at some particular resolution, and when
> >resolution becomes a variable your readability becomes ephemeral.
>
> thanks jon, this was already perfectly obvious to me, what i was
> wondering was why i couldn't see the graphics at their original
> resolution, 1 pixel as 1 pixel, when i selected 100% zoom (this was
> with version 5, which at least opened the document). carl's answer
to
> this seemed to be that i needed to select 100% zoom -- frustrating,
> as i hope you can understand.

p.s. i've seen programs, like paint shop i believe, which do a far
better job of scaling bitmaps onscreen, and preserving readability
and the like. basically each pixel of the displayed image is assigned
a color which is a weighted average of the colors of the relevant
original pixels (or so it seems), far better than the "dumb" method
of using the single color from the nearest pixel in the original (i
could describe this much better mathematically, but hopefully you
understand what i mean), which adobe appears to be using. ironic
considering how well adobe scales text.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:
> frustrating, as i hope you can understand.

Clear as the waning day, now.

Cheers,
Jon

> i downloaded acrobat 6.0. now i can't view your pdf file at all!
> great.

Did you un-install your old version first?

How are you sending the file to Acrobat? Double-click?
Have you tried starting Acrobat and using the Open dialog?

What error do you get / what happens?

> however, http://www-math.cudenver.edu/~jstarret/22ALL.pdf
> which you also encoded, looks fine using 6.0 to view it.

As usual, files created in older versions will work on
newer versions, but not necc. the converse.

-Carl

> Are you certain that Reader 6.0 // supports the Win2K
> Pro platform?

Yes, of course it does.

-Carl

> carl's answer to this seemed to be that i needed to select
> 100% zoom -- frustrating, as i hope you can understand.

My answer was that you have some problem with your viewing
methodology. The images are present, bit-for-bit, in the
pdf.

-Carl

> basically each pixel of the displayed image is assigned
> a color which is a weighted average of the colors of the
> relevant original pixels (or so it seems), far better than
> the "dumb" method of using the single color from the
> nearest pixel in the original (i could describe this
> much better mathematically, but hopefully you
> understand what i mean),

There are several ways to do the former, bicubic being the
best for most purposes and also the most expensive.
Nearest-neighbor is crap, but very few things us it.

> which adobe appears to be using. ironic
> considering how well adobe scales text.

It depends on what kind of text. Vector text scales
perfectly, but pdf supports other types. Anyway, once
again, at 100% there will be no scaling going on of
any kind. You still haven't answered what you're using
to view the bmps with, but perhaps it's juicing them
up, or you're looking at bmps different than the ones
you sent me.

-Carl

> It depends on what kind of text. Vector text scales
> perfectly, but pdf supports other types. Anyway, once
> again, at 100% there will be no scaling going on of
> any kind. You still haven't answered what you're using
> to view the bmps with, but perhaps it's juicing them
> up, or you're looking at bmps different than the ones
> you sent me.

For example there are apparently jpeg compression artifacts
in figures 1 and 2, even though you sent bmps.

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > Are you certain that Reader 6.0 // supports the Win2K
> > Pro platform?
>
> Yes, of course it does.

Carl, I appreciate that you know whether or not 6 works on W2K, but "of course" isn't really appropriate. Since having to have an XP box around the house (the wife's new computer came with XP) I have notice some incompatabilities between W2K and XP. I am not sure it is an "of course" scenario...

Cheers,
Jon

>I have notice some incompatabilities between W2K and XP.

Really? In what?

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> >I have notice some incompatabilities between W2K and XP.
>
> Really? In what?

Well, for a big starter, drivers. There was some app that I was trying to get loaded on the W2K laptop just before a trip that wouldn't go. In any event, there is about 3 years (or so) between the official release of W2K and the official release of XP; even though XP is built on that basic structure, AFAIunderstand, I really don't think it is an "of course" scenario. Unless one is willing to reply to the question "Is Office a secure platform" with "Of course!" :)

I sure wish none of this were necessary - it should be a lot easier, but it isn't, hasn't ever been, and probably will never be.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > i downloaded acrobat 6.0. now i can't view your pdf file at all!
> > great.
>
> Did you un-install your old version first?

no.

> How are you sending the file to Acrobat? Double-click?

yes.

> Have you tried starting Acrobat and using the Open dialog?

hmm . . . if i try starting adobe reader 6.0 on its own, it tries to
install "microsoft windows journal viewer" and says the installation
package can't be found. when i cancel the installation, it tries to
start right back up again,

> What error do you get / what happens?

blank page.

> > however, http://www-math.cudenver.edu/~jstarret/22ALL.pdf
> > which you also encoded, looks fine using 6.0 to view it.
>
> As usual, files created in older versions will work on
> newer versions, but not necc. the converse.

right, but 6.0 is the very newest version, isn't it?

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> > basically each pixel of the displayed image is assigned
> > a color which is a weighted average of the colors of the
> > relevant original pixels (or so it seems), far better than
> > the "dumb" method of using the single color from the
> > nearest pixel in the original (i could describe this
> > much better mathematically, but hopefully you
> > understand what i mean),
>
> There are several ways to do the former, bicubic being the
> best for most purposes and also the most expensive.
> Nearest-neighbor is crap, but very few things us it.

very few things? then why is adobe one of those very few things?
seems strange.

> You still haven't answered what you're using
> to view the bmps with,

i don't know what you mean. i'm looking at the .pdf you created,
using adobe reader 6.0 (via double-clicking the link).

> but perhaps it's juicing them
> up, or you're looking at bmps different than the ones
> you sent me.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> Have you tried starting Acrobat and using the Open dialog?

actually, once i got out of the "journal" loop which seemed to be
infinite but wasn't, this worked beautifully, though i had to
download the file because adobe didn't seem to accept a url as a
filename. all the figures now look wonderful at any zoom level!!! i
guess it was IE (which was then opening adobe) which was making it
look so crappy, not adobe itself! i never would have guessed . . .

> Well, for a big starter, drivers.

Almost all drivers work on Win2K will work on XP. The
default level of driver-signing warning is turned way up
on XP, but that's about it.

>There was some app that I was trying to get load on the
>W2K laptop just before a trip that wouldn't go.

Probably a software conflict or other non-OS configuration
mismatch, though there might be a few titles.

>In any event, there is about 3 years (or so) between the
>official release of W2K and the official release of XP; even
>though XP is built on that basic structure,

They are, as far as applications and drivers are concerned,
pretty much the same OS, unless you do a query for the version.

-Carl

> > Did you un-install your old version first?
>
> no.

Not a good idea. I recommend uninstalling 6, then 5,
then re-installing 6. Restart each time. Before
restarting to re-install 6, check your program files
directory for all things Acrobat related and delete
them manually, and right-click on the start button and
browse to the "startup" folder from both "Open All Users"
and "Open" and delete anything acrobat there.

On my Win2K box conflicts between gsview, acrobat 5
reader, acrobat 5 and some Corel printer thinger left me
in a constant state of pdf limbo, for ten horrible
months. So don't feel bad.

> > How are you sending the file to Acrobat? Double-click?
>
> yes.

Are you sure you're getting 6?

> > Have you tried starting Acrobat and using the Open dialog?
>
> hmm . . . if i try starting adobe reader 6.0 on its own, it
> tries to install "microsoft windows journal viewer" and says
> the installation package can't be found. when i cancel the
> installation, it tries to start right back up again,

Jesus. Have you tried getting that from windowsupdate.com?
Maybe that will quell it.

> > What error do you get / what happens?
>
> blank page.

In 5, this is?

> > > however, http://www-math.cudenver.edu/~jstarret/22ALL.pdf
> > > which you also encoded, looks fine using 6.0 to view it.
> >
> > As usual, files created in older versions will work on
> > newer versions, but not necc. the converse.
>
> right, but 6.0 is the very newest version, isn't it?

Yep, so it ought to open older files! And new ones!
Actually the "new" file is supposed to work in 5, but I haven't
tested it. For the (by now) obvious reason that having both
on a machine at once can maroon one on Planet X.

-Carl

> > There are several ways to do the former, bicubic being the
> > best for most purposes and also the most expensive.
> > Nearest-neighbor is crap, but very few things us it.
>
> very few things? then why is adobe one of those very few
> things? seems strange.

How do you know it's doing nearest-neighbor? Sometimes even
bicubic gives poor results.

> > You still haven't answered what you're using
> > to view the bmps with,
>
> i don't know what you mean. i'm looking at the .pdf you
> created, using adobe reader 6.0 (via double-clicking the link).

But you must be *comparing* it to the originals you sent.
How are you viewing the originals, and do you see jpeg artifacts
on the curves in figures 1 & 2 (which are present in the bmps
you sent)?

If it works from double-clicking but not Open, you're seriously
goofed.

-Carl

> Not a good idea. I recommend uninstalling 6, then 5,
> then re-installing 6. Restart each time. Before
> restarting to re-install 6, check your program files
> directory for all things Acrobat related and delete
> them manually, and right-click on the start button and
> browse to the "startup" folder from both "Open All Users"
> and "Open" and delete anything acrobat there.

Of coures, *don't* do this if you are satisfied. Don't
touch a thing if you are satisfied. But out of curiosity,
you may want to do an "about" the next time you view a
pdf in your browser -- I wonder if you're getting 6...

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > Well, for a big starter, drivers.
>
> Almost all drivers work on Win2K will work on XP.

If you left out the word "that" after drivers, then I think you've got it backward: I'm talking about current software for XP that doesn't work on W2K.

> Probably a software conflict or other non-OS configuration
> mismatch, though there might be a few titles.

But you don't know this for sure. Definitely not "of course".

> They are, as far as applications and drivers are concerned,
> pretty much the same OS, unless you do a query for the version.

I'll pose that question (are they that similar) in an extreme tech area sometime and see what answers I get.

Cheers,
Jon

> > > Well, for a big starter, drivers.
> >
> > Almost all drivers work on Win2K will work on XP.
>
> If you left out the word "that" after drivers, then I think
> you've got it backward: I'm talking about current software
> for XP that doesn't work on W2K.

Of course we were talking about apps, and you failed to name
any. But aside from perhaps a few highly-tuned display drivers,
or drivers that purposely go out and check and refuse to run
to enforce some design decision, all drivers that run on XP
should run on Win2K.

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> Of course ...

and

> should

are two very different things. You talk like it is a flawless equation, and I bet it isn't.

But I'll tell you what: next time I run into a problem I'll give you a shout! :)

Cheers,
Jon

(who was/is going batty trying to find an ASIO or WMD driver I could load on the W2K laptop to see if it would be an ok platform for VST synths...)

> But I'll tell you what: next time I run into a problem I'll
> give you a shout! :)

Right on, I'm happy to help. I used to test drivers for a
living.

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

>
> > > How are you sending the file to Acrobat? Double-click?
> >
> > yes.
>
> Are you sure you're getting 6?

yes, it had all these new tabs and stuff . . .

> > > What error do you get / what happens?
> >
> > blank page.
>
> In 5, this is?

no, that was after getting 6.

> > > > however, http://www-math.cudenver.edu/~jstarret/22ALL.pdf
> > > > which you also encoded, looks fine using 6.0 to view it.
> > >
> > > As usual, files created in older versions will work on
> > > newer versions, but not necc. the converse.
> >
> > right, but 6.0 is the very newest version, isn't it?
>
> Yep, so it ought to open older files! And new ones!

yes, and in this case, the latter didn't work.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > > There are several ways to do the former, bicubic being the
> > > best for most purposes and also the most expensive.
> > > Nearest-neighbor is crap, but very few things us it.
> >
> > very few things? then why is adobe one of those very few
> > things? seems strange.
>
> How do you know it's doing nearest-neighbor? Sometimes even
> bicubic gives poor results.

there was no grayscaling going on.

> > > You still haven't answered what you're using
> > > to view the bmps with,
> >
> > i don't know what you mean. i'm looking at the .pdf you
> > created, using adobe reader 6.0 (via double-clicking the link).
>
> But you must be *comparing* it to the originals you sent.
> How are you viewing the originals,

paint, etc.