Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Adam J)
Subject: Shadowrun State of the Union
Date: Tue May 8 03:15:01 2001
Hey folks,

There's a "State of the Union" post from Rob on Dumpshock, and one from me
regarding the English SR pages at FanPro. They're probably worth checking
out, assuming you care about Shadowrun :-)

Rob's Post: http://forums.dumpshock.com//Forum1/HTML/002039.html

My Post: http://forums.dumpshock.com//Forum1/HTML/002040.html

Best,
Adam
--
< http://tss.dumpshock.com : http://www.jillted.org >
< adamj@*********.com | ICQ# 2350330 | TSS Productions >
Message no. 2
From: shadowrn@*********.com (aaron chappell)
Subject: Shadowrun State of the Union
Date: Tue May 8 10:00:02 2001
Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaasssssssseeeee
any files that u put on the net please don't put them
on as souly PDF Post em as some kinda word doc or text
doc as well?




Gwylly, Anxiously Squirming

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
Message no. 3
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Adam J)
Subject: Shadowrun State of the Union
Date: Tue May 8 10:10:04 2001
At 08:02 08/05/2001, aaron chappell wrote:
>Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaasssssssseeeee
>any files that u put on the net please don't put them
>on as souly PDF Post em as some kinda word doc or text
>doc as well?

This hasn't been discussed much between Rob and I yet. Most of the site
will be standard HTML, but there will be some downloads that are PDF format
only, most likely (Character sheets, for example, don't translate to HTML
well - there are plenty of unofficial character sheets online...)

I'm curious as to why you're opposed to PDF, though?

(Feel free to answer privately.)

Best,
Adam
Message no. 4
From: shadowrn@*********.com (BD)
Subject: Shadowrun State of the Union
Date: Tue May 8 13:25:01 2001
> There's a "State of the Union" post from Rob on Dumpshock, and one from
> me
> regarding the English SR pages at FanPro. They're probably worth checking
> out, assuming you care about Shadowrun :-)

Neat news, Adam. Hope you have fun with that! On the down side, since
we've now proven that repeated bitching works, you and Rob will probably
have to deal with more of it. Perhaps organized bitching campaigns...
Bitch-titions? ;)

====-Boondocker

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
Message no. 5
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Shadowrun State of the Union
Date: Tue May 8 13:25:04 2001
According to aaron chappell, on Tue, 08 May 2001 the word on the street was...

> Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaasssssssseeeee
> any files that u put on the net please don't put them
> on as souly PDF Post em as some kinda word doc or text
> doc as well?

Erm... why? PDF is much better for distribution than word processor
formats, for the simple reason that it's supported on a lot more platforms
(and will still be readable in 10 years' time due to the specifications
being published, while the then-latest version of MS Word will probably not
read the files of today's version). If you can't use PDFs on your computer,
just go to http://www.adobe.com/acrobat and download the free Acrobat
Reader.

IMHO, it's a matter of using the right tools for the job. You don't hammer
in nails with a saw, so why would you use a word processor to do page
layouts? (Don't answer that -- most people seem to think a word processor
is a good layout program, too...)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
If there are vegetarian hamburgers, why isn't there beef lettuce?
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL P L++ E W-(++) N o? K w+(--) O V?
PS+ PE(-)(+) Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++(-)>$ tv+ b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 6
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: Shadowrun State of the Union
Date: Tue May 8 14:05:02 2001
<Erm... why? PDF is much better for distribution than word processor
formats, for the simple reason that it's supported on a lot more platforms
(and will still be readable in 10 years' time due to the specifications
being published, while the then-latest version of MS Word will probably not
read the files of today's version). If you can't use PDFs on your computer,
just go to http://www.adobe.com/acrobat and download the free Acrobat
Reader.

IMHO, it's a matter of using the right tools for the job. You don't hammer
in nails with a saw, so why would you use a word processor to do page
layouts? (Don't answer that -- most people seem to think a word processor
is a good layout program, too...)>


While I will agree that PDF is much better, there are some who aren't comfortable with the
idea of downloading and installing programs on their computer without somebody there to
walk them through it. I know for years my brother wouldn't touch my computer without me
being there to answer questions for him and at the time he was working in the tech support
department at DeVry. Also, the newer Word programs read the older word documents...it's
the old Word programs that can't read the new documents.

But at the same time I can see what you're saying. I've tried using Word for that sort of
thing before and it just gave me a headache to end all headaches!


Just my .02¥
Message no. 7
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Augustus)
Subject: Shadowrun State of the Union
Date: Tue May 8 14:35:02 2001
----- Original Message -----
From: Gurth <Gurth@******.nl>
>Erm... why? PDF is much better for distribution than word processor
>formats, for the simple reason that it's supported on a lot more platforms
>(and will still be readable in 10 years' time due to the specifications
>being published, while the then-latest version of MS Word will probably not
>read the files of today's version). If you can't use PDFs on your computer,
>just go to http://www.adobe.com/acrobat and download the free Acrobat
>Reader.

Saying that 10 years from now .pdfs of today will work with acrobat and that
word documents probably won't isn't really a good argument... it could
really go either way.

Problems I see with going with .pdf files:
1) Its owned by adobe. You need an adobe product to read/use it.
2) Anybody can download the reader, but the editor is expensive... what if
you want to change something yourself in the document? Then you'd have to
download a file converter or shell out money for the editor.
3) The market seems to be leaning towards going with XML as the primary way
of handling text/data in the future (its multiplatform, multiapplication,
and microsoft will support it, as well as it being an open standard... not
owned by any one company), then nobody will be doing .pdf files anymore.
4) .pdf files are big.

Yeah, I know alot of you guys really like Adobe... but thats mainly becuz
its all you've been using over the years... any other word processor is just
as "easy to use" if its the only thing you've been using for the last 5+
years.

I think the best thing to do would be to have the files available in
multiple formats... being .pdf, .doc or .rtf and .txt. That'd cover
everybody and give people a choice in what they want... and it wouldn't be
that hard at all to convert between all the formats.

Augustus
Message no. 8
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Robert Blackberg)
Subject: Shadowrun State of the Union
Date: Tue May 8 14:55:01 2001
----- Original Message -----
From: "Augustus" <shadowrun@********.net>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gurth <Gurth@******.nl>
> >Erm... why? PDF is much better for distribution than word processor
> >formats, for the simple reason that it's supported on a lot more
platforms
> >(and will still be readable in 10 years' time due to the
specifications
> >being published, while the then-latest version of MS Word will
probably not
> >read the files of today's version). If you can't use PDFs on your
computer,
> >just go to http://www.adobe.com/acrobat and download the free
Acrobat
> >Reader.
>
> I think the best thing to do would be to have the files available in
> multiple formats... being .pdf, .doc or .rtf and .txt. That'd cover
> everybody and give people a choice in what they want... and it
wouldn't be
> that hard at all to convert between all the formats.

There are uses for all the formats you mention above when it comes to
publishing content online, but the true strength of .pdf files is
their ability to display the content exactly as the author intented.
If the .pdf file is generated the correct way, the reader will see the
exact same document that the creator intended without worrying about
font, page, or graphics issues.

When you are publishing an online magazine (like the Shadowrun
Supplemental), or when you are releasing a document that was
previously available in hardcopy (like, for instance, the old Street
Samuria Catalog), layout is of paramount importance.

Robert (no cool tagline, just a plain line___________________)
Message no. 9
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Adam J)
Subject: Shadowrun State of the Union
Date: Tue May 8 14:55:07 2001
At 12:38 08/05/2001, Augustus wrote:

>Problems I see with going with .pdf files:
>1) Its owned by adobe. You need an adobe product to read/use it.

The specifications are open. There are currently some free readers that can
read Acrobat files; were Adobe for some crazy reason to stop distributing
the reader product I'm quite sure that these products would be enhanced,
but as are they're useable.

>2) Anybody can download the reader, but the editor is expensive... what if
>you want to change something yourself in the document? Then you'd have to
>download a file converter or shell out money for the editor.

Items distributed in PDF (Especially the ones that would be from the FanPro
page, character sheets, equipment lists, etc) tend to be those that aren't
meant to be editable in the first place.

>3) The market seems to be leaning towards going with XML as the primary way
>of handling text/data in the future (its multiplatform, multiapplication,
>and microsoft will support it, as well as it being an open standard... not
>owned by any one company), then nobody will be doing .pdf files anymore.

XML data tends to be transformed into another format - most commonly HTML -
before being used. The advantage of XML is that you can use a single source
XML file to generate multiple output files - HTML, PDF, etc.

>4) .pdf files are big.

Not necessarily. A character sheet easily clocks in at under 200KB, and you
can do a 50 page document with a reasonable amount of art for only a
handful of megabytes.

Issues of The Shadowrun Supplemental that were more than 4 megabytes were
still downloaded as much as issues that were under a megabyte. When I
offered "lite" versions of the issues with the ShadeTrompers comic, less
than 20% of downloaders elected to download the smaller issue.

>Yeah, I know alot of you guys really like Adobe... but thats mainly becuz
>its all you've been using over the years... any other word processor is just
>as "easy to use" if its the only thing you've been using for the last 5+
>years.

Adobe doesn't produce any 'word processors', and the tool used to create
the file is really quite irrelevant, because we're talking about output
formats here.

>I think the best thing to do would be to have the files available in
>multiple formats... being .pdf, .doc or .rtf and .txt. That'd cover
>everybody and give people a choice in what they want... and it wouldn't be
>that hard at all to convert between all the formats.

This simply isn't practical, and while I haven't made any final decision
about file formats for the web page, I'm leaning towards the right tool for
the right job, with an aim at getting it into as many peoples hands as
possible. This means PDFs for documents that must retain their formatting
(Character sheets), HTML for documents that don't need as much formatting
(Adventures, book excerpts, etc), and I'm undecided as to what format to
use for lengthy documents with lots of tables (equipment lists) - I would
hope to present them in multiple formats, but Rob and I are still
discussing that.

I would certainly like, in the future, to have as much data as possible
converted to XML so we can do "nifty stuff" with it, but my priority right
now is getting a working page online for the english line to a) market and
promote the upcoming books and b) give people some of the things they've
been asking for several years now. Building a bells and whistles 32
flavours and then some site is not in the cards yet.

Best,
Adam
--
< http://tss.dumpshock.com : http://www.jillted.org >
< adamj@*********.com | ICQ# 2350330 | TSS Productions >
Message no. 10
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lester Ward)
Subject: Shadowrun State of the Union
Date: Tue May 8 15:00:01 2001
> 1) Its owned by adobe. You need an adobe product to read/use it.

No. You don't. Gurth's point was that the PDF format is very well
documented, which means that anyone can write (and has written) software to
read and write PDF files. There are several non-Adobe acrobat readers on the
market right now.

Adobe also offers an API for even easier access to PDF. It's safe to say
that Microsoft will never do this for Word, or even RTF.

> 2) Anybody can download the reader, but the editor is expensive... what if
> you want to change something yourself in the document? Then you'd have to
> download a file converter or shell out money for the editor.

While this is a drawback for the user, this is perceived as a benefit by
some authors.

I also feel obligated to point out that your are also obligated to "shell
out money for the editor" when using Word, and it is priced about the same
as the full version of acrobat. It sounds to me like your complaint is
closer to "I can't pirate Acrobat as easily as I can pirate Word".

> 3) The market seems to be leaning towards going with XML as the
> primary way
> of handling text/data in the future (its multiplatform, multiapplication,
> and microsoft will support it, as well as it being an open standard... not
> owned by any one company), then nobody will be doing .pdf files anymore.

Uh... no. XML is a data standard, not a formatting standard. It is just as
likely that PDF would adapt to use XML as it is that PDF will vanish (which
is to say, neither option is likely at all).

Also, "being owned by any one company" is not exactly the opposite of "open
standard". In the case of PDF (or, say, QuickTime), the standard is
"closed"
in the sense that only the owner can alter it, but "open" in the sense that
everyone can .use. it. This is not the case with, say, the Word format,
which is not documented, or the RTF format, which is incompletely (and, in
some cases, incorrectly) documented.

> 4) .pdf files are big.

PDF files are usually smaller than equally formatted Word documents. Word
files do compress a lot better, a testament to their inefficiency.

Also, I (for one) don't like PDF because "its all I've been using over the
years". I started using RTF, Word and so on and guess what? I hated it. This
is because I use a Mac most of the time, and Microsoft does not support even
their own formats (.doc and .rtf) equally on different platforms. There are
many RTF tags, for example, that only work with Win32 versions of Word. As I
used Macs to .produce. things as well, it became very difficult to
distribute my work because almost no one could reproduce my work exactly the
way I intended it, even when using .rtf. Acrobat solved this problem.

Wordman
Message no. 11
From: shadowrn@*********.com (John Pederson)
Subject: Shadowrun State of the Union
Date: Tue May 8 15:15:01 2001
Lester Ward wrote:

> I also feel obligated to point out that your are also obligated to "shell
> out money for the editor" when using Word, and it is priced about the same
> as the full version of acrobat. It sounds to me like your complaint is
> closer to "I can't pirate Acrobat as easily as I can pirate Word".

Actually, Ghostscript provides a utility which converts postscript files
to PDF. Ghostscript is currently available for free, with a few provisos
regarding use and distribution. Info to be found at www.ghostscript.com

--
John Pederson
Message no. 12
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Peter Kristiansen)
Subject: Shadowrun State of the Union
Date: Tue May 8 15:15:04 2001
From: "Lester Ward" <lward@**********.com>

> > 1) Its owned by adobe. You need an adobe product to read/use it.
>
> No. You don't. Gurth's point was that the PDF format is very well
> documented, which means that anyone can write (and has written)
software to
> read and write PDF files. There are several non-Adobe acrobat
readers on the
> market right now.
>
> Adobe also offers an API for even easier access to PDF. It's safe to
say
> that Microsoft will never do this for Word, or even RTF.

Heck, if you _r_e_a_l_l_y_ feel up to it you can create PDF files via
the web by using PHP (uuh... nice TLA's lots of p's :-)

Peter..
Message no. 13
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: Shadowrun State of the Union
Date: Tue May 8 15:15:10 2001
<I also feel obligated to point out that your are also obligated to "shell
out money for the editor" when using Word, and it is priced about the same
as the full version of acrobat. It sounds to me like your complaint is
closer to "I can't pirate Acrobat as easily as I can pirate Word".>

Some computers, mine included, come with Word already installed as part of the package.
Most of the people I know already have Word and have for some time. I think the objection
is to having to purchase Adobe when you already have Word and don't have the money to be
shelling out for another editor.

Just my .02¥
Message no. 14
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Travis K. Heldibridle)
Subject: Shadowrun State of the Union
Date: Tue May 8 15:30:00 2001
<I also feel obligated to point out that your are also obligated to "shell
out money for the editor" when using Word, and it is priced about the same
as the full version of acrobat. It sounds to me like your complaint is
closer to "I can't pirate Acrobat as easily as I can pirate Word".>

< Some computers, mine included, come with Word already installed as part of
the package. Most of the people I know already have Word and have for some
time. I think the objection is to having to purchase Adobe when you already
have Word and don't have the money to be shelling out for another editor.>


I understand that argument... but what about when OfficeXP hits the stores
in a few months? Your copy of word won't necessarily be able to open/read
files created with that version of Word. So you will either have to shell
out that cash ANYHOW, or submit to downloading a WordXP reader from
Microsoft... that works exactly like Acrobat Reader, but for Word documents.
So if your either going to have to use a reader or pay for an editor either
way, it only makes sense that you use the format that is compatible with the
greater number of platforms, so that all users have the ability to view the
work.


My $0.02,
--Aristotle
Message no. 15
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Graht)
Subject: Shadowrun State of the Union
Date: Tue May 8 15:45:01 2001
At 03:20 PM 5/8/2001 -0400, Sinabian@***.com wrote:
><I also feel obligated to point out that your are also obligated to "shell
> out money for the editor" when using Word, and it is priced about the same
> as the full version of acrobat. It sounds to me like your complaint is
> closer to "I can't pirate Acrobat as easily as I can pirate Word".>
>
>Some computers, mine included, come with Word already installed as part of
>the package. Most of the people I know already have Word and have for some
>time.

On US computers that is usually the case, but not so in other
countries. And when people in other countries do have Word, it's a
slightly different version. Everyone, regardless of what country they live
in, has access to the same version of Acrobat Reader.

To Life,
-Graht
ShadowRN Gridsec, Nice Guy Division
--
Message no. 16
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Tal Meta)
Subject: Shadowrun State of the Union
Date: Tue May 8 16:25:01 2001
Sinabian@***.com wrote:
>
> Some computers, mine included, come with Word already installed as part of the
package. Most of the people I know already have Word and have for some time. I think the
objection is to having to purchase Adobe when you already have Word and don't have the
money to be shelling out for another editor.

Not that this has -anything- to do with Shadowrun, but as someone who
has a copy of Acrobat, I have to say that it isn't truly an 'editor' in
quite the way Word or it's cousins are. I have never, ever, loaded
Acrobat to do anything except "polish" a pdf file that I created with a
different program.

Mostly this amounts to adding bookmarks, etc. - I do the bulk of my
'work' in a plain old word processor (Lotus Word Pro, in my case...)

--
talmeta@*********.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine
ICQ - 12594453
AIM - talmeta
Homepage - <http://members.xoom.com/talmeta>;
Message no. 17
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Rat)
Subject: Shadowrun State of the Union
Date: Tue May 8 17:20:01 2001
AdamJ writes:


> Adobe doesn't produce any 'word processors', and the tool
> used to create the file is really quite irrelevant, because
> we're talking about output formats here.

Well...depending on what you want to call a "word processor,"
yes they do. Adobe has owned Framemaker for several years now.
Frame's not cheap, but it leaves Word in its dust with its
large-document capabilities and you can do a pretty decent
job of page layout with it.

This isn't really relevant to the discussion, of course--I'm
just correcting a small misconception. :)

Carry on!

--Rat

=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>
Rat - winterhawk@*********.net http://www.magespace.net
Winterhawk's Virtual Magespace - Shadowrun Fiction and More!
"If you are allergic to a thing, it is best not to put that
thing in your mouth, particularly if the thing is cats."
--Lemony Snicket
<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<
Message no. 18
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Sebastian Wiers)
Subject: Shadowrun State of the Union
Date: Tue May 8 19:20:02 2001
>>>Erm... why? PDF is much better for distribution than word processor
formats,

Notably annoying is that PDF's are not editable, at least not easily so for
many people. That makes USING the distributed information in any way
besides its distributed form rather difficult. For example, with a Word
file, I can download something and edit out the parts I don't want, then
print the rest in a tiny font. Saves paper, awsome for cheat sheets or
whatever. Not so with PDF- I'm stuck with whatever I've got. Having the
full version acrobat disteller isn't even much help- it seems almost totally
useless for making quick format changes.

-Mongoose
Message no. 19
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Travis K. Heldibridle)
Subject: Shadowrun State of the Union
Date: Tue May 8 19:45:01 2001
>>> Erm... why? PDF is much better for distribution than word
>>> processor formats

> Notably annoying is that PDF's are not editable, at least not easily
> so for many people.


I would think that to be the point. As someone who likes to edit stuff, I
totally understand what you are saying; but if the stuff is canon then why
should it be any easier to 'edit' then the books you buy in the store? I
think the concept of 'official' web published materials has sort of been
lost... If you want to edit/change things or create cheat sheets.. you can
always do them the same way you do the published hard copy books you own. I
personally could care less what form they come in, as long as they come.
*shrug*


Thanks,
--Aristotle
Message no. 20
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Augustus)
Subject: Shadowrun State of the Union
Date: Tue May 8 21:15:01 2001
----- Original Message -----
From: Travis K. Heldibridle <antithesis@**********.com>
>
> I would think that to be the point. As someone who likes to edit stuff, I
> totally understand what you are saying; but if the stuff is canon then why
> should it be any easier to 'edit' then the books you buy in the store?

I don't think anybody said this stuff would be canon (actually, as a passing
comment, Adam mentioned "character sheets" as the only possibility of what
could go up there, otherwise I think he was fishing for ideas in the
dumpshock forums).

Without knowing exactly what'd be up there, it'd be hard to say wether or
not I'd want to edit it, let alone even download it in the first place. I'm
not one who actually reads other peoples stuff, for the most part... simply
because I've found over the years that what works for somebody else doesn't
work in my games... even adventures, taking the official ones FASA produced,
most of them were far to simple or weak for my players.

If I think of things like gear/equipment/gun lists going up there (who
knows, could be a possibility) I don't think thats anything I'd want without
the power to edit/delete items... if its in PDF and I can't, I'm going to
end up having to find a way to do it myself (either get a PDF editor,
converter or retype everything in).

And I think that applies to alot of people... taking a look at whats out
there now on the net for people's own stuff, despite the fact that most of
those who write that stuff like to bash munchkins, most of its really
munchkin already... Unlike most of the people who frequent this list and
the forums, my PCs don't always take dikote weapons and the barret off the
start (actually mine never do) yet in reading here and there and the
discussions on IRC, you'd have to assume thats all people do (Hey, I can
still remember back in December when 3 of the regulars (and big name
regulars to boot) were flaming a newbie because he had this character idea
and wouldn't dikote his katana... Eventually it got to the point where they
were insulting the guy and telling him to shut up because he wouldn't dikote
his sword.

But either way, until this happens we can't really say if it'll be much
anyhow... If they are just going to do things like character sheets, cheat
sheets, equipment lists/tables, etc... stuff like that... then no, it won't
matter if we can edit it or not, since there won't be much point in editing
such items.

But, I'm personally assuming that it'll just be like dumpshock, except have
an "official" URL... if thats the case, then I'd want the power to edit.

Augustus
Message no. 21
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Shadowrun State of the Union
Date: Wed May 9 06:35:05 2001
According to Augustus, on Tue, 08 May 2001 the word on the street was...

> Problems I see with going with .pdf files:
> 1) Its owned by adobe. You need an adobe product to read/use it.

Nope. Most Postscript viewers can open PDF files as well. Ghostview, for
example. The thing is, the specifications are known so even a hundred years
from now you'll be able to write a viewer for it. Whereas word processor
formats are typically not published (that's why the latest version of a
word processor often doesn't support files made by the latest version of
the competitor -- they haven't reverse-engineered them yet).

> 2) Anybody can download the reader, but the editor is expensive... what if
> you want to change something yourself in the document? Then you'd have to
> download a file converter or shell out money for the editor.

True. However, PDFs are generally not intended to be edited by the user.
For those cases where that may be required, they can be "fitted" with text
boxes -- for example, a PDF character sheet could have editable text fields
in all the area where you would normally write stuff, so you can fill it
out before printing it.

As for converters for turning PDFs into something else, I've got a couple
that came with my OS. They're not large programs and are typically free-
or shareware...

> 3) The market seems to be leaning towards going with XML as the primary way
> of handling text/data in the future (its multiplatform, multiapplication,
> and microsoft will support it, as well as it being an open standard... not
> owned by any one company), then nobody will be doing .pdf files anymore.

Can you do page layout in XML? (I haven't looked into it, so I don't know.)
If not, then PDF still has a place.

> Yeah, I know alot of you guys really like Adobe... but thats mainly becuz
> its all you've been using over the years... any other word processor is just
> as "easy to use" if its the only thing you've been using for the last 5+
> years.

I like PDF because I can do fancy layout in it and have it appear on your
computer and printer exactly like it does on mine. Can't do that with HTML
or similar, because I don't know what's on your system. If I use a font
that you don't have on a web page or in a word processor doc, you'll see
it differently; if your screen resolution is larger or smaller than mine,
things will get moved around on a web page. With PDF, I can avoid all
that.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
If there are vegetarian hamburgers, why isn't there beef lettuce?
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL P L++ E W-(++) N o? K w+(--) O V?
PS+ PE(-)(+) Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++(-)>$ tv+ b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 22
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Shadowrun State of the Union
Date: Wed May 9 06:35:19 2001
According to Sinabian@***.com, on Tue, 08 May 2001 the word on the street
was...

> While I will agree that PDF is much better, there are some who aren't
> comfortable with the idea of downloading and installing programs on their
> computer without somebody there to walk them through it. I know for years
> my brother wouldn't touch my computer without me being there to answer
> questions for him and at the time he was working in the tech support
> department at DeVry.

Wouldn't the best cure for that be installing something and seeing that it
all goes well?

> Also, the newer Word programs read the older word documents...it's the
> old Word programs that can't read the new documents.

Try opening a Word 1.0 file, then... I have this feeling you won't find its
format in the drop-down list. Or better yet: how are you going to open an
AmiPro file? (That's one of the word processors that MS Word pushed out of
the market a couple of years ago.) There's a good chance that in ten years
time, files for Word 2000 (or whatever the current version is) will be
difficult to read.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
If there are vegetarian hamburgers, why isn't there beef lettuce?
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL P L++ E W-(++) N o? K w+(--) O V?
PS+ PE(-)(+) Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++(-)>$ tv+ b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 23
From: shadowrn@*********.com (MC23)
Subject: Shadowrun State of the Union
Date: Wed May 9 08:45:01 2001
Once Upon A Time Sinabian@***.com wrote,

>Some computers, mine included, come with Word already installed as part of
>the package. Most of the people I know already have Word and have for some
>time. I think the objection is to having to purchase Adobe when you
>already have Word and don't have the money to be shelling out for another
>editor.

I don't have Word nor do I have any use for it. And more and more
programs are starting to offer the option to save as .pdf. Acrobat Pro is
just for fine tuning and offering special pdf options to the documents.

-MC23, who is a Damn proud Mac owner-
Message no. 24
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: Shadowrun State of the Union
Date: Wed May 9 21:10:01 2001
On Wed, 9 May 2001 12:02:39 +0200 Gurth <Gurth@******.nl> writes:
> According to Sinabian@***.com, on Tue, 08 May 2001 the word on the
> street
> was...
<SNIP>
> Try opening a Word 1.0 file, then... I have this feeling you won't
> find its
> format in the drop-down list. Or better yet: how are you going to
> open an
> AmiPro file?

Heh. I'm pretty sure my Corel WP Suite supports those files ... ;) but
Corel isn't Microsoft. :)

--
D. Ghost
Profanity is the one language all programmers know best
- Troutman's 6th programming postulate.
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Message no. 25
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: Shadowrun State of the Union
Date: Wed May 9 21:10:05 2001
On Tue, 08 May 2001 15:20:13 EDT Sinabian@***.com writes:
<SNIP>
> Some computers, mine included, come with Word already installed as
> part of the package. Most of the people I know already have Word and
> have for some time. I think the objection is to having to purchase
> Adobe when you already have Word and don't have the money to be
> shelling out for another editor.

Adobe Acrobat is not an editor. It is a layout program. There's a
difference. Anyone who has tried to edit pdf files with Acrobat can tell
you it's not exactly easy. Additionally, Acrobat doesn't export to your
favorite file formats. I think the only export option is EPS
(Encapsulated Postscript). If you want to edit PDFs, your best option,
regardless of whether you have Acrobat Reader or Acrobat, is to highlight
everything and copy and paste into an editor.

Additionally, if you didn't ask for Word to removed, or didn't know you
could, it's not my fault ;)

--
D. Ghost
Profanity is the one language all programmers know best
- Troutman's 6th programming postulate.
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Message no. 26
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Martin Steffens)
Subject: Shadowrun State of the Union
Date: Thu May 10 05:25:00 2001
> From: dghost@****.com

> Heh. I'm pretty sure my Corel WP Suite supports those files
> ... ;) but Corel isn't Microsoft. :)

Patience, grasshopper :)

Martin
- just kidding -

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Shadowrun State of the Union, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!