Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 4th Apr 2011 22:59 UTC
Windows And yes, the stream of controlled Windows 8 leaks continues. This time around, Thurrot and Rivera have published a number of screenshots from Windows 8's brand-new tablet user interface, and surprise surprise, its built on Metro, the same design language that underpins Windows Phone 7. Windows 8 will also include its own PDF reader, Modern Reader, which also happens to be the first application packaged in Microsoft's new AppX format. Update: Long Zheng has some technical details on AppX, including this little tidbit: "The extensive list of properties signifies the comprehensive scope of this system to be the ideal deployment strategy for 'applications', in all essence of the word. In fact, the AppX format is universal enough so it appears to work for everything from native Win32 applications to framework-based applications and even *gasp* web applications. Games are also supported."
Order by: Score:
App scalability
by chandler on Mon 4th Apr 2011 23:10 UTC
chandler
Member since:
2006-08-29

That's one fine incentive for developers - write your application, and have it scale from phones to tablets to desktops. Apple already offers something similar, of course, so Microsoft is a tad bit late to the game.

They do? I must have missed a big announcement. Last I checked, you got to write your app once for OS X, and then rewrite the whole UI for iOS using a different framework. Sure, there's a third-party framework in development that will let you use iOS's UIKit APIs on OS X, but even that's not a complete solution, and it's not something offered by Apple.

Windows Phone 7 apps can share much more of their codebase with desktop OSes (Windows *and* Mac) via Silverlight. So Microsoft is already ahead in this area, and providing a common app distribution format will put them firmly in the lead.

Reply Score: 4

RE: App scalability
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 4th Apr 2011 23:15 UTC in reply to "App scalability"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Really? I guess that means I was in the RDF on that one. I thought a lot of code between Mac/iOS was shared, at least to a point where you didn't have to do much porting.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: App scalability
by chandler on Mon 4th Apr 2011 23:25 UTC in reply to "RE: App scalability"
chandler Member since:
2006-08-29

Anything other than the user interface code can be shared, but essentially nobody writes 100% pure MVC code, which means there's a lot of places where things need to be changed when porting from Cocoa to Cocoa Touch. A Foundation-only library can be shared if you've got some unique networking or data processing code, but for a lot of apps, the UI defines and deeply affects the whole structure of the application.

There are issues on Windows Phone 7 with certain base classes not being provided - sockets being a notable example - which can cause complications, but generally if you write to WP7's requirements it'll be easier to share code with a Silverlight app than it is to share between iOS and OS X.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: App scalability
by Stratoukos on Tue 5th Apr 2011 00:07 UTC in reply to "RE: App scalability"
Stratoukos Member since:
2009-02-11

I can't see how this could be possible, regardless of platform or tools.

I simply can't see how one could express a UI in terms that could properly scale up to 1920*1200 or down to 640*320 resolutions. Non-GUI code for OS X is actually pretty close to iOS code (as in extremely close, barring any APIs that are not available on both platforms).

If Microsoft's AppX provides the same level of code sharing, it would be great for developers. If they do find a way to make porting UI code with minimal effort possible, I will be pleasantly surprised.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: App scalability
by leos on Tue 5th Apr 2011 01:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: App scalability"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

I can't see how this could be possible, regardless of platform or tools


Exactly. Windows Mobile was terrible because they tried to make it easy to move desktop apps to the phone. The result was horrible user interfaces that weren't suitable for a mobile platform.

Now we're expected to believe that a mobile UI will work on the desktop? Not a chance. Unless they're talking just one package with multiple UIs. That would make more sense.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: App scalability
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Tue 5th Apr 2011 02:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: App scalability"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I simply can't see how one could express a UI in terms that could properly scale up to 1920*1200 or down to 640*320 resolutions.


Its not that bad. I've done it before. I really don't know why I did, but I had time and someone told me to do it. You just have a min and max size for every element with some logic governing wrapping and what not. You might argue that it looked terrible, but in my defense it looked that way *before* I implemented the scaling logic. Nothing to screw up really.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: App scalability
by avgalen on Tue 5th Apr 2011 04:24 UTC in reply to "RE: App scalability"
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

maybe you were confusing applications that were build for iPhone automatically resizing to the iPad. Both of those are on iOS though. Developing "cross-Mac-OS" is far from easy and Apple isn't really interested (yet) in making it easier.

In their opinion everyone should have an iPod for music, an iPad for browsing and playing games on fixed locations, an iPhone for communicating on mobile locations and of course a full blown Mac for doing all of those things and maybe even creating something at home or in the office. All of these devices have different goals, so software only has to be accessible on 1 of them?

Reply Score: 1

RE: App scalability
by sukru on Mon 4th Apr 2011 23:18 UTC in reply to "App scalability"
sukru Member since:
2006-11-19

Do not forget the Xbox. The XNA framework will work on Windows, Xbox and the WP7 at the same time (and also Zune HD, but it's as good as dead).

I hope this transition does not become another Vista. They're very good (UI-wise) on the desktop right now.

Reply Score: 4

v RE: App scalability
by kaiwai on Tue 5th Apr 2011 09:12 UTC in reply to "App scalability"
PDF reader ?
by Lennie on Mon 4th Apr 2011 23:19 UTC
Lennie
Member since:
2007-09-22

OK...
- so Chrome is gonna get a PDF-reader

- Apple already has a PDF-preview built into Mac OS X (probably more, I'm not an Apple user)

- Firefox 5 might get the a PDF-reader similair or the same as Chrome

- Windows 8 might get a PDF-reader

Do we really need that ?

It really is the crappiest format out there to parse and because of it, you are just asking for security bugs in all this new software:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54XYqsf4JEY

It could also be one of the many reason the others just don't want to use the Acrobat Reader and just want something simple.

Edited 2011-04-04 23:24 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: PDF reader ?
by chandler on Mon 4th Apr 2011 23:29 UTC in reply to "PDF reader ?"
chandler Member since:
2006-08-29

Adobe Reader really is a horrible and slow program with a terrible updater and a bad security track record. Right now I use PDF-XChange Viewer on Windows and it's quite good for a heavyweight viewer with annotation capabilities. However, for machines I set up for other people, I'd be glad to have a viewer integrated into Windows or into Firefox just to have one less program to install and one less security update cycle to think about.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: PDF reader ?
by j.dalrymple on Tue 5th Apr 2011 00:58 UTC in reply to "RE: PDF reader ?"
j.dalrymple Member since:
2011-03-29

Adobe Reader really is a horrible and slow program...


Not sure about this. Adobe Reader seems reasonably fast lately. I mean, I can remember absolutely dreading PDF reader, but newer versions seem okay.

Edited 2011-04-05 00:59 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: PDF reader ?
by Spiron on Tue 5th Apr 2011 01:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: PDF reader ?"
Spiron Member since:
2011-03-08

Adobe Reader 10 also bumps up the security issues quite a bit by sandboxing the main viewer. However, a lot of these security 'faults' apply as much to the user interacting with shady PDF's as much as Adobe's written code

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: PDF reader ?
by kaiwai on Tue 5th Apr 2011 09:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: PDF reader ?"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Not sure about this. Adobe Reader seems reasonably fast lately. I mean, I can remember absolutely dreading PDF reader, but newer versions seem okay.


It's not just speed but there is also bloat as well. I've just jumped over to Adobe.com to find out the size of Adobe Reader X (10.0.1) which weighs in at 66.44MB with the Windows version doing no batter either. I mean, this isn't an office suite or a photo editing application, its only a viewer, a viewer shouldn't be weighing in at 66MB nor should it be installing browser freezing plugins that do nothing to the experience other than to make things 100 times worse.

The only thing worse than Adobe Reader X (10.0.1) is probably the 300MB drivers that HP expect end users to download just to get their printers to work with Windows. I swear sometimes that these programmers who make said programmes don't live on the same planet as everyone does, I've yet to come across an Adobe employee on any forum who is openly proud about working for Adobe on a said product. Is Adobe quickly becoming one of those organisations where, when people leave after working there, they'd sooner say they were unemployed for 20 years than ever admit they worked for Adobe at some point?

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: PDF reader ?
by phoenix on Tue 5th Apr 2011 16:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: PDF reader ?"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

In comparison, Foxit Reader 2.0 is only 1.7 MB, and 4.3 is only 7.5 MB.

And the .deb package for Okular 4.6.1 is only 1 MB (granted, it uses a lot of shared libs and external libraries, so that's not a valid comparison).

Reply Score: 2

RE: PDF reader ?
by Stratoukos on Mon 4th Apr 2011 23:47 UTC in reply to "PDF reader ?"
Stratoukos Member since:
2009-02-11

Why is PDF a crappy format? What do you use when you want to send someone a document and you want to ensure that he sees exactly what you see? Adobe's Reader is crappy, but having a multitude of widely used readers actually negates that.

Sure it has a lot of bloat, with scripts and forms and whatnot, but if you use it just for static documents I think it's great.

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: PDF reader ?
by WorknMan on Tue 5th Apr 2011 00:42 UTC in reply to "RE: PDF reader ?"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Why is PDF a crappy format? What do you use when you want to send someone a document and you want to ensure that he sees exactly what you see?


A text file ;)

Reply Score: 7

RE[3]: PDF reader ?
by Stratoukos on Tue 5th Apr 2011 00:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: PDF reader ?"
Stratoukos Member since:
2009-02-11

Touché ;)

EDIT: <CR><LF> anyone?

It's actually quite telling for the industry that there are interoperability issues on freaking text files.

Edited 2011-04-05 00:56 UTC

Reply Score: 8

RE[4]: PDF reader ?
by FealDorf on Tue 5th Apr 2011 01:03 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: PDF reader ?"
FealDorf Member since:
2008-01-07

The deal is actually that the present version of PDF has so many interactive elements that it's no longer "Printable Document Format".

I liked PDF back when it was on vinyl.

Reply Score: 7

RE[5]: PDF reader ?
by Spiron on Tue 5th Apr 2011 01:14 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: PDF reader ?"
Spiron Member since:
2011-03-08

Apart from PDF actually meaning 'Portable Document Format', you say that the current version has too many interactive elements. How many people USE all of those elements. I for one have always used it as a static document format, where everyone sees what i want them to see regardless of what OS or program they are using. thats also how most people I know use them. Occasionally I will get one that requires annotation but thats a rare occurrence.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: PDF reader ?
by phoenix on Tue 5th Apr 2011 02:49 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: PDF reader ?"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

The worst PDF I've ever come across is an information update request form for the provincial ministry of education. It's a PDF, with a bunch of Forms fields you edit. Then you click a button to submit the PDF ... which runs a bunch of script to create ... a PDF, that is attached to an e-mail, and sent via MAPI (which means it won't work on non-Windows systems, or even Windows systems without MS Office installed).

And it's just a handful of text fields!!

This is the "new and improved, network-enabled" version of this form. Previously, you had to call the ministry, they'd fax you a form, you fill it out, and fax it back.

It's things like this that just scream to be made into a web-based form, with a database behind it.

It's things like this that give PDF a bad name. ;)

Reply Score: 6

RE[7]: PDF reader ?
by Spiron on Tue 5th Apr 2011 03:51 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: PDF reader ?"
Spiron Member since:
2011-03-08

Its also not the fault of the PDF format. PDF is one of the best document formats in the world and you shouldn't blame it because your ministry is forcing you to use Office and Windows. Don't blame the format just because someone used it wrong.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: PDF reader ?
by Neolander on Tue 5th Apr 2011 06:54 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: PDF reader ?"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Regularly, there are forms in the university's PDFs. That's the only situation where I need Adobe's reader... or foxit.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: PDF reader ?
by malxau on Tue 5th Apr 2011 03:46 UTC in reply to "RE: PDF reader ?"
malxau Member since:
2005-12-04

Why is PDF a crappy format?


Did you watch the video?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: PDF reader ?
by nt_jerkface on Tue 5th Apr 2011 05:12 UTC in reply to "RE: PDF reader ?"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

What do you use when you want to send someone a document and you want to ensure that he sees exactly what you see? Adobe's Reader is crappy

Sure it has a lot of bloat, with scripts and forms and whatnot


I would like to send a file that does not have bloat, scripts, forms and whatnot. That whatnot is often the worst part because we only learn about it through exploits. It seems you can slap just about any kind of whatnot into a pdf file.

99% of pdfs are scanned images. There should be a common scanned image format that is not capable of carrying a freaking scripting language.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: PDF reader ?
by meerrettich on Tue 5th Apr 2011 10:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: PDF reader ?"
meerrettich Member since:
2010-11-08

djvu is

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: PDF reader ?
by lemur2 on Tue 5th Apr 2011 11:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: PDF reader ?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

djvu is


Precisely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DjVu

Reply Score: 3

Comment by zizban
by zizban on Mon 4th Apr 2011 23:28 UTC
zizban
Member since:
2005-07-06

If has 1/4 the bloat of Adobe's PDF reader, I'm all for it. That is one nasty piece of software.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by zizban
by 1c3d0g on Tue 5th Apr 2011 03:17 UTC in reply to "Comment by zizban"
1c3d0g Member since:
2005-07-06

I concur. The fuckers at Adobe had many years to clean up their shit, but apparently they're too incompetent, lazy (or both) to implement a sound security model in their program. They got what they deserve.

Reply Score: 3

Please provide source for Adobe traffic
by Dawgmatix on Mon 4th Apr 2011 23:45 UTC
Dawgmatix
Member since:
2008-09-28

Could you please provide the source for Adobe PDF reader providing bulk of traffic to Adobe.com ? I would be interested to know how their traffic breaks down by product.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Stratoukos
by Stratoukos on Mon 4th Apr 2011 23:52 UTC
Stratoukos
Member since:
2009-02-11

Would adobe care if people stopped using their reader? They don't make any money selling it. OS X and Linux have built in readers and Windows never included it so I can't see them making any money on distribution rights.

Adobe makes money on the authoring tools (and maybe licensing the format; not sure about this). Having Windows being able to handle PDFs out of the box would only boost them.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by Stratoukos
by atsureki on Tue 5th Apr 2011 00:23 UTC in reply to "Comment by Stratoukos"
atsureki Member since:
2006-03-12

Adobe makes money on the authoring tools (and maybe licensing the format; not sure about this). Having Windows being able to handle PDFs out of the box would only boost them.


At face value, that's all fair enough.

The greater concern with Microsoft, though, would be proprietary extensions. If their PDF reader allows features to be added to PDFs that the real spec doesn't support, and authors target their PDFs at the Windows majority (or worse, MS Office-produced PDFs don't display properly without them), then the format has been EEEd, and the only solution is in court. But I don't think pre-emptive legal action will be possible; Adobe will have to wait and see if Microsoft plays fair.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by Stratoukos
by j.dalrymple on Tue 5th Apr 2011 01:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Stratoukos"
j.dalrymple Member since:
2011-03-29

The greater concern with Microsoft, though, would be proprietary extensions.


Isn't it more likely that the opposite will happen; i.e. that Adobe will add non-standard extensions to PDF to push the other readers out of the market? I could be wrong here, but I assume that Adobe Acrobat is still the main tool for publishing PDFs, and if that's the case then Adobe has a much bigger opportunity than Microsoft to push proprietary extensions.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Stratoukos
by Spiron on Tue 5th Apr 2011 01:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Stratoukos"
Spiron Member since:
2011-03-08

Last time I checked the PDF standard was an OPEN one. Adobe didn't have to do this, PDF was already used widely by the time they did it. If they had wanted to push all their competitors out then they needn't have opened it as a standard.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by Stratoukos
by lemur2 on Tue 5th Apr 2011 02:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Stratoukos"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"The greater concern with Microsoft, though, would be proprietary extensions.
Isn't it more likely that the opposite will happen; i.e. that Adobe will add non-standard extensions to PDF to push the other readers out of the market? "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Document_Format
Portable Document Format (PDF) is an open standard for document exchange. The file format created by Adobe Systems in 1993 is used for representing documents in a manner independent of the application software, hardware, and operating system.

...

Originally a proprietary format, PDF was officially released as an open standard on July 1, 2008, and published by the International Organization for Standardization as ISO 32000-1:2008. The ISO 32000-1 allows use of some specifications, which are not standardized (e.g. Adobe XML Forms Architecture). ISO 32000-1 does not specify methods for validating the conformance of PDF files or readers.


Although it is an open standard (i.e. royalty-free, anyone may implement), it does unfortunately allow for non-standard extensions.

I could be wrong here, but I assume that Adobe Acrobat is still the main tool for publishing PDFs, and if that's the case then Adobe has a much bigger opportunity than Microsoft to push proprietary extensions.


OpenOffice and LibreOffice both have good file format compatibility with MS Office, they both have a very good interoperable native file format (ODF), and they both have "export to PDF" functionality right there on the main toolbar.

LibreOffice (at least) also has a "PDF import" extension.
http://www.libreoffice.org/features/extensions/
"PDF Import: the PDF Import extension allows you to import and modify PDF documents. Results with 100% layout accuracy can be achieved with the "PDF/ODF hybrid file" format, which this extension also provides. A hybrid PDF/ODF file is a PDF file that contains an embedded ODF source file. Hybrid PDF/ODF files will be opened in LibreOffice as an ODF file without any layout changes."

Most Linux desktop operating system distributions ship with a "print to PDF file" pseudo-printer installed.

Edited 2011-04-05 02:28 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by Stratoukos
by j.dalrymple on Tue 5th Apr 2011 02:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Stratoukos"
j.dalrymple Member since:
2011-03-29

OpenOffice and LibreOffice both have good file format compatibility with MS Office, they both have a very good interoperable native file format (ODF), and they both have "export to PDF" functionality right there on the main toolbar.

LibreOffice (at least) also has a "PDF import" extension.
http://www.libreoffice.org/features/extensions/
"PDF Import: the PDF Import extension allows you to import and modify PDF documents. Results with 100% layout accuracy can be achieved with the "PDF/ODF hybrid file" format, which this extension also provides. A hybrid PDF/ODF file is a PDF file that contains an embedded ODF source file. Hybrid PDF/ODF files will be opened in LibreOffice as an ODF file without any layout changes."

Most Linux desktop operating system distributions ship with a "print to PDF file" pseudo-printer installed.


How widespread are those, though? I was under the impression that Acrobat was still the industry standard, especially if you want to use the more advanced features of PDF.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by Stratoukos
by lemur2 on Tue 5th Apr 2011 04:18 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Stratoukos"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

How widespread are those, though? I was under the impression that Acrobat was still the industry standard, especially if you want to use the more advanced features of PDF.


OpenOffice/LibreOffice has an installed base between 10% and 21%, depending on which country.

Since using it means that one has a very full-featured, work-alike free Office Suite program with better interoperability than MS Office, and which doubles as a PDF generation and edit facility as a bonus, then it is very surprising that this number is not much higher.

The features that are supported are listed here:
http://help.libreoffice.org/Common/Export_as_PDF

This is probably not everything that can be done using Adobe software, but it does seem to cover a lot of bases and should be perfectly adequate for most people and use cases.

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Comment by Stratoukos
by lucas_maximus on Tue 5th Apr 2011 08:39 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Stratoukos"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Since using it means that one has a very full-featured, work-alike free Office Suite program with better interoperability than MS Office, and which doubles as a PDF generation and edit facility as a bonus, then it is very surprising that this number is not much higher.


It only has better interoperability idealogically, pragmatically the business world uses Office, and there are gotchas on anything but the most simple of documents. Most places use Office 2000 or 2003, if you are lucky they might have 2007 installed.

The vast majority of Workstations in a business will either be Mac or a Windows workstation .. the only common format for documents is either PDF or Microsoft Office formats.

You can argue the toss all you like, but this won't change overnight.

The features that are supported are listed here:
http://help.libreoffice.org/Common/Export_as_PDF

This is probably not everything that can be done using Adobe software, but it does seem to cover a lot of bases and should be perfectly adequate for most people and use cases.


Not everything means, that for the most basic uses it will be insufficient. Also these open source readers and free readers don't render everything exactly the same.

I work with a system that has 10000s of PDFs and I have had calls where Foxit and Mac PDF readers are not rendering it correctly, therefore we mandate Adobe Reader since our publication team use Adobe Pro PDF tools. So to ensure compatibility I can only recommend using Adobe PDF reader.

Edited 2011-04-05 08:43 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by Stratoukos
by bert64 on Tue 5th Apr 2011 09:14 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Stratoukos"
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

Businesses may use msoffice, but they use several different versions and compatibility between them can be quite poor for all but the simplest of documents... Someone using openoffice often doesn't even get noticed.

But yes, PDF is the only sensible format if you want to preserve your formatting, and osx/linux actually include far better out of the box support for pdf than anything microsoft has.

Reply Score: 5

RE[7]: Comment by Stratoukos
by lemur2 on Tue 5th Apr 2011 10:03 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Stratoukos"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Since using it means that one has a very full-featured, work-alike free Office Suite program with better interoperability than MS Office, and which doubles as a PDF generation and edit facility as a bonus, then it is very surprising that this number is not much higher.


It only has better interoperability idealogically, pragmatically the business world uses Office, and there are gotchas on anything but the most simple of documents. Most places use Office 2000 or 2003, if you are lucky they might have 2007 installed.

The vast majority of Workstations in a business will either be Mac or a Windows workstation .. the only common format for documents is either PDF or Microsoft Office formats.
"

Actually, between 10% and 20% of machines have an OpenOffice variant installed, depending on the country. This holds just as true for business machines as it does for personal machines.

You can argue the toss all you like, but this won't change overnight.


No it won't. The OpenOffice (or variant) installed base is creeping upwards at only about 1% or so per year. Still, at least it is going up, and the MS Office installed base, likewise, is falling.

"The features that are supported are listed here:
http://help.libreoffice.org/Common/Export_as_PDF

This is probably not everything that can be done using Adobe software, but it does seem to cover a lot of bases and should be perfectly adequate for most people and use cases.


Not everything means, that for the most basic uses it will be insufficient. Also these open source readers and free readers don't render everything exactly the same.
"

I think you may be a little confused, the features I showed were for PDF export from LibreOffice. (LibreOffice and OpenOffice have a large team of programmers working on the project). Anyway, those are the features one may use when generating a PDF from LibreOffice.

The reader software I use is Okular:
http://kde.org/applications/graphics/okular/

Okular has fantastic PDF compatibility, I have never come across a PDF file it couldn't render.

Unlike Adobe reader, Okular is a document viewer which supports multiple formats: PDF, PS, Tiff, CHM, DjVu, Images, DVI, XPS, ODT, Fiction Book, Comic Book, Plucker, EPub, Fax.

Some of the lesser-used supported formats do not have quite the same level of support in Okular that PDF format has.

I work with a system that has 10000s of PDFs and I have had calls where Foxit and Mac PDF readers are not rendering it correctly, therefore we mandate Adobe Reader since our publication team use Adobe Pro PDF tools. So to ensure compatibility I can only recommend using Adobe PDF reader.


I can't speak for the support of single-author amateur freeware programs for Windows and Mac, but Okular has excellent support from a team of programmers.

http://okular.kde.org/team.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poppler_%28software%29

It only occupies about 20MB on disk, as a bonus.

http://okular.kde.org/

http://okular.kde.org/formats.php

Okular purportedly works on multiple platforms, including but not limited to Linux, Windows, Mac OS X, *BSD, etc. Perhaps you should look into it.

Enjoy.

Edited 2011-04-05 10:22 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Comment by Stratoukos
by nt_jerkface on Tue 5th Apr 2011 17:20 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Stratoukos"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

I work with a system that has 10000s of PDFs and I have had calls where Foxit and Mac PDF readers are not rendering it correctly, therefore we mandate Adobe Reader since our publication team use Adobe Pro PDF tools. So to ensure compatibility I can only recommend using Adobe PDF reader.


I've seen this too and I no longer recommended the alternatives, especially now that Reader is sandboxed.

Foxit renders properly 99% of the time but I saw someone almost fail a licensing exam because Foxit rendered the entire test incorrectly. There was no indication that Foxit was the problem or that Reader was required. The 1% problem can ruin someone's day.

I'm the one who told him that he could trust Foxit so please don't give me some spiel about alternatives. People are free to discover alternatives on their own but I'm no longer endorsing them.

Reply Score: 3

LaTeX
by boldingd on Tue 5th Apr 2011 05:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Stratoukos"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

Also worth mentioning is LaTeX; it's pretty common in academic circles. I'd wager that most published articles you see in the sciences are typeset with LaTeX. The last place I worked kept extensive documentation as a massive set of PDF's and LaTeX source files.

OS X also has a built-in PDF printer, and at least one high-quality open-source PDF virtual printer is available for Windows. (And they are incredibly handy little tools, once you discover them!)

Reply Score: 5

RE: LaTeX
by lucas_maximus on Tue 5th Apr 2011 08:33 UTC in reply to "LaTeX"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

True however I think a lot of people use Protext on Windows which requires an install of Adobe Reader.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Stratoukos
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Tue 5th Apr 2011 03:17 UTC in reply to "Comment by Stratoukos"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

You can't overlook the value of having everyone see the adobe name everytime they read a pdf viewer. They think PDF == adobe. Thats some nice advertising. So when they need to create a pdf, they don't think, but go to adobe for acrobat. It wasn't too long ago that you *had* to get acrobat in order to convert a word file to a pdf. ( if you didn't want to do the whole ghostscript 5 step printer hack).

Reply Score: 4

XPS dead?
by sdhays on Tue 5th Apr 2011 03:23 UTC
sdhays
Member since:
2007-03-13

I hope that this means that M$ has decided that, no, XPS will not be taking the world by storm and that if we're going to use a standard document description format, we're going to use the one that has healthy support everywhere, not just in Windoze Vista/7.

Why does Microsoft always go on binges? 10 years after XML is introduced, "all of our formats must be XML", never mind that they're shoddily implemented and don't conform to their own blasted standard (what was the point?). The ribbon user interface is written to de-crappify M$ Office, and now *everything* must have a ribbon. So for Windows 8, everything's going to be Metro-ified. As others have said before, good design for desktop use does not equal good design for mobile usage. I even think that Apple specifically doesn't provide the same UI libraries in iOS because they want to force developers to develop for the target platform. And, as a developer, I have to say, more power to them. The people holding the purse strings seldom give a crap about design until it's far too late, so forcing good design is very welcome.

Of course, maybe Silverlight truly is the be all and end all of programming toolkits and in a few years, we'll all wonder what all the other crap was about. I won't be holding my breath, though.

Reply Score: 3

RE: XPS dead?
by avgalen on Tue 5th Apr 2011 04:18 UTC in reply to "XPS dead?"
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

I agree that XPS should never have been born

I disagree that switching to XML as the default fileformat in Office is a bad idea. It made filesizes a lot smaller and interoperability a lot easier

and for a loooooong time (still?) the MSXML libraries were (are?) considered the fastest and most standard compliant libraries for parsing xml

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: XPS dead?
by pandronic on Tue 5th Apr 2011 05:31 UTC in reply to "RE: XPS dead?"
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

I really like XPS and I use it inside our office to pass documents around. You can easily install an XPS printer on XP and on Win 7 it's already installed. The viewer is not bloated and integrates nicely with Windows.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: XPS dead?
by MollyC on Tue 5th Apr 2011 06:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: XPS dead?"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

Agreed.
I use XPS quite a bit, such as printing web pages to XPS files.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: XPS dead?
by bert64 on Tue 5th Apr 2011 09:17 UTC in reply to "RE: XPS dead?"
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

I agree that XPS should never have been born

I disagree that switching to XML as the default fileformat in Office is a bad idea. It made filesizes a lot smaller and interoperability a lot easier

and for a loooooong time (still?) the MSXML libraries were (are?) considered the fastest and most standard compliant libraries for parsing xml


Switching to XML did not make the filesizes smaller, in fact it made them bigger... The apparent reduction in size is due to the files being compressed.

XPS should never have existed, but neither should OOXML... Both of which are predated by existing widely standardised and superior formats.

Reply Score: 4

RE: XPS dead?
by nt_jerkface on Tue 5th Apr 2011 07:07 UTC in reply to "XPS dead?"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

MS Office wouldn't help put the $ in MS if OpenOffice didn't feel so dated in comparison.

The public doesn't mind spending a buck twenty if it means they don't have to stare at software that looks like it is from 1998.

I would love to see MS Office taken down to $50 but that will only happen when it gets some real competition.

Windows Server Web Edition exists because of competition from Linux. MS Office mainly competes with older versions of itself.

Edited 2011-04-05 07:12 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: XPS dead?
by flanque on Tue 5th Apr 2011 11:50 UTC in reply to "RE: XPS dead?"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

MS Office mainly competes with older versions of itself.

That's very true.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: XPS dead?
by TemporalBeing on Tue 5th Apr 2011 14:33 UTC in reply to "RE: XPS dead?"
TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

MS Office wouldn't help put the $ in MS if OpenOffice didn't feel so dated in comparison.


MS puts money where MS wants to put money - which is nearly any where they can put a competitor out of business, or at least severely harm a competitor. Partners are not excluded from the harm, if they are doing business in an area where MS wants to go.

So no matter how good OpenOffice may ever be, MS will still dump money into Office - even if they have entirely lost the market. That's just how MS operates.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: XPS dead?
by nt_jerkface on Tue 5th Apr 2011 15:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: XPS dead?"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

So no matter how good OpenOffice may ever be, MS will still dump money into Office - even if they have entirely lost the market. That's just how MS operates.


So? MS keeps dumping money into IE and yet Firefox is as popular as ever. Competition has been good for both.

If OpenOffice was close to Office 2007 in quality and functionality then MS would be in serious trouble. MS could dump 5 billion into Office but it wouldn't matter since most people would go with free and good enough.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: XPS dead?
by TemporalBeing on Tue 5th Apr 2011 15:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: XPS dead?"
TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

"So no matter how good OpenOffice may ever be, MS will still dump money into Office - even if they have entirely lost the market. That's just how MS operates.


So? MS keeps dumping money into IE and yet Firefox is as popular as ever. Competition has been good for both.

If OpenOffice was close to Office 2007 in quality and functionality then MS would be in serious trouble. MS could dump 5 billion into Office but it wouldn't matter since most people would go with free and good enough.
"

MS Office 2007 is a joke. They leveled the playing field for their customers to move to other Office Suites - transition costs (software, training, etc.) were actually lower to go to OpenOffice simply due to the retraining required for Office 2003 to Office 2007; let alone moving to other commercial products such as IBM Symphony, Sun/Oracle StarOffice, etc where at worst it was the same cost.

No, Office 2007 is not polish; and no better quality than any other Office Suite other there - including OpenOffice.

OpenOffice's primary issue is speed, primarily due to a poor internal architecture, reliance on Java, etc. They fix that, and OpenOffice will be far better performing.

Lets not forget OpenOffice - and all the derivatives by extension - have better MS Office Document compatibility than MS Office does (e.g. Office 6 vs. 97 vs 2002 vs 2003 vs 2007), better interoperability (e.g. OOXML vs. doc vs ODF vs. WordPerfect vs. etc), etc.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: XPS dead?
by nt_jerkface on Tue 5th Apr 2011 16:20 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: XPS dead?"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

MS Office 2007 is a joke. They leveled the playing field for their customers to move to other Office Suites - transition costs (software, training, etc.) were actually lower to go to OpenOffice simply due to the retraining required for Office 2003 to Office 2007;


A joke that every business pays for, eh? OpenOffice is not a functional equivalent to even Office 2003. Put someone who uses Excel all day in front of it and they will give you a long list of complaints. I've seen this first hand.

OpenOffice's primary issue is speed, primarily due to a poor internal architecture, reliance on Java, etc. They fix that, and OpenOffice will be far better performing.


Java is not actually required to run OpenOffice.
http://download.openoffice.org/common/java.html

Your view of OpenOffice and Office is superficial and based on light use.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: XPS dead?
by TemporalBeing on Tue 5th Apr 2011 16:41 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: XPS dead?"
TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

"MS Office 2007 is a joke. They leveled the playing field for their customers to move to other Office Suites - transition costs (software, training, etc.) were actually lower to go to OpenOffice simply due to the retraining required for Office 2003 to Office 2007;


A joke that every business pays for, eh?
"

Most pay for it because they - or rather the corporate management - knows no better, buys into the sales from Microsoft, and don't realize that there are actual alternatives on the market - alternatives that may well meet their needs better.

OpenOffice is not a functional equivalent to even Office 2003. Put someone who uses Excel all day in front of it and they will give you a long list of complaints. I've seen this first hand.


I have.

Yes, there are many complaints about little things. But far fewer complaints than those same people moving to Office 2007.

A lot of those complaints can be quelled with a little education and instruction on OpenOffice.


"OpenOffice's primary issue is speed, primarily due to a poor internal architecture, reliance on Java, etc. They fix that, and OpenOffice will be far better performing.


Java is not actually required to run OpenOffice.
http://download.openoffice.org/common/java.html
"

Actually it is. Yes, it is suppose to be only optional. But try running OpenOffice without Java installed. Major components are no longer available. Work is underway to remove a lot of that dependency, but it'll still be a while until then.

Most don't realize it - since they already have Java installed for other things.

Your view of OpenOffice and Office is superficial and based on light use.


No, I am quite a heavy user of OpenOffice; and have helped a number convert. It's not for everyone - but neither is MS Office.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: XPS dead?
by nt_jerkface on Tue 5th Apr 2011 17:05 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: XPS dead?"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Actually it is. Yes, it is suppose to be only optional. But try running OpenOffice without Java installed.


Ok hold on, I already have it installed.

(launches OpenOffice)

Hey look at that, works just fine. Maybe you didn't read that page I provided:
but other programs (like Writer, Calc and Impress) only need Java for special functionality.

http://download.openoffice.org/common/java.html

Special functionality, not major components.

OpenOffice is C++ code, Java functionality was added later by Sun to boost the Java install base.

Do you just assume that everyone else fakes their knowledge as much as you do?

I've been following the development of OpenOffice for years. I even did a blog post a while back on how Sun was underfunding the project. Meanwhile MS has always had a massive team on Office because it is a cash cow for them. Like it or not that level of funding has translated into real world gains.

Blaming stoopid head CTOs for the lack of OO adoption doesn't make sense when many of those same companies are running LAMP stacks and Firefox. Just because something is free does not mean that it provides economic gains.

Reply Score: 2

RE: XPS dead?
by Lennie on Tue 5th Apr 2011 09:11 UTC in reply to "XPS dead?"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I thought Silverlight was pretty much pronounced dead by Microsoft for anything desktop-like other than DRM-audio/video:

http://www.osnews.com/story/23966/Microsoft_Changes_Silverlight_Str...

http://www.osnews.com/story/23992/Silverlight_HTML5_and_Microsoft_s...

Or that is only true for the web ?

Edited 2011-04-05 09:23 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: XPS dead?
by vivainio on Tue 5th Apr 2011 09:32 UTC in reply to "RE: XPS dead?"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26



The article says:

"It seems like the pieces of the puzzle are all falling into place: Windows NT everywhere, Silverlight/.Net everywhere."

Microsoft is definitely forcing silverlight / wpf / xaml on you during windows 8 cycle.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: XPS dead?
by Lennie on Tue 5th Apr 2011 10:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: XPS dead?"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I thought I had read into the article, Silverlight only for the tablet devices. But later on I changed by comment as you can see, but you posted while I was editing it I guess.

Maybe I was just confused.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: XPS dead?
by nt_jerkface on Tue 5th Apr 2011 15:55 UTC in reply to "RE: XPS dead?"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Silverlight was never pushed for desktop use. It was designed as a richer alternative to Flash.

Don't spend too much time reading Peter Bright articles since he doesn't know half of what he pretends to. He did some Win32 programming years ago and for some reason he feels that qualifies him to write about .NET and other technologies that he doesn't have experience with.

Silverlight has had the same problem as HTML5 which is a smaller install base when compared to Flash. Corporations have found Silverlight useful for intranet/LOB applications but it hasn't taken off in the consumer sphere.

Reply Score: 2

RE: XPS dead?
by kaiwai on Tue 5th Apr 2011 10:56 UTC in reply to "XPS dead?"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

But XPS was more than just a "PDF Alternative" given that the scope was to be a language that was universal for all printers as to replace the current crop of GDI based printers (aka Winprinters) and without the royalty hassles associated with Postscript. The problem with it is that Microsoft never went about transforming it from a Windows/Microsoft only technology into something present on Mac and Windows so as a consequence even though it was open it was only implemented on one platform

As for the Office OpenXML, it all came back to Microsoft hell bent on having round trip perfect conversion when what they should have done was create was a one way conversion with plugins for Office 2003 when Office 2007 was first released. A simple XML format was ultimately bloated into epic proportions because of this hell bent fetish of backwards compatibility at all costs resulting in a bloated specification that even Microsoft struggles to conform to.

As for Silverlight, it is about the only shining star in the whole fiasco; its a great alternative to Adobe Air which will hopefully pay dividends when it comes to development on Windows Phone 8 and Windows 8.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: XPS dead?
by TemporalBeing on Tue 5th Apr 2011 15:18 UTC in reply to "RE: XPS dead?"
TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

But XPS was more than just a "PDF Alternative" given that the scope was to be a language that was universal for all printers as to replace the current crop of GDI based printers (aka Winprinters) and without the royalty hassles associated with Postscript. The problem with it is that Microsoft never went about transforming it from a Windows/Microsoft only technology into something present on Mac and Windows so as a consequence even though it was open it was only implemented on one platform


Many printers interop directly with PDFs too, especially when you get into the commercial grade, print-shop level printers, or systems like what is used by various publishing houses. Microsoft was trying to displace PDF at that level; but they like PDF too much and for good reason - it was specifically designed for them.

And since when has Microsoft ever made anything they did operate on more than just the Windows platform? Even MS Office for Mac is dramatically different than any other version of MS Office, including file format support.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: XPS dead?
by kaiwai on Tue 5th Apr 2011 15:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: XPS dead?"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Many printers interop directly with PDFs too, especially when you get into the commercial grade, print-shop level printers, or systems like what is used by various publishing houses. Microsoft was trying to displace PDF at that level; but they like PDF too much and for good reason - it was specifically designed for them.

And since when has Microsoft ever made anything they did operate on more than just the Windows platform? Even MS Office for Mac is dramatically different than any other version of MS Office, including file format support.


If Microsoft provided an integrated free download for Mac OS X it would be interesting how the situation might have changed, especially for printer vendors wishing to reduce the amount they have to pay per unit back to Adobe for any patented technology used. From what I understand Apple gets around some of the patented parts of PDF by simply not supporting some of the more esoteric features of the PDF specification.

The lack of focus has always been Microsoft's greatest downfall.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: XPS dead?
by TemporalBeing on Tue 5th Apr 2011 15:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: XPS dead?"
TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

If Microsoft provided an integrated free download for Mac OS X it would be interesting how the situation might have changed, especially for printer vendors wishing to reduce the amount they have to pay per unit back to Adobe for any patented technology used. From what I understand Apple gets around some of the patented parts of PDF by simply not supporting some of the more esoteric features of the PDF specification.


That wouldn't have made one bit of difference as the major print houses do not use Windows or Mac to run the printers. They printers run customized software that is able to read PostScript and PDF files, as well as some other customize file formats specific to the typesetting industry.

Mac and Windows only affect the article writers, who ultimately have to give it to their editors and the publishing departments.

The lack of focus has always been Microsoft's greatest downfall.


A lack of focus has only been an issue since Gates stepped aside. Even then, the focus has always been on crushing competition through software that is "good enough and no better than necessary" - which yields the bug ridden, virus ridden, under-performant, bloated software that is Windows and Office that we have today.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: XPS dead?
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 5th Apr 2011 16:06 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: XPS dead?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

which yields the bug ridden, virus ridden, under-performant, bloated software that is Windows and Office that we have today.


Get out more. This in no way describes Windows 7 and Office 2010.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: XPS dead?
by TemporalBeing on Tue 5th Apr 2011 16:36 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: XPS dead?"
TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

"which yields the bug ridden, virus ridden, under-performant, bloated software that is Windows and Office that we have today.


Get out more. This in no way describes Windows 7 and Office 2010.
"

Win7 has come a long way - but it is still very bug ridden, under performant, and laden with viruses. The Win32 API by design is security flawed.

Office 2010 is not that much different from Office 2007.

Now compare to the competition - both are poor performing, and very problematic.

Or haven't you been paying attention to the industry news? Even OS news posts about viruses in Win7.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: XPS dead?
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 5th Apr 2011 17:00 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: XPS dead?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Win7 has come a long way - but it is still very bug ridden


Proof?

under performant


Proof?

and laden with viruses


Ah, so you're trolling. You do realise that there hasn't been any major outbreak of ANYTHING since the release of Vista, right? We're obviously talking up-to-date installs, here.

Reply Score: 1

RE: XPS dead?
by modmans2ndcoming on Wed 6th Apr 2011 00:50 UTC in reply to "XPS dead?"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

decrapify?

because no one else uses the office 2000 UI for a office productivity applications?

Reply Score: 2

.
by Icaria on Tue 5th Apr 2011 03:38 UTC
Icaria
Member since:
2010-06-19

So before the 'Aero' transition is complete, MS have already gotten bored and moved on to something new. Oy vey.

Reply Score: 1

RE: .
by Spiron on Tue 5th Apr 2011 04:17 UTC in reply to "."
Spiron Member since:
2011-03-08

Aero is NOT going away, it was always just an interface designed for desktop computing. We've already seen how desktop interfaces fail on tablets so they have designed a new interface for tablets that can be enabled. this is so that they only have to work and two different OS's and not three.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: .
by Icaria on Tue 5th Apr 2011 11:52 UTC in reply to "RE: ."
Icaria Member since:
2010-06-19

Right, there's no way, no how that Metro is going to leak into the Windows desktop. It'll be like the clearly partitioned iOS and OSX UIs... oh wait.

And I never said the Aero HIG is going away. It'll no doubt linger in bits and pieces, in more sparsely updated apps, for a decade or so to come, like the half-dozen toolkits and fashions that preceded Vista do now.

this is so that they only have to work and two different OS's and not three.
I have no idea what this means. What different OSes? This article is about MS' work on multiple shells and UI paradigms on a single NT foundation, across multiple architectures.

Reply Score: 0

Silverlight/XNA vs Native Code
by RichterKuato on Tue 5th Apr 2011 04:22 UTC
RichterKuato
Member since:
2010-05-14

As cool as it sounds for Microsoft to be embracing multiple architectures and being free of x86 and all. It seems far fetched to think that Microsoft will get everyone to abandon native code and move to their AppX Application Model. I doubt MS would take such a risk either.

If I'm wrong then cool. It just doesn't sound likely to me.

Reply Score: 2

j.dalrymple Member since:
2011-03-29

AppX will just be one way (among many) to deliver applications. MS takes backwards-compatibility too seriously to abandon native code.

Reply Score: 1

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

AppX will just be one way (among many) to deliver applications. MS takes backwards-compatibility too seriously to abandon native code.

Yeah, like with WP7 ;)

Reply Score: 2

dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

I don't believe they are abandonnig WM6 api completely, just too much code for that already exists in various enerprises that depend on palmtops/handsets that are nearing their life time.
They just must to have something for those customers. That doesn't necesairly mean this would reach general public.

Reply Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Very true, it would cost billions to move all the existing x86 code to something else. A lot of it is black box code that was written years ago by companies that no longer exist.

MS at least has to provide some type of VM solution for legacy code. But then you can have integration issues and you risk companies staying frozen instead of upgrading.

But I don't consider x86 to be a problem in itself. Both x86 and ARM have their costs and benefits. Windows can exist on both x86 and ARM, they don't have to move away from x86 for the sake of it.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Silverlight/XNA vs Native Code
by Spiron on Tue 5th Apr 2011 06:02 UTC in reply to "Silverlight/XNA vs Native Code"
Spiron Member since:
2011-03-08

From what I've heard on AppX it just seems like writing an aplication to GTK or KDE or iOS, not just an inefective platform like Silverlight was.

Reply Score: 1

moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

AppX seems just to be a package description format, not anything with the way code gets generated:

http://www.istartedsomething.com/20110405/first-look-at-the-future-...

Reply Score: 3

RichterKuato Member since:
2010-05-14

You're right, and it sounds like it'll still support Win32. I guess when I heard that it was supposed to be like Window Phone 7 application packages I interpreted it to mean like the Windows Phone Application Platform.

Reply Score: 1

Meh
by eml.nu on Tue 5th Apr 2011 10:07 UTC
eml.nu
Member since:
2006-07-04

I hope the PDF reader is up to par with Apple's preview. Man I love that app. Looking forward to Windows 8's release, it'll be interesting for sure.

Reply Score: 1

Monopoly
by Glynser on Tue 5th Apr 2011 14:12 UTC
Glynser
Member since:
2007-11-29

In Windows 9 they'll have to add a PDF Reader Ballot Screen

Reply Score: 3

RE: Monopoly
by nej_simon on Tue 5th Apr 2011 15:13 UTC in reply to "Monopoly"
nej_simon Member since:
2011-02-11

In Windows 9 they'll have to add a PDF Reader Ballot Screen


I know you're probably joking but in fact Adobe didn't want Microsoft to include support for PDF a while back due to Microsoft's embrace-extend-extinguish-strategy.

So that could have been true if things had turned out differently. ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Monopoly
by Glynser on Wed 6th Apr 2011 13:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Monopoly"
Glynser Member since:
2007-11-29

Well I'd say I was semi-joking ;)
Of course it's kinda funny, but honestly, I'd really expect something like that to happen, because it's indeed a threat to Adobe.

On the other hand, I never really understood why they were forced to insert a browser ballot screen. They should be allowed to ship whatever they want, why should they be forced to offer third party browsers at all? I'm an Opera user and I hate IE, but for me it's perfectly fine if they only ship IE with Windows. Even without a ballot screen, Mozilla managed to gain 25% or so marketshare...

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Monopoly
by lemur2 on Thu 7th Apr 2011 02:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Monopoly"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Well I'd say I was semi-joking ;) Of course it's kinda funny, but honestly, I'd really expect something like that to happen, because it's indeed a threat to Adobe. On the other hand, I never really understood why they were forced to insert a browser ballot screen. They should be allowed to ship whatever they want, why should they be forced to offer third party browsers at all? I'm an Opera user and I hate IE, but for me it's perfectly fine if they only ship IE with Windows. Even without a ballot screen, Mozilla managed to gain 25% or so marketshare...


It is becase Microsoft were deemed to have an effective monopoly on the desktop operating system, and because Microsoft insist that the browser is an inseperable part of the operating system when clearly it isn't, and finally because Microsoft insist on extending their browser (which is meant to interface to the public-access web) with proprietary, Windows-only extensions such as ActiveX.

Those factors combined had the potential to turn the public-access web into the Windows-only web. That is unacceptable.

IMO opinion the better solution would have been to force Microsoft to make IE compliant with open standards web technologies and to remove extended Windows-only functionality. No matter then if IE was embedded into the OS or not, as Microsoft chose. Instead Microsoft suggested, and the EU fell for, the browser ballot.

Meh. IMO it isn't going to matter in the long run. Because of firefox mainly and more lately mobiles, tablets and handhelds, Windows-only websites are becoming very rare. The prospect of a Windows-only proprietary web is much lower now than it used to be.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Monopoly
by Glynser on Thu 7th Apr 2011 15:37 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Monopoly"
Glynser Member since:
2007-11-29

Okay, I think now I actually understand the issue ;) thanks for clearing that up for me

Reply Score: 1

AppX and WiX
by TemporalBeing on Tue 5th Apr 2011 15:21 UTC
TemporalBeing
Member since:
2007-08-22

Seriously though, from the example AppX test in the article it reminders me of WiX (wix.sf.net - Microsoft's GNU GPL project!)- Windows Installer XML - in the XML form. Wonder how closely they are related; at the very least WiX would be AppX's predecessor, if not the technology itself.

That said, WiX has been used by Microsoft internally for a long time, even on some major projects to what I understand. It compiles to MSI files; though you could just as easily use it in straight XML if the engine supported it.

Reply Score: 2

Enough is enough...
by tuzor on Tue 5th Apr 2011 20:41 UTC
tuzor
Member since:
2007-08-07

Enough with the trolling already.
How can anyone have anything negative to say about Windows 7?
Virus? Wth, if you're running anti-virus or spyware you're a fool, there's no need for it at all.

What's next? Are you going to come out and tell us that Windows phone 7 is crap? Get real, seriously.

Reply Score: 1