Digital photo of a page to be viewed on mac and pc - Microsoft Windows

This is a discussion on Digital photo of a page to be viewed on mac and pc - Microsoft Windows ; In article , "John of Aix" wrote: > > I'd be inclined to agree with you there. It isn't so much the PDF that > bothers me as the fact that you need this bloody ugly and heavy Acrobat > ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 46 of 46

Thread: Digital photo of a page to be viewed on mac and pc

  1. Re: Digital photo of a page to be viewed on mac and pc

    In article <45c27280$0$5068$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
    "John of Aix" wrote:

    >
    > I'd be inclined to agree with you there. It isn't so much the PDF that
    > bothers me as the fact that you need this bloody ugly and heavy Acrobat
    > (Reader) to look at them (in Windows). I hate such limitations *.txt you
    > can read anywhere, RTF much the same so I'm against *.XYZ files that
    > require absolutely that you download XYZ Reader from some company or
    > other.


    You are not alone. There may be an alternative (which I haven't used
    myself; no Windows system here, so I'll quote). From:



    "To view some of the documents referenced on this page you'll need a
    copy of the free Adobe Acrobat reader software (note: This link takes
    you to Acrobat 5.1, which avoids the very buggy and unstable Acrobat 6
    or the bloated mess that is Acrobat 7 which Adobe will force on you if
    you get it from their main download site). Alternatively, if you're
    running Windows, you can try the Foxit PDF Reader, which is what the
    Acrobat reader would be if it lost about 15MB of bloat and ran about 50
    times faster than it does."

    Link to Foxit:



    It has multi-language support too, which you might find useful.

    > > o - I occasionally have to e-mail legal stuff to recipients who cannot
    > > read JPG attachments. (I know not and care not why can't, I just
    > > need to get my communications through.) They _can_ read PDF files.

    >
    > Ah the Mac-ists ;-)


    Not really, in this case anyway :-) I suspect that the recipient's
    e-mail system filters out JPG files.

    P.S. If you do try Foxit and like or dislike it, feedback would be
    appreciated. If it's good I'd like to recommend it to those who use
    Windows.

    --
    Paul Sture

  2. Re: Digital photo of a page to be viewed on mac and pc

    On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:20:59 -0800, C J Campbell wrote:

    > Otherwise, JPG. Everyone has a JPG viewer. Obviously, someone who has a VGA
    > screen is going to want very low resolution, say, no more than 640 pixels on
    > a side. Don't worry about those folks. For a photo, I generally want to limit
    > it to 800 pixels on a side, but that would be too small for text. You want at
    > least 1020 pixels, but then it might not be easy to display on a single
    > screen, which gets us back to PDF, which can be easily re-sized for anybody's
    > viewing preference.


    JPG files are not easy to display on a single screen? It's
    trivially easy with Irfanview, whether the original file displays
    too small or too large. Just type "F" and the image will fill the
    screen. Or hit the "+" or "-" keys to incrementally expand or
    shrink the image. If web browsers are used to view images, some
    (Opera is one) can also shrink or expand images, but some others
    can't. I'd think that most image viewers would also be able to
    easily show JPG files at whatever screen size is desired. Several
    years ago I got good results printing multiple 4x6 and 5x7 photos on
    8 1/2 x 11 sheets by importing JPG files into custom sized word
    processor frames, which if needed, could easily be resized for
    minor cropping operations.


  3. Re: Digital photo of a page to be viewed on mac and pc

    On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 23:37:35 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

    >> This thread is crossposted to three news groups.

    >
    > I see that now - thanks.
    >
    > The OP could have helped a lot by specifying what operating system is
    > running on the host computer, I suppose.


    Not necessary if people have the ability to check message headers.
    Yours shows "User-Agent: Unison/1.7.8" but as I'm not familiar with
    that, I wouldn't know what OS you use. The OP on the other hand has
    this header: "User-Agent: Thoth/1.8.3 (Carbon/OS X)". I'm also not
    familiar with Thoth, but Carbon/OS X is a mighty big clue.


  4. Re: Digital photo of a page to be viewed on mac and pc

    On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 14:23:11 -0800, Ken Lucke wrote:

    >>> The OP could have helped a lot by specifying what operating system is
    >>> running on the host computer, I suppose.

    >>
    >> Not necessary if people have the ability to check message headers.
    >> Yours shows "User-Agent: Unison/1.7.8" but as I'm not familiar with
    >> that, I wouldn't know what OS you use. The OP on the other hand has
    >> this header: "User-Agent: Thoth/1.8.3 (Carbon/OS X)". I'm also not
    >> familiar with Thoth, but Carbon/OS X is a mighty big clue.

    >
    > Unison and Thoth are both Mac OSX (Thoth is based [long ago] on
    > Newswatcher by John Norstad(?), and Unison is a relative newcomer), but
    > you can't necessarily make any ass/u/mtions about what system he's
    > going to be using for the process simply from what computer he is using
    > to access usenet - Likely it would be the same, but he might also be
    > doing it from work or elsewhere where they might have a different
    > system.
    >
    > That's why it's always best for a poster such as that to specify his
    > system (and other mitigating info) when he asks specific "how do I...?"
    > questions.


    Very true. But assuming that the host computer will be the same
    one that was used to post the OP's message is a reasonable
    assumption, unless the header shows WebTV. Almost a day after
    JR's post, the OP added that after distribution, the files to be
    printed/viewed could end up on any type of system, but that was
    implied in the thread's Subject as well as stated in the OP, so what
    system is used by the OP is pretty much irrelevant.


  5. Re: Digital photo of a page to be viewed on mac and pc

    In article , ASAAR
    wrote:

    > On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 14:23:11 -0800, Ken Lucke wrote:
    >
    > >>> The OP could have helped a lot by specifying what operating system is
    > >>> running on the host computer, I suppose.
    > >>
    > >> Not necessary if people have the ability to check message headers.
    > >> Yours shows "User-Agent: Unison/1.7.8" but as I'm not familiar with
    > >> that, I wouldn't know what OS you use. The OP on the other hand has
    > >> this header: "User-Agent: Thoth/1.8.3 (Carbon/OS X)". I'm also not
    > >> familiar with Thoth, but Carbon/OS X is a mighty big clue.

    > >
    > > Unison and Thoth are both Mac OSX (Thoth is based [long ago] on
    > > Newswatcher by John Norstad(?), and Unison is a relative newcomer), but
    > > you can't necessarily make any ass/u/mtions about what system he's
    > > going to be using for the process simply from what computer he is using
    > > to access usenet - Likely it would be the same, but he might also be
    > > doing it from work or elsewhere where they might have a different
    > > system.
    > >
    > > That's why it's always best for a poster such as that to specify his
    > > system (and other mitigating info) when he asks specific "how do I...?"
    > > questions.

    >
    > Very true. But assuming that the host computer will be the same
    > one that was used to post the OP's message is a reasonable
    > assumption, unless the header shows WebTV. Almost a day after
    > JR's post, the OP added that after distribution, the files to be
    > printed/viewed could end up on any type of system, but that was
    > implied in the thread's Subject as well as stated in the OP, so what
    > system is used by the OP is pretty much irrelevant.
    >


    Actually, that was in the OP's original post:
    In article <300120070126555669%rps@null.void>, RPS
    wrote:

    > I have to take a digital photograph of a page (US letter size, mostly
    > text). The resulting computer file would be distrubuted among several
    > people who for viewing and printing on both Macs and PC's.
    >
    > I do not have any way to know who will have what software installed on
    > their computer, so I must assume a basic generic setup.
    >



    --
    You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
    reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
    the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
    independence.
    -- Charles A. Beard

  6. Re: Digital photo of a page to be viewed on mac and pc

    In article <020220071525255566%ken@glass-stones.com>, Ken Lucke
    wrote:

    > In article , ASAAR
    > wrote:
    >
    > > On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 14:23:11 -0800, Ken Lucke wrote:
    > >
    > > >>> The OP could have helped a lot by specifying what operating system is
    > > >>> running on the host computer, I suppose.
    > > >>
    > > >> Not necessary if people have the ability to check message headers.
    > > >> Yours shows "User-Agent: Unison/1.7.8" but as I'm not familiar with
    > > >> that, I wouldn't know what OS you use. The OP on the other hand has
    > > >> this header: "User-Agent: Thoth/1.8.3 (Carbon/OS X)". I'm also not
    > > >> familiar with Thoth, but Carbon/OS X is a mighty big clue.
    > > >
    > > > Unison and Thoth are both Mac OSX (Thoth is based [long ago] on
    > > > Newswatcher by John Norstad(?), and Unison is a relative newcomer), but
    > > > you can't necessarily make any ass/u/mtions about what system he's
    > > > going to be using for the process simply from what computer he is using
    > > > to access usenet - Likely it would be the same, but he might also be
    > > > doing it from work or elsewhere where they might have a different
    > > > system.
    > > >
    > > > That's why it's always best for a poster such as that to specify his
    > > > system (and other mitigating info) when he asks specific "how do I...?"
    > > > questions.

    > >
    > > Very true. But assuming that the host computer will be the same
    > > one that was used to post the OP's message is a reasonable
    > > assumption, unless the header shows WebTV. Almost a day after
    > > JR's post, the OP added that after distribution, the files to be
    > > printed/viewed could end up on any type of system, but that was
    > > implied in the thread's Subject as well as stated in the OP, so what
    > > system is used by the OP is pretty much irrelevant.
    > >

    >
    > Actually, that was in the OP's original post:
    > In article <300120070126555669%rps@null.void>, RPS
    > wrote:
    >
    > > I have to take a digital photograph of a page (US letter size, mostly
    > > text). The resulting computer file would be distrubuted among several
    > > people who for viewing and printing on both Macs and PC's.
    > >
    > > I do not have any way to know who will have what software installed on
    > > their computer, so I must assume a basic generic setup.
    > >

    >


    Oops, sorry, misread your note, I thought you were saying that it
    wasn't clear from the OP that he wanted to do such. My misreading
    comprehension problem. Sorry.

    --
    You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
    reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
    the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
    independence.
    -- Charles A. Beard

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3