On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 at 11:43:57, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid>
wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
[]
>There may be more types I have forgotten. What I have not seen, but may
>exist, are devs working for a software they sell. Thus, migrating
>Windows software doesn't happen as much.
>
>Blatant example: Acrobat. There is no current version of acrobat reader,
>they ceased to produce it.
>
>
I didn't know that; interesting.

Was there, therefore, a final version of Acrobat which did _not_ "'phone
home" from time to time to see if there is a more up-to-date version -
if so, what is its version number, so I can go look for it?

The version I have - which seems to be "Continuous Release | Version
2019.010.20064" [though says "Copyright (C) 1984-2018", not 2019] -
_does_ seem to do so; I've (I think) stopped it actually doing so, by
playing with settings in it, stopping services (which seem to have been
restarted when I look and so on, and (I think) finally putting something
in my hosts file, but when I open a .pdf file, after a few seconds it
still becomes unresponsive for a while (few tens of seconds at a guess),
so I assume it's doing so (or trying to).

(Or does anyone know what's causing that pause and how to stop it, if
checking for updates _isn't_ what it's doing?)

I know there are other readers, such as FoxIt - but recent versions of
those are as bloated as Acrobat (which, apart from the irritating pause
described above, works well enough and fast enough for me). I could use
an older version (of Acrobat, FoxIt, or another), I suppose - there's
always the concern that some recent .pdf won't render properly, though.
When I _was_ using something old (a FoxIt I think), I never _was_ aware
of that happening, though there's always the concern that some recent
feature might _invisibly_ not work.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Anybody can garble quotations like that -- even with the Bible... Er... "And he
went and hanged himself (Matthew 27:5). Go, and do thou likewise (Luke 10:37)."

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 at 11:43:57, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid>
> wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
> []
>> There may be more types I have forgotten. What I have not seen, but may
>> exist, are devs working for a software they sell. Thus, migrating
>> Windows software doesn't happen as much.
>>
>> Blatant example: Acrobat. There is no current version of acrobat reader,
>> they ceased to produce it.
>>
>>
> I didn't know that; interesting.
>
> Was there, therefore, a final version of Acrobat which did _not_ "'phone
> home" from time to time to see if there is a more up-to-date version -
> if so, what is its version number, so I can go look for it?
>
> The version I have - which seems to be "Continuous Release | Version
> 2019.010.20064" [though says "Copyright (C) 1984-2018", not 2019] -
> _does_ seem to do so; I've (I think) stopped it actually doing so, by
> playing with settings in it, stopping services (which seem to have been
> restarted when I look and so on, and (I think) finally putting something
> in my hosts file, but when I open a .pdf file, after a few seconds it
> still becomes unresponsive for a while (few tens of seconds at a guess),
> so I assume it's doing so (or trying to).
>
> (Or does anyone know what's causing that pause and how to stop it, if
> checking for updates _isn't_ what it's doing?)
>
> I know there are other readers, such as FoxIt - but recent versions of
> those are as bloated as Acrobat (which, apart from the irritating pause
> described above, works well enough and fast enough for me). I could use
> an older version (of Acrobat, FoxIt, or another), I suppose - there's
> always the concern that some recent .pdf won't render properly, though.
> When I _was_ using something old (a FoxIt I think), I never _was_ aware
> of that happening, though there's always the concern that some recent
> feature might _invisibly_ not work.

Carlos is referring to Linux Acrobat, which stopped some time ago.

You can still install the .deb if you have a copy (I seem to have
one around here somewhere because I have been installing it).

Linux Acrobat is required, for form filling. Not all of the
native Linux PDF readers have full feature sets. They only
implement what is in the PDF spec, versus Acrobat which
includes Jetform stuff. There might not have been public
standards for that separate material.

Linux has plenty of "plain PDF reading capability".
That's not the problem. If you get a job application
form to fill out, the automation in it might not work
right. And that's because Adobe has so much superfluous
shit in there, it's hard for the third parties to keep up,
which is the whole idea in the first place.

If every last speck of material Adobe stuck in Acrobat
Reader was in a public specification document, the
Linux developers would have this covered by now.
Reverse engineering isn't going to get this
job done fast, if it is the only source of info
on the topic.

Paul

On 9/21/2021 7:44 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 at 11:43:57, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid>
> wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
> []
>> There may be more types I have forgotten. What I have not seen, but may
>> exist, are devs working for a software they sell. Thus, migrating
>> Windows software doesn't happen as much.
>>
>> Blatant example: Acrobat. There is no current version of acrobat reader,
>> they ceased to produce it.
>>
>>
> I didn't know that; interesting.
>
> Was there, therefore, a final version of Acrobat which did _not_ "'phone
> home" from time to time to see if there is a more up-to-date version -
> if so, what is its version number, so I can go look for it?
>
> The version I have - which seems to be "Continuous Release | Version
> 2019.010.20064" [though says "Copyright (C) 1984-2018", not 2019] -
> _does_ seem to do so; I've (I think) stopped it actually doing so, by
> playing with settings in it, stopping services (which seem to have been
> restarted when I look and so on, and (I think) finally putting something
> in my hosts file, but when I open a .pdf file, after a few seconds it
> still becomes unresponsive for a while (few tens of seconds at a guess),
> so I assume it's doing so (or trying to).
>
> (Or does anyone know what's causing that pause and how to stop it, if
> checking for updates _isn't_ what it's doing?)
>
> I know there are other readers, such as FoxIt - but recent versions of
> those are as bloated as Acrobat (which, apart from the irritating pause
> described above, works well enough and fast enough for me). I could use
> an older version (of Acrobat, FoxIt, or another), I suppose - there's
> always the concern that some recent .pdf won't render properly, though.
> When I _was_ using something old (a FoxIt I think), I never _was_ aware
> of that happening, though there's always the concern that some recent
> feature might _invisibly_ not work.

If you are talking about the Free version of Acrobat Reader (Adobe
Reader DC), it is still being developed.

I have the current 64 bit version 2021.007.2009 of Acrobat Reader,
Copyright 1984-2021

The latest update was 09/16/2021

https://get.adobe.com/reader/

Per the website it is available for bout 64 and 32 bit systems.

On 9/21/2021 7:44 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 at 11:43:57, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid>
> wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
> []
>> There may be more types I have forgotten. What I have not seen, but may
>> exist, are devs working for a software they sell. Thus, migrating
>> Windows software doesn't happen as much.
>>
>> Blatant example: Acrobat. There is no current version of acrobat reader,
>> they ceased to produce it.
>>
>>
> I didn't know that; interesting.
>
> Was there, therefore, a final version of Acrobat which did _not_ "'phone
> home" from time to time to see if there is a more up-to-date version -
> if so, what is its version number, so I can go look for it?
>
> The version I have - which seems to be "Continuous Release | Version
> 2019.010.20064" [though says "Copyright (C) 1984-2018", not 2019] -
> _does_ seem to do so; I've (I think) stopped it actually doing so, by
> playing with settings in it, stopping services (which seem to have been
> restarted when I look and so on, and (I think) finally putting something
> in my hosts file, but when I open a .pdf file, after a few seconds it
> still becomes unresponsive for a while (few tens of seconds at a guess),
> so I assume it's doing so (or trying to).
>
> (Or does anyone know what's causing that pause and how to stop it, if
> checking for updates _isn't_ what it's doing?)
>
> I know there are other readers, such as FoxIt - but recent versions of
> those are as bloated as Acrobat (which, apart from the irritating pause
> described above, works well enough and fast enough for me). I could use
> an older version (of Acrobat, FoxIt, or another), I suppose - there's
> always the concern that some recent .pdf won't render properly, though.
> When I _was_ using something old (a FoxIt I think), I never _was_ aware
> of that happening, though there's always the concern that some recent
> feature might _invisibly_ not work.
As I remember there was a complete rewrite of the Reader. I don't
remember the date, but Adobe reader is still available, as I said in my
previous post

On 9/21/2021 8:43 AM, Paul wrote:
> J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 at 11:43:57, Carlos E. R.
>> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote (my responses usually follow points
>> raised):
>> []
>>> There may be more types I have forgotten. What I have not seen, but may
>>> exist, are devs working for a software they sell. Thus, migrating
>>> Windows software doesn't happen as much.
>>>
>>> Blatant example: Acrobat. There is no current version of acrobat reader,
>>> they ceased to produce it.
>>>
>>>
>> I didn't know that; interesting.
>>
>> Was there, therefore, a final version of Acrobat which did _not_
>> "'phone home" from time to time to see if there is a more up-to-date
>> version - if so, what is its version number, so I can go look for it?
>>
>> The version I have - which seems to be "Continuous Release | Version
>> 2019.010.20064" [though says "Copyright (C) 1984-2018", not 2019] -
>> _does_ seem to do so; I've (I think) stopped it actually doing so, by
>> playing with settings in it, stopping services (which seem to have
>> been restarted when I look and so on, and (I think) finally putting
>> something in my hosts file, but when I open a .pdf file, after a few
>> seconds it still becomes unresponsive for a while (few tens of seconds
>> at a guess), so I assume it's doing so (or trying to).
>>
>> (Or does anyone know what's causing that pause and how to stop it, if
>> checking for updates _isn't_ what it's doing?)
>>
>> I know there are other readers, such as FoxIt - but recent versions of
>> those are as bloated as Acrobat (which, apart from the irritating
>> pause described above, works well enough and fast enough for me). I
>> could use an older version (of Acrobat, FoxIt, or another), I suppose
>> - there's always the concern that some recent .pdf won't render
>> properly, though. When I _was_ using something old (a FoxIt I think),
>> I never _was_ aware of that happening, though there's always the
>> concern that some recent feature might _invisibly_ not work.
>
> Carlos is referring to Linux Acrobat, which stopped some time ago.
>
> You can still install the .deb if you have a copy (I seem to have
> one around here somewhere because I have been installing it).
>
> Linux Acrobat is required, for form filling. Not all of the
> native Linux PDF readers have full feature sets. They only
> implement what is in the PDF spec, versus Acrobat which
> includes Jetform stuff. There might not have been public
> standards for that separate material.
>
> Linux has plenty of "plain PDF reading capability".
> That's not the problem. If you get a job application
> form to fill out, the automation in it might not work
> right. And that's because Adobe has so much superfluous
> shit in there, it's hard for the third parties to keep up,
> which is the whole idea in the first place.
>
> If every last speck of material Adobe stuck in Acrobat
> Reader was in a public specification document, the
> Linux developers would have this covered by now.
> Reverse engineering isn't going to get this
> job done fast, if it is the only source of info
> on the topic.
>
>    Paul
A Trick in filling out forms.

As I remember Adobe has had the ability to add comments to PDF documents
for many years. You can use the function to fill out forms.

The way I use it is to open the document, and the Comments for the
documents. Using the Text function place the cursor where the form
requires data and type the answer to the form question.

You have to set Adobe fonts to match the font in the documents.

Using this function, any PDF document you can open become a form that
can be filled in. There is one caveat and that is the securities of the
document must allow commenting.

On 21/09/2021 14.43, Paul wrote:
> J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 at 11:43:57, Carlos E. R.
>> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote (my responses usually follow points
>> raised):
>> []
>>> There may be more types I have forgotten. What I have not seen, but may
>>> exist, are devs working for a software they sell. Thus, migrating
>>> Windows software doesn't happen as much.
>>>
>>> Blatant example: Acrobat. There is no current version of acrobat reader,
>>> they ceased to produce it.
>>>
>>>
>> I didn't know that; interesting.
>>
>> Was there, therefore, a final version of Acrobat which did _not_
>> "'phone home" from time to time to see if there is a more up-to-date
>> version - if so, what is its version number, so I can go look for it?
>>
>> The version I have - which seems to be "Continuous Release | Version
>> 2019.010.20064" [though says "Copyright (C) 1984-2018", not 2019] -
>> _does_ seem to do so; I've (I think) stopped it actually doing so, by
>> playing with settings in it, stopping services (which seem to have
>> been restarted when I look and so on, and (I think) finally putting
>> something in my hosts file, but when I open a .pdf file, after a few
>> seconds it still becomes unresponsive for a while (few tens of seconds
>> at a guess), so I assume it's doing so (or trying to).
>>
>> (Or does anyone know what's causing that pause and how to stop it, if
>> checking for updates _isn't_ what it's doing?)
>>
>> I know there are other readers, such as FoxIt - but recent versions of
>> those are as bloated as Acrobat (which, apart from the irritating
>> pause described above, works well enough and fast enough for me). I
>> could use an older version (of Acrobat, FoxIt, or another), I suppose
>> - there's always the concern that some recent .pdf won't render
>> properly, though. When I _was_ using something old (a FoxIt I think),
>> I never _was_ aware of that happening, though there's always the
>> concern that some recent feature might _invisibly_ not work.
>
> Carlos is referring to Linux Acrobat, which stopped some time ago.

Correct.
Version 9, IIRC.

> You can still install the .deb if you have a copy (I seem to have
> one around here somewhere because I have been installing it).

I do, but it also requires old libs so it fails to run on current
openSUSE. There are tricks to get it to run, but they fail for me, so I
abandoned it. If needed, I run it in a virtual machine.

>
> Linux Acrobat is required, for form filling.

Actually, it is the javascript code in those files that doesn't run,
because no native Linux PDF reader supports javascript - which of
course, it is a security hole. Forms without code are supported fine.

The other missing feature is certificate checking (crypto-signatures).

Interestingly, Libre Office can generate PDF forms and signed PDFs.

> Not all of the
> native Linux PDF readers have full feature sets. They only
> implement what is in the PDF spec, versus Acrobat which
> includes Jetform stuff. There might not have been public
> standards for that separate material.
>
> Linux has plenty of "plain PDF reading capability".
> That's not the problem. If you get a job application
> form to fill out, the automation in it might not work
> right. And that's because Adobe has so much superfluous
> shit in there, it's hard for the third parties to keep up,
> which is the whole idea in the first place.

Right.

> If every last speck of material Adobe stuck in Acrobat
> Reader was in a public specification document, the
> Linux developers would have this covered by now.
> Reverse engineering isn't going to get this
> job done fast, if it is the only source of info
> on the topic.

And apparently there is no much interest in doing it.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 12:44:05 +0100, in alt.windows7.general, "J. P. Gilliver
(John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>, wrote
,,,
>I know there are other readers, such as FoxIt - but recent versions of
>those are as bloated as Acrobat (which, apart from the irritating pause
>described above, works well enough and fast enough for me). I could use
>an older version (of Acrobat, FoxIt, or another),
....

I could not agree with you MORE.
I started using FOXIT when it was a 2mb total installation file(circa 2008).
Now, it is more bloated than Acrobat was then.

On 9/21/2021 4:44 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

> I know there are other readers, such as FoxIt - but recent versions of
> those are as bloated as Acrobat (which, apart from the irritating pause
> described above, works well enough and fast enough for me). I could use
> an older version (of Acrobat, FoxIt, or another), I suppose - there's
> always the concern that some recent .pdf won't render properly, though.
> When I _was_ using something old (a FoxIt I think), I never _was_ aware
> of that happening, though there's always the concern that some recent
> feature might _invisibly_ not work.

Foxit is bloated? Not as far as I'm concerned. I'm not aware of bloating
or any other problems with it. I prefer it to Acrobat, and that's what I
always use.

--
Ken

On 2021-09-21 9:56 a.m., Ken Blake wrote:
> On 9/21/2021 4:44 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>
>> I know there are other readers, such as FoxIt - but recent versions of
>> those are as bloated as Acrobat (which, apart from the irritating pause
>> described above, works well enough and fast enough for me). I could use
>> an older version (of Acrobat, FoxIt, or another), I suppose - there's
>> always the concern that some recent .pdf won't render properly, though.
>> When I _was_ using something old (a FoxIt I think), I never _was_ aware
>> of that happening, though there's always the concern that some recent
>> feature might _invisibly_ not work.
>
>
>
> Foxit is bloated? Not as far as I'm concerned. I'm not aware of bloating
> or any other problems with it. I prefer it to Acrobat, and that's what I
> always use.
>
>

Foxit is OK, but I now prefer Sumatra, But to each his own for his/her
own purpose. :-)

Rene

On 9/21/2021 8:58 AM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
> On 2021-09-21 9:56 a.m., Ken Blake wrote:
>> On 9/21/2021 4:44 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>
>>> I know there are other readers, such as FoxIt - but recent versions of
>>> those are as bloated as Acrobat (which, apart from the irritating pause
>>> described above, works well enough and fast enough for me). I could use
>>> an older version (of Acrobat, FoxIt, or another), I suppose - there's
>>> always the concern that some recent .pdf won't render properly, though.
>>> When I _was_ using something old (a FoxIt I think), I never _was_ aware
>>> of that happening, though there's always the concern that some recent
>>> feature might _invisibly_ not work.
>>
>>
>>
>> Foxit is bloated? Not as far as I'm concerned. I'm not aware of bloating
>> or any other problems with it. I prefer it to Acrobat, and that's what I
>> always use.
>>
>>
>
> Foxit is OK, but I now prefer Sumatra, But to each his own for his/her
> own purpose. :-)

I've also used Sumatra, and I liked it, but I still still prefer Foxit.

Don't ask me why I prefer Foxit to Sumatra. It's been too long and I
don't remember.

--
Ken

On 2021-09-21 11:06 a.m., Ken Blake wrote:
> On 9/21/2021 8:58 AM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
>> On 2021-09-21 9:56 a.m., Ken Blake wrote:
>>> On 9/21/2021 4:44 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>>
>>>> I know there are other readers, such as FoxIt - but recent versions of
>>>> those are as bloated as Acrobat (which, apart from the irritating pause
>>>> described above, works well enough and fast enough for me). I could use
>>>> an older version (of Acrobat, FoxIt, or another), I suppose - there's
>>>> always the concern that some recent .pdf won't render properly, though.
>>>> When I _was_ using something old (a FoxIt I think), I never _was_ aware
>>>> of that happening, though there's always the concern that some recent
>>>> feature might _invisibly_ not work.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Foxit is bloated? Not as far as I'm concerned. I'm not aware of
>>> bloating or any other problems with it. I prefer it to Acrobat, and
>>> that's what I always use.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Foxit is OK, but I now prefer Sumatra, But to each his own for his/her
>> own purpose.  :-)
>
>
> I've also used Sumatra, and I liked it, but I still still prefer Foxit.
>
> Don't ask me why I prefer Foxit to Sumatra. It's been too long and I
> don't remember.
>

Yeah, same here with Sumatra, I don't remember why, But they are both A1
programs.

Rene

On 9/21/2021 4:44 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 at 11:43:57, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid>
> wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
> []
>> There may be more types I have forgotten. What I have not seen, but may
>> exist, are devs working for a software they sell. Thus, migrating
>> Windows software doesn't happen as much.
>>
>> Blatant example: Acrobat. There is no current version of acrobat reader,
>> they ceased to produce it.
>>
>>
> I didn't know that; interesting.
>
> Was there, therefore, a final version of Acrobat which did _not_ "'phone
> home" from time to time to see if there is a more up-to-date version -
> if so, what is its version number, so I can go look for it?
>
> The version I have - which seems to be "Continuous Release | Version
> 2019.010.20064" [though says "Copyright (C) 1984-2018", not 2019] -
> _does_ seem to do so; I've (I think) stopped it actually doing so, by
> playing with settings in it, stopping services (which seem to have been
> restarted when I look and so on, and (I think) finally putting something
> in my hosts file, but when I open a .pdf file, after a few seconds it
> still becomes unresponsive for a while (few tens of seconds at a guess),
> so I assume it's doing so (or trying to).
>
> (Or does anyone know what's causing that pause and how to stop it, if
> checking for updates _isn't_ what it's doing?)
>
> I know there are other readers, such as FoxIt - but recent versions of
> those are as bloated as Acrobat (which, apart from the irritating pause
> described above, works well enough and fast enough for me). I could use
> an older version (of Acrobat, FoxIt, or another), I suppose - there's
> always the concern that some recent .pdf won't render properly, though.
> When I _was_ using something old (a FoxIt I think), I never _was_ aware
> of that happening, though there's always the concern that some recent
> feature might _invisibly_ not work.
>

I am still using Adobe Reader 11.0.23.22. I really did not like the
user interface of later versions. The interface with Adobe's cloud was
definitely another negative since I avoid cloud systems.

--
David E. Ross
"A Message to Those Who Are Not Vaccinated"
See my <http://www.rossde.com/index#vaccine>.

On 9/21/2021 9:18 AM, RabidHussar wrote:
> On 2021-09-21 10:56 a.m., Ken Blake wrote:
>> On 9/21/2021 4:44 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>
>>> I know there are other readers, such as FoxIt - but recent versions of
>>> those are as bloated as Acrobat (which, apart from the irritating pause
>>> described above, works well enough and fast enough for me). I could use
>>> an older version (of Acrobat, FoxIt, or another), I suppose - there's
>>> always the concern that some recent .pdf won't render properly, though.
>>> When I _was_ using something old (a FoxIt I think), I never _was_ aware
>>> of that happening, though there's always the concern that some recent
>>> feature might _invisibly_ not work.
>>
>>
>>
>> Foxit is bloated? Not as far as I'm concerned. I'm not aware of
>> bloating or any other problems with it. I prefer it to Acrobat, and
>> that's what I always use.
>>
>>
> Thanks for reminding me of Foxit's existence. I was relying on Microsoft
> Edge to open up my PDF files which is just uncivilized.

It don't rely on Edge for anything. As far as I'm concerned, it's the
worst of all browsers and I never use it.

> Proud LibreOffice <http://www.libreoffice.org> & Thunderbird
> <http://www.thunderbird.net> donor

Always anyone who likes Microsoft Office also likes Libre Office, and
its being free is a big advantage.

I use Excel a little, but not very much. Other than that, I don't use
anything in Microsoft Office, nor in any of its clones. I greatly prefer
WordPerfect to Word and Thunderbird to Outlook.

--
Ken

On 9/21/21 7:23 AM, FACE wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 12:44:05 +0100, in alt.windows7.general, "J. P. Gilliver
> (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>, wrote
> ,,,
>> I know there are other readers, such as FoxIt - but recent versions of
>> those are as bloated as Acrobat (which, apart from the irritating pause
>> described above, works well enough and fast enough for me). I could use
>> an older version (of Acrobat, FoxIt, or another),
> ...
>
> I could not agree with you MORE.
> I started using FOXIT when it was a 2mb total installation file(circa 2008).
> Now, it is more bloated than Acrobat was then.
>

Not only is it bloated, it is full of spyware. I stopped
using it on my and all my customer's machines about
a year ago.

On 21/09/2021 23.19, T wrote:
> On 9/21/21 7:23 AM, FACE wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 12:44:05 +0100,  in alt.windows7.general,  "J. P.
>> Gilliver
>> (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>, wrote
>> ,,,
>>> I know there are other readers, such as FoxIt - but recent versions of
>>> those are as bloated as Acrobat (which, apart from the irritating pause
>>> described above, works well enough and fast enough for me). I could use
>>> an older version (of Acrobat, FoxIt, or another),
>> ...
>>
>> I could not agree with you MORE.
>> I started using FOXIT when it was a 2mb total installation file(circa
>> 2008).
>> Now, it is more bloated than Acrobat was then.
>>
>
> Not only is it bloated, it is full of spyware.  I stopped
> using it on my and all my customer's machines about
> a year ago.

They said they had stopped doing that. At least in the Linux version, I
don't know in the Windows version (on Windows, I use acrobat).

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 9/21/21 2:32 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 21/09/2021 23.19, T wrote:
>> On 9/21/21 7:23 AM, FACE wrote:
>>> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 12:44:05 +0100,  in alt.windows7.general,  "J. P.
>>> Gilliver
>>> (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>, wrote
>>> ,,,
>>>> I know there are other readers, such as FoxIt - but recent versions of
>>>> those are as bloated as Acrobat (which, apart from the irritating pause
>>>> described above, works well enough and fast enough for me). I could use
>>>> an older version (of Acrobat, FoxIt, or another),
>>> ...
>>>
>>> I could not agree with you MORE.
>>> I started using FOXIT when it was a 2mb total installation file(circa
>>> 2008).
>>> Now, it is more bloated than Acrobat was then.
>>>
>>
>> Not only is it bloated, it is full of spyware.  I stopped
>> using it on my and all my customer's machines about
>> a year ago.
>
> They said they had stopped doing that. At least in the Linux version, I
> don't know in the Windows version (on Windows, I use acrobat).
>

With all the various versions of W10 out there, my Windows
customers have had all kinds of issues with Acrobat.
Print black blocks across everything and on and on and
so forth. I switch them to the free version of Master
PDF Editor, and it fixed all their issues. Acrobat
is especially bad at government PDF forms.

I am a FREQUENT bug reported to Master PDF Editor too.
And -- make sure you are sitting down -- they ACTUALLY
FIX THINGS!

On 9/21/21 12:53 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
> Always anyone who likes Microsoft Office also likes Libre Office, and
> its being free is a big advantage.

Hi Ken,

I have yet to get a single customer to adopt Libre Office
(LO). They try for several weeks, then call me almost
in tears and buy M$O from me. At least they don't
argue with me over the price! SO the is a silver lining in
it for me.

Part of the issue it that it is not 100% identical to M$O
keystroke wise. But mostly it is the endless, stupid
bugs LO won't fix as you can't afford to put them on your payroll.

As far as the keystroke issue, Free Office (FO), is
far better and a ton less buggy. And they are
responsive to fixing bugs, unlike LO.

I personally use LO and FO I could jump thorough
flaming hoops with Wine and get M$O install on
Linux, but I am not willing to pay the monopoly
price for M$O.

-T

On 21/09/2021 23.44, T wrote:
> On 9/21/21 2:32 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 21/09/2021 23.19, T wrote:
>>> On 9/21/21 7:23 AM, FACE wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 12:44:05 +0100,  in alt.windows7.general,  "J. P.
>>>> Gilliver
>>>> (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>, wrote
>>>> ,,,
>>>>> I know there are other readers, such as FoxIt - but recent versions of
>>>>> those are as bloated as Acrobat (which, apart from the irritating
>>>>> pause
>>>>> described above, works well enough and fast enough for me). I could
>>>>> use
>>>>> an older version (of Acrobat, FoxIt, or another),
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> I could not agree with you MORE.
>>>> I started using FOXIT when it was a 2mb total installation file(circa
>>>> 2008).
>>>> Now, it is more bloated than Acrobat was then.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not only is it bloated, it is full of spyware.  I stopped
>>> using it on my and all my customer's machines about
>>> a year ago.
>>
>> They said they had stopped doing that. At least in the Linux version, I
>> don't know in the Windows version (on Windows, I use acrobat).
>>
>
> With all the various versions of W10 out there, my Windows
> customers have had all kinds of issues with Acrobat.
> Print black blocks across everything and on and on and
> so forth.  I switch them to the free version of Master
> PDF Editor, and it fixed all their issues.  Acrobat
> is especially bad at government PDF forms.
>
> I am a FREQUENT bug reported to Master PDF Editor too.
> And -- make sure you are sitting down -- they ACTUALLY
> FIX THINGS!
>

Good to know :-)

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 9/21/2021 2:50 PM, T wrote:
> On 9/21/21 12:53 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
>> Always anyone who likes Microsoft Office also likes Libre Office, and
>> its being free is a big advantage.
>
> Hi Ken,
>
> I have yet to get a single customer to adopt Libre Office
> (LO). They try for several weeks, then call me almost
> in tears and buy M$O from me. At least they don't
> argue with me over the price! SO the is a silver lining in
> it for me.
>
> Part of the issue it that it is not 100% identical to M$O
> keystroke wise. But mostly it is the endless, stupid
> bugs LO won't fix as you can't afford to put them on your payroll.
>
> As far as the keystroke issue, Free Office (FO), is
> far better and a ton less buggy. And they are
> responsive to fixing bugs, unlike LO.
>
> I personally use LO and FO I could jump thorough
> flaming hoops with Wine and get M$O install on
> Linux, but I am not willing to pay the monopoly
> price for M$O.

I have a copy of Microsoft Office 2016, which I got for free (legally,
but I won't go into how). As I said, the only thing I use it for is
Excel and I don't use that much.

I think that both Open Office and Free Office are still installed here,
but since I never use either, I'm not sure. I know they were once
installed because I wanted to see what they were like.

I use WordPerfect (which I also got for free legally) for word
processing and Thunderbird for e-mail, both of which I prefer to any
alternatives. Except for Excel, it's rare that I have a need for
anything else in an Office suite.

Occasionally, I need to look a .doc or .docx file, but WordPerfect
handles them fine, as far as I'm concerned.

--
Ken

On 21/09/2021 23.50, T wrote:
> On 9/21/21 12:53 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
>> Always anyone who likes Microsoft Office also likes Libre Office, and
>> its being free is a big advantage.
>
> Hi Ken,
>
> I have yet to get a single customer to adopt Libre Office
> (LO). They try for several weeks, then call me almost
> in tears and buy M$O from me.  At least they don't
> argue with me over the price!  SO the is a silver lining in
> it for me.
>
> Part of the issue it that it is not 100% identical to M$O
> keystroke wise.  But mostly it is the endless, stupid
> bugs LO won't fix as you can't afford to put them on your payroll.
>
> As far as the keystroke issue, Free Office (FO), is
> far better and a ton less buggy.  And they are
> responsive to fixing bugs, unlike LO.
>
> I personally use LO and FO  I could jump thorough
> flaming hoops with Wine and get M$O install on
> Linux, but I am not willing to pay the monopoly
> price for M$O.

I can only say that I have been using solely LO for 20 years, and it
works for me. I'm certainly not going to pay MO, but I know people will.
I know people that are thrown back by trivial difficulties like
different menus or options, and want MO because that is what others use.

I know also people that are unable to copy a file using the file
explorer if an icon or menu is on a different corner of the screen...

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 9/21/21 3:07 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
> On 9/21/2021 2:50 PM, T wrote:
>> On 9/21/21 12:53 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
>>> Always anyone who likes Microsoft Office also likes Libre Office, and
>>> its being free is a big advantage.
>>
>> Hi Ken,
>>
>> I have yet to get a single customer to adopt Libre Office
>> (LO). They try for several weeks, then call me almost
>> in tears and buy M$O from me.  At least they don't
>> argue with me over the price!  SO the is a silver lining in
>> it for me.
>>
>> Part of the issue it that it is not 100% identical to M$O
>> keystroke wise.  But mostly it is the endless, stupid
>> bugs LO won't fix as you can't afford to put them on your payroll.
>>
>> As far as the keystroke issue, Free Office (FO), is
>> far better and a ton less buggy.  And they are
>> responsive to fixing bugs, unlike LO.
>>
>> I personally use LO and FO  I could jump thorough
>> flaming hoops with Wine and get M$O install on
>> Linux, but I am not willing to pay the monopoly
>> price for M$O.
>
>
> I have a copy of Microsoft Office 2016, which I got for free (legally,
> but I won't go into how). As I said, the only thing I use it for is
> Excel and I don't use that much.
>
> I think that both Open Office and Free Office are still installed here,
> but since I never use either, I'm not sure. I know they were once
> installed because I wanted to see what they were like.
>
> I use WordPerfect (which I also got for free legally) for word
> processing and Thunderbird for e-mail, both of which I prefer to any
> alternatives. Except for Excel, it's rare that I have a need for
> anything else in an Office suite.
>
> Occasionally, I need to look a .doc or .docx file, but WordPerfect
> handles them fine, as far as I'm concerned.

Word Perfect is a great program. .doc and .docx support
was vastly improved after M$ bought Word Perfect. Great
for Law Firms that intermix WP and M$O files.

I still use Lotus Word Pro. Does great envelopes and has
divisions tabs. And it works under Wine too (some gotchas).

On 9/21/2021 3:06 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 21/09/2021 23.50, T wrote:
>> On 9/21/21 12:53 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
>>> Always anyone who likes Microsoft Office also likes Libre Office, and
>>> its being free is a big advantage.
>>
>> Hi Ken,
>>
>> I have yet to get a single customer to adopt Libre Office
>> (LO). They try for several weeks, then call me almost
>> in tears and buy M$O from me.  At least they don't
>> argue with me over the price!  SO the is a silver lining in
>> it for me.
>>
>> Part of the issue it that it is not 100% identical to M$O
>> keystroke wise.  But mostly it is the endless, stupid
>> bugs LO won't fix as you can't afford to put them on your payroll.
>>
>> As far as the keystroke issue, Free Office (FO), is
>> far better and a ton less buggy.  And they are
>> responsive to fixing bugs, unlike LO.
>>
>> I personally use LO and FO  I could jump thorough
>> flaming hoops with Wine and get M$O install on
>> Linux, but I am not willing to pay the monopoly
>> price for M$O.
>
> I can only say that I have been using solely LO for 20 years, and it
> works for me. I'm certainly not going to pay MO, but I know people will.
> I know people that are thrown back by trivial difficulties like
> different menus or options, and want MO because that is what others use.

Using what others use is the most important criterion for many (most?)
people. Popularity is very important. As an example, many people will
disagree with me, but as far as I'm concerned, despite its popularity,
Microsoft Word is greatly inferior to WordPerfect.

I pay no attention to popularity. I choose what I like best (sometimes
modified by price). Sometimes my choices are practically unknown by most
people. Directory Opus is an example.

--
Ken

On 9/21/21 3:06 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 21/09/2021 23.50, T wrote:
>> On 9/21/21 12:53 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
>>> Always anyone who likes Microsoft Office also likes Libre Office, and
>>> its being free is a big advantage.
>>
>> Hi Ken,
>>
>> I have yet to get a single customer to adopt Libre Office
>> (LO). They try for several weeks, then call me almost
>> in tears and buy M$O from me.  At least they don't
>> argue with me over the price!  SO the is a silver lining in
>> it for me.
>>
>> Part of the issue it that it is not 100% identical to M$O
>> keystroke wise.  But mostly it is the endless, stupid
>> bugs LO won't fix as you can't afford to put them on your payroll.
>>
>> As far as the keystroke issue, Free Office (FO), is
>> far better and a ton less buggy.  And they are
>> responsive to fixing bugs, unlike LO.
>>
>> I personally use LO and FO  I could jump thorough
>> flaming hoops with Wine and get M$O install on
>> Linux, but I am not willing to pay the monopoly
>> price for M$O.
>
> I can only say that I have been using solely LO for 20 years, and it
> works for me. I'm certainly not going to pay MO, but I know people will.
> I know people that are thrown back by trivial difficulties like
> different menus or options, and want MO because that is what others use.
>
> I know also people that are unable to copy a file using the file
> explorer if an icon or menu is on a different corner of the screen...
>
>

You must not use tables a lot or print envelopes
or need division tabs.

I too have used LO since its inception. Hated Open Office.
LO does not fix its bugs anymore, unless you put them
on your payroll. I hate being held hostage. I am
constantly pissed at them.

The one thing I have noticed with customers is that
they refuse to learn anything new. I try to accommodate
them as far a I can go, but there is a tipping point ...

On 9/21/21 3:20 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
> On 9/21/2021 3:06 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 21/09/2021 23.50, T wrote:
>>> On 9/21/21 12:53 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
>>>> Always anyone who likes Microsoft Office also likes Libre Office, and
>>>> its being free is a big advantage.
>>>
>>> Hi Ken,
>>>
>>> I have yet to get a single customer to adopt Libre Office
>>> (LO). They try for several weeks, then call me almost
>>> in tears and buy M$O from me.  At least they don't
>>> argue with me over the price!  SO the is a silver lining in
>>> it for me.
>>>
>>> Part of the issue it that it is not 100% identical to M$O
>>> keystroke wise.  But mostly it is the endless, stupid
>>> bugs LO won't fix as you can't afford to put them on your payroll.
>>>
>>> As far as the keystroke issue, Free Office (FO), is
>>> far better and a ton less buggy.  And they are
>>> responsive to fixing bugs, unlike LO.
>>>
>>> I personally use LO and FO  I could jump thorough
>>> flaming hoops with Wine and get M$O install on
>>> Linux, but I am not willing to pay the monopoly
>>> price for M$O.
>>
>> I can only say that I have been using solely LO for 20 years, and it
>> works for me. I'm certainly not going to pay MO, but I know people will.
>> I know people that are thrown back by trivial difficulties like
>> different menus or options, and want MO because that is what others use.
>
>
>
> Using what others use is the most important criterion for many (most?)
> people. Popularity is very important. As an example, many people will
> disagree with me, but as far as I'm concerned, despite its popularity,
> Microsoft Word is greatly inferior to WordPerfect.
>
> I pay no attention to popularity. I choose what I like best (sometimes
> modified by price). Sometimes my choices are practically unknown by most
> people. Directory Opus is an example.
>
>

You make a good point. I want to be like everyone else
is a big problem. Put in a database at a company years
ago, but it was not M$O Access, so the secretaries
threw a fit. "I can go down the street and get a better
job is I don't know M$O!" They wanted their current
employer to train them for their next jobs. (In that
case they should have learned it on their own.)

On 22/09/2021 00.24, T wrote:
> On 9/21/21 3:06 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 21/09/2021 23.50, T wrote:
>>> On 9/21/21 12:53 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
>>>> Always anyone who likes Microsoft Office also likes Libre Office, and
>>>> its being free is a big advantage.
>>>
>>> Hi Ken,
>>>
>>> I have yet to get a single customer to adopt Libre Office
>>> (LO). They try for several weeks, then call me almost
>>> in tears and buy M$O from me.  At least they don't
>>> argue with me over the price!  SO the is a silver lining in
>>> it for me.
>>>
>>> Part of the issue it that it is not 100% identical to M$O
>>> keystroke wise.  But mostly it is the endless, stupid
>>> bugs LO won't fix as you can't afford to put them on your payroll.
>>>
>>> As far as the keystroke issue, Free Office (FO), is
>>> far better and a ton less buggy.  And they are
>>> responsive to fixing bugs, unlike LO.
>>>
>>> I personally use LO and FO  I could jump thorough
>>> flaming hoops with Wine and get M$O install on
>>> Linux, but I am not willing to pay the monopoly
>>> price for M$O.
>>
>> I can only say that I have been using solely LO for 20 years, and it
>> works for me. I'm certainly not going to pay MO, but I know people will.
>> I know people that are thrown back by trivial difficulties like
>> different menus or options, and want MO because that is what others use.
>>
>> I know also people that are unable to copy a file using the file
>> explorer if an icon or menu is on a different corner of the screen...
>>
>>
>
> You must not use tables a lot or print envelopes
> or need division tabs.

Who prints envelopes today? :-D :-P

Actually, I print envelopes, no problem. Figure out how your printer
works, create a template, take notes, and do it always the same way.

I heard of people having problems.

Tables? Like excel? Or in Write? I use them.

What are "division tabs"?

> I too have used LO since its inception.  Hated Open Office.
> LO does not fix its bugs anymore, unless you put them
> on your payroll.  I hate being held hostage.  I am
> constantly pissed at them.
>

I don't have that itch.

> The one thing I have noticed with customers is that
> they refuse to learn anything new.  I try to accommodate
> them as far a I can go, but there is a tipping point ...

I know.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.