[users] Acroread package - never updated?

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Hello,

On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 02:00 +0100, Dag Wieers wrote:

> Sorry, but I do not understand why a PDF reader needs to be 100MB in
> size and I am not interested in wasting my diskspace and bandwidth to
> promote acroread in its current form. 

Thank you Dag for the explanation. I do understand that 100Mb is A LOT
of bandwidth and space.

On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 07:48 +0100, Hugo van der Kooij wrote:

> Given the amount of alternatives I wouldn't bother. One can use kpdf
> or evidence for example as alternatives. 

I guess you meant evince. Yes, I use kpdf and it's pretty good, I
wouldn't even bother about Adobe Acrobat Reader if it weren't... that
damn fast on my system!!! 

I seriously don't understand what's wrong with evince or kpdf or xpdf,
but on my old AMD Barton 2.2 Ghz + 2.2 Gb RAM box @ CentOS 5.1, a 2 700
pages e-book with lots of print-quality illustrations shows up instantly
in Adobe Reader and it's a pleasure to work with. And for those free
alternatives it takes them ages even to turn the page up. I just can't
work productively with such mediocre performance.

By the way, I am not sure about how the advanced features of Acrobat
Reader like PDF forms and comments are supported in kpdf. But it turns
out that I'll have to work with forms extensively.

If I am missing something I would be very grateful for any advice.

On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 12:06 -0800, MHR wrote:

> I backed down to version 7 (for Linux, both).

I have downloaded version 7 RPM from Adobe and I think I am going to
stick with it.

Thanks,
 
-- 
Sincerely yours,
Yury V. Zaytsev