I'm not aware of a product available for Windows that lets you print from applications to a PDF creator like Acrobat does. I know OpenOffice.org makes PDFs, but that's not the same thing.
If I've just missed an available product, by all means link me - it'll be handy.
You're an advanced user, though. A $50 version that lets you just print to Distiller to create simple PDFs would be quite nice for a large number of users.
Which was precisely the poster's point, I believe - for $500, Acrobat doesn't really do much. Hell, the most widely used part of the app comes as a standard ability of Mac OSX these days - print to PDF.
We aren't talking about Google. We are talking about Google Maps. Big difference.
I'd be very surprised if Google Maps hadn't had hundreds of thousands of users ranging from nerds with Firefox to the elderly.
I know this to be the case, because if I don't allow backward compatibility, I get a lot of complaints!
A site with AJAX can be constructed in a manner that is backwards compatible, too. The AJAX helpers in Ruby on Rails, for example, make it straightforward.
Even if you only reject say 5% of users, you are putting off a large number of potential customers.
Depends on how much advantage you can give to the other 95% of users.
Take Gmail, for example. Most everyone I've talked to about it vastly prefers it over the old, static Hotmail / Yahoo! Mail / etc. Faster, easier to use, better features for 95% of browsers trumps the 5% who can't use it (or need the standard HTML version) handily.
But if you are writing a website that has to support hundreds of thousands of users and your customer base ranges from young nerds with the latest Firefox to late-middle aged
And Google doesn't qualify for that market... how, exactly?
This is why I responded in the negative to the statement that AJAX is OK for 90% of users. It isn't. Really.
While browser stats are a bit of voodoo science, TheCounter.com publishes theirs (and their counters are used on a hell of a lot of sites, so it should be a pretty good representative sample).
Now, while I agree with you on the Slashdot schizophrenia re: GPL violations vs. IP violations, this bit is just plain silly:
"The RIAA is evil because the websites tell me so, so I'm going to ensure that System of a Down doesn't get paid today, which somehow is good for System of a Down!"
That's not the argument. The argument is that file sharing of copyrighted works improves sales of good products. My own anecdotal evidence would be that I'd never have found my favorite music group if I hadn't been sent an MP3 by a friend on the 'Net.
Would you rather hit "next" a possible 100 times to find a certain song you want to listen to, or just navigate to it real quick on the LCD? What if you want a couple different playlists? Only want to hear a certain artist?
Just go buy an iPod nano, then. It's nearly the same size.
The proper way to handle critique is to not respond anything, ignore the rubbish and improve on the real issues, then silently let the results speak for themselves.
Hey, are you the former campaign advisor for the Democratic Party, by any chance?
Would that be why they have this on their corp site?
A Trademark must be Protected A trademark must be able to distinguish the goods of one company from those of another. If a trademark loses this ability, the owner may find that it can no longer prevent others from using the trademark. An owner must prevent the improper use of its trademarks to prevent the public from being deceived. This is why the LEGO Group is very active around the world in making sure that its trademarks are not misused.
Until mac folk get together and make OO or some other derivative work natively with no X11 involvment, macs are going to be at a greater disadvantage than they are with MSFT products.
Like, oh, I dunno... switching to Intel processors?:-p
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not aware of a product available for Windows that lets you print from applications to a PDF creator like Acrobat does. I know OpenOffice.org makes PDFs, but that's not the same thing.
If I've just missed an available product, by all means link me - it'll be handy.
You're an advanced user, though. A $50 version that lets you just print to Distiller to create simple PDFs would be quite nice for a large number of users.
Which was precisely the poster's point, I believe - for $500, Acrobat doesn't really do much. Hell, the most widely used part of the app comes as a standard ability of Mac OSX these days - print to PDF.
We aren't talking about Google. We are talking about Google Maps. Big difference.
I'd be very surprised if Google Maps hadn't had hundreds of thousands of users ranging from nerds with Firefox to the elderly.
I know this to be the case, because if I don't allow backward compatibility, I get a lot of complaints!
A site with AJAX can be constructed in a manner that is backwards compatible, too. The AJAX helpers in Ruby on Rails, for example, make it straightforward.
Even if you only reject say 5% of users, you are putting off a large number of potential customers.
Depends on how much advantage you can give to the other 95% of users.
Take Gmail, for example. Most everyone I've talked to about it vastly prefers it over the old, static Hotmail / Yahoo! Mail / etc. Faster, easier to use, better features for 95% of browsers trumps the 5% who can't use it (or need the standard HTML version) handily.
But if you are writing a website that has to support hundreds of thousands of users and your customer base ranges from young nerds with the latest Firefox to late-middle aged
. php
And Google doesn't qualify for that market... how, exactly?
This is why I responded in the negative to the statement that AJAX is OK for 90% of users. It isn't. Really.
While browser stats are a bit of voodoo science, TheCounter.com publishes theirs (and their counters are used on a hell of a lot of sites, so it should be a pretty good representative sample).
http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2005/July/browser
From that, AJAX is supported by 90-95% of their visitors. If you have stats that say otherwise, by all means present them.
However, anyone who uses it for essential stuff on sites where you can't guarantee the browser type is going to make a lot of users very annoyed.
Essentially, if Google, 37signals, etc. are fine with requiring a modern browser, so am I.
You can't assume browsers have turned on JavaScript either
It's a safer assumption.
"AJAX takes off because it can reach over 90% of users, and especially the mainstream ones."
It doesn't. It reaches only the users with browsers which support the latest JavaScript.
Which probably is somewhere near, oh, 90% of users.
He says he wants to own the IP, not make it OSS.
Now, while I agree with you on the Slashdot schizophrenia re: GPL violations vs. IP violations, this bit is just plain silly:
"The RIAA is evil because the websites tell me so, so I'm going to ensure that System of a Down doesn't get paid today, which somehow is good for System of a Down!"
That's not the argument. The argument is that file sharing of copyrighted works improves sales of good products. My own anecdotal evidence would be that I'd never have found my favorite music group if I hadn't been sent an MP3 by a friend on the 'Net.
Only Apple lovers accept that the screen is unneccesary. Everyone else seems to be able to fit one in at the same or lower price.
Yet the Shuffle wound up with over 50% market share in a few months.
I doubt Apple is teary-eyed over their sales...
Would you rather hit "next" a possible 100 times to find a certain song you want to listen to, or just navigate to it real quick on the LCD? What if you want a couple different playlists? Only want to hear a certain artist?
Just go buy an iPod nano, then. It's nearly the same size.
Set up antiaircraft batteries, then, and have a no-fly zone around the tower.
And, uh, how do you plan on getting said minielevator to stay geosynchronous at LEO without falling out of the sky?
Dunno how long the longest individual tube is, but they've certainly made long sheets.
The proper way to handle critique is to not respond anything, ignore the rubbish and improve on the real issues, then silently let the results speak for themselves.
Hey, are you the former campaign advisor for the Democratic Party, by any chance?
Would that be why they have this on their corp site?
A Trademark must be Protected
A trademark must be able to distinguish the goods of one company from those of another. If a trademark loses this ability, the owner may find that it can no longer prevent others from using the trademark. An owner must prevent the improper use of its trademarks to prevent the public from being deceived. This is why the LEGO Group is very active around the world in making sure that its trademarks are not misused.
Very true - aren't back problems increasing dramatically amongst K-12 kids?
why do we even need e-books?
Because on one device, you could carry all your books, instead of lugging hundreds of pounds around with you.
Very useful for those of us with huge college textbooks, for example.
There's one thing they won't let you do, though - call them LEGOs.
http://www.legos.com/
Psst... that's what the family five packs are for. $199.
Well, obviously, there'll be one sub-variant for each.
I'm just pointing out that communication pre-lawsuit shouldn't by default be construed as being in good faith. There are other possible motives.
I'll wager that 15 months of communication was along the lines of "we'd sue, but we'll take a cash settlement instead..."
I mean, SCO communicated prior to suing, too, but that doesn't mean they were acting in good faith.
Office runs on Macs. Can't run on Linux natively, but certainly does on Mac.
Until mac folk get together and make OO or some other derivative work natively with no X11 involvment, macs are going to be at a greater disadvantage than they are with MSFT products.
:-p
Like, oh, I dunno... switching to Intel processors?