Foxit might be pulling a fast one.
John Corliss
to probably because of built-in copy protection. Then I
noticed the second entry under "File" in Foxit:
Convert to PDF..."
and clicked on it out of curiosity. What I got was this message:
___________________________________________________________
There is a certain component(Foxit PDF Converter) missing for Foxit
Reader.You might need to download update from our website to display
your file correctly.
Do you want Foxit Reader to get more information about this component
and show up the Download Manager?
NOTE: this will require Internet access to Foxit server.
___________________________________________________________
When I clicked on "Yes" (and told my firewall to allow it to pass), I
got this message:
"This add-on installs a virtual printer onto your system. You can use
this printer to convert any printable documents to PDF files (just open
the necessary application, then print to Foxit PDF Printer).
If you don't install this add-on, you won't be able to use the "Convert
PDF" feature in Foxit Reader. (Note:This is the beta version of Foxit
PDF Creator, some evaluation marks will be added to the created PDF file.)
Note that there was NOTHING in this message that said this addon was a
trial version. So I allowed Foxit to download and install the Foxit PDF
Converter and got this message after it was installed:
_________________________________________________________
Registration of Foxit PDF Creator
Welcome to Foxit PDF Creator from Foxit Software, the small, fast and
easy PDF creation tool!
*This copy of Foxit PDF Creator is not licensed yet, therefore you can
only run it under evaluation mode.*
If you have purchased Foxit PDF Creator license from Foxit Software, you
will receive a temporary key immediately and a formal key later. You
need to browse and select the key file (“pcrkey.txt”) into the box below:
C:\Program Files\Foxit Software\PDF Creator\pcrkey.txt
Please make sure you have closed all applications before
registration,then press "Register the key" button if you just have
selected the key file into the above box.
If you don't have a key, please press "Keep Evaluating".
Register the Key Keep Evaluating
_________________________________________________________
IMO, this is an end play around advertising their payware directly and
is duplicitous. If they're going to promote their commercial software,
they shouldn't do it by tricking you into installing the crap and THEN
telling you that you must pay for it. And I'm getting sick and tired of
software companies using the term "licensed" when they should be saying
"paid for". Euphemisms are going to be the death of us all.
>80(>
At least the POS module was listed in Add or Remove Programs so that I
was able to get rid of it.
--
John "still grinding my teeth" Corliss BS206. I try not to reply to
trolls like Andy Mabbett, Hummingbird or proteanthread.
Because of Googlespam, I use NFilter to block all Google Groups
posts from being displayed in my news reader.
No ad, cd, commercial, cripple, demo, dotnet, nag, share, spy,
time-limited, trial or web wares OR warez for me, please.
John Corliss
> John Corliss wrong:
>>
>> I opened a .pdf file that I wanted to copy images from, but was unable
>> to probably because of built-in copy protection. Then I
>> noticed the second entry under "File" in Foxit:
>
> entries pointing to 'tools' which are features of the paid version.
You're right. I never really looked at the menu that hard. This is a
very bad thing they're doing. Makes me want to look for another .pdf reader.
> It would be better if unavailable features had been greyed out in the
> free version. It would still be better if the were not visible at all.
I totally agree.
> BTW, I use a screen capture program if I want to copy images from
> PDFs, which does not happen often.
Thanks, but I had my favorite (ancient, non-freeware) graphics editor
program configured wrong because I had to reinstall it the other day.
This was why pasting in the program wasn't working. I've fixed this and
it's working fine now though.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I wish that the .pdf file
format would just GO AWAY. It sucks. XML is the wave of the future IMO.
Computers are indeed the new "Tower of Babel".
--
John Corliss BS206. I try not to reply to trolls like Andy Mabbett,
H-Man
> Yrrah wrote:
>> John Corliss wrong:
>>>
>>> I opened a .pdf file that I wanted to copy images from, but was unable
>>> to probably because of built-in copy protection. Then I
>>> noticed the second entry under "File" in Foxit:
>>
>> The problem with Foxit is that the free version has a lot of menu
>> entries pointing to 'tools' which are features of the paid version.
>
> You're right. I never really looked at the menu that hard. This is a
> very bad thing they're doing. Makes me want to look for another .pdf reader.
>
>> It would be better if unavailable features had been greyed out in the
>> free version. It would still be better if the were not visible at all.
>
> I totally agree.
>
>> BTW, I use a screen capture program if I want to copy images from
>> PDFs, which does not happen often.
>
> Thanks, but I had my favorite (ancient, non-freeware) graphics editor
> program configured wrong because I had to reinstall it the other day.
> This was why pasting in the program wasn't working. I've fixed this and
> it's working fine now though.
>
> I've said it before and I'll say it again: I wish that the .pdf file
> format would just GO AWAY. It sucks. XML is the wave of the future IMO.
>
> Computers are indeed the new "Tower of Babel".
I now use PDF XChange viewer. IMO it is better than Foxit reader as it is
just a reader with no non-functioning menu items. It's like Acrobat Reader
without all of the bloat. It is substantially bigger than Foxit, but does a
better job IMO, and I don't get the "available in the $ware version"
messages.
--
HK
M
http://blog.kowalczyk.info/software/sumatrapdf/
I haven't looked at it myself. Doesn't look like you can copy text or
images with it, but still might be worth your while to check it out. . .
M
Bill Day
<Yrrah.sp...@hitmail.com> wrote:
>H-Man <I-H...@Spam.sucks>:
>
>> I now use PDF XChange viewer
>
>I looked at that one last week.
>1) It has a lot of features I don't need (but that's OK).
>2) It has a big advertisement for payware (very very bad!)
>3) The menu font is very small, at least with my Windows settings
>(very very bad!).
>
>I would install it as my default PDF reader if 2) and 3) were taken
>care of.
>
>Yrrah
Hmmm...I barely noticed the ad, and it doesn't 'do' anything...just
sits there. And the font seems normal to me.
But the features are well worth having that ad there....Just the
scrollable,sizable thumbnails of the pages along the margin help me to
find what I want. (I was sorting thru a 433 page book of old Scottish
songs and finding it much easier than with even Foxit.)
--
remove nonsense for reply
Craig
> Yrrah wrote:
>> John Corliss wrong:
>>
>> entries pointing to 'tools' which are features of the paid version.
>
> You're right. I never really looked at the menu that hard. This is a
> very bad thing they're doing. Makes me want to look for another .pdf
> reader.
>
>> It would be better if unavailable features had been greyed out in the
>> free version. It would still be better if the were not visible at all.
>
> I totally agree.
>
> format would just GO AWAY. It sucks. XML is the wave of the future IMO.
>
> Computers are indeed the new "Tower of Babel"
Ach, you biblical types. <g>
Keep an eye on Sumatra. Installed, it's about 800 KB and it renders
very quickly. It's /not quite/ ready for primetime (eg no search
function) but, it's getting there. Currently, I use Sumatra as the
default reader and have Adobe's 5.x as a back up.
<http://blog.kowalczyk.info/software/sumatrapdf/>
-Craig
MClaveau
+1
SumatraPDF is very light, very fast, easy to drive from keyboard, and a
better display for characters (versus Foxit).
But SumatraPDF has functionalities limited to the bare minimum...
Like Craig, I hav SumatraPDF by default, and Adobe-reader for complex
cases.
Caesar Romano
wrote Re Re: Foxit might be pulling a fast one.:
It doesn't have a "find" text function.
H-Man
> H-Man <I-H...@Spam.sucks>:
>
>> I now use PDF XChange viewer
>
> I looked at that one last week.
> 1) It has a lot of features I don't need (but that's OK).
> 2) It has a big advertisement for payware (very very bad!)
> 3) The menu font is very small, at least with my Windows settings
> (very very bad!).
>
> I would install it as my default PDF reader if 2) and 3) were taken
> care of.
>
> Yrrah
Regarding the advertisement for payware, you must be referring to the
"Download PDF Creation Tools" thing in the upper right hand corner, is that
correct? To be honest I've never even noticed it until you pointed it out.
It's not in my way, but if it bothers you, then of course give it a pass.
The menu items are the same size as Acrobat Reader and Foxit Reader on my
system (in the readers default setup) so I'm not sure what you're
experiencing there.
As with everything YMMV but IMHO this is the best one so far for me.
--
HK
John Corliss
Yes, I've been keeping an eye on the Sumatra comments in ACF. And
coincidentally, I was considering reinstalling AAR 5 just this morning.
Might still do it too. In fact, I'm going to do it right now.
80)>
--
John "toothless" Corliss BS206. I try not to reply to trolls like Andy
H-Man
> H-Man <I-H...@Spam.sucks>:
>
>> The menu items are the same size as Acrobat Reader and Foxit Reader on my
>> system (in the readers default setup) so I'm not sure what you're
>> experiencing there.
>
> You can't adjust the menu font size in the program.
> My screen settings are 1280x1024 pixels, 120 dpi.
> PDF XChange viewer's menu font looks tiny. Menu fonts of other
> programs look normal.
>
> Yrrah
Wow, I had no idea but you are correct. That's definitely a deal breaker if
you like the larger type!
--
HK
Brian (Groups)
>
> You can't adjust the menu font size in the program.
> My screen settings are 1280x1024 pixels, 120 dpi.
> PDF XChange viewer's menu font looks tiny. Menu fonts of other
> programs look normal.
Does changing to 96 dpi rectify it? What version of Windows?
Brian
Brian (Groups)
> 1. I don't want 96 dpi.
That wasn't the question. DOES it look OK at 96 dpi? Certain
applications need to flag themselves as being "high DPI aware." When
an app is high DPI aware, their bits are displayed directly on the
screen. It may be that PDF XChange falls into this category, but the
programmer(s) have failed to do this correctly. Checking at 96 dpi
might provide some insight. Vista tends to take care of this
particular oversight pretty well, but pre-Vista results are not so
predictable. Hence the question re: Windows version.
Brian
Angus Johnson
> My screen settings are 1280x1024 pixels, 120 dpi.
> PDF XChange viewer's menu font looks tiny. Menu fonts of other
> programs look normal.
Can I suggest you report this in their forums:
http://www.docu-track.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=35
Tracker Software are extremely responsive to bug reports and generally fix
them very quickly as they seem to release updates every couple of weeks.
PDFrank
> I now use PDF XChange viewer. IMO it is better than Foxit reader as it is
> just a reader with no non-functioning menu items.
Sure it has 'non-functioning menu items.'
"Cut" and "paste" on the "Edit" menu do nothing.
Brian (Groups)
> H-Man wrote:
> Sure it has 'non-functioning menu items.'
>
> "Cut" and "paste" on the "Edit" menu do nothing.
But at least they inform you of this in the documentation...
"N.B. This function was not available at the time of writing of this
documentation revision."
They don't say "give us money if you want this function to work"!
Brian
ms
news:13gsqaa...@corp.supernews.com:
>>>
>>> I've said it before and I'll say it again: I wish that the .pdf file
>>> format would just GO AWAY. It sucks.
I sure agree with that, they are always a pain when copying text from a pdf
reader.
>
> Yes, I've been keeping an eye on the Sumatra comments in ACF. And
> coincidentally, I was considering reinstalling AAR 5 just this morning.
> Might still do it too. In fact, I'm going to do it right now.
>
I've use Acrobat Reader 5.0 on several W98SE and W2K machines, works well.
Like it better than Foxit.
Mike Sa
ms
@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net:
It opens in a bright yellow screen. Is there any way to change colors?
Mike Sa
John Corliss
Last useable version I had was 6.2 IIRC, but it seems to me that 5 was a
lot leaner.
--
John Corliss BS206. I try not to reply to trolls like Andy Mabbett,
Mike Echo
> > Yes, I've been keeping an eye on the Sumatra comments in ACF. And
> > coincidentally, I was considering reinstalling AAR 5 just this morning.
> > Might still do it too. In fact, I'm going to do it right now.
The thing that bugged me about Sumatra was the fact it didn't remember
the last window size and always started up way too small. Still, early
days yet and worth keeping an eye on this one.
> I've use Acrobat Reader 5.0 on several W98SE and W2K machines, works well.
> Like it better than Foxit.
Is v5.0 better than v7.0 (speed wise)? I reverted back to v7.0 and just
took out all but a couple of plugins so it starts up very quickly.
Let's face it - most of us just use a pdf reader to look at things coz
they have been done in that format. I always hated using pdfs.
John Corliss
> In article <5n99lqF...@mid.individual.net>, m...@invalid.com says...
>
>>> Yes, I've been keeping an eye on the Sumatra comments in ACF. And
>>> coincidentally, I was considering reinstalling AAR 5 just this morning.
>>> Might still do it too. In fact, I'm going to do it right now.
>
> The thing that bugged me about Sumatra was the fact it didn't remember
> the last window size and always started up way too small. Still, early
> days yet and worth keeping an eye on this one.
>
>> I've use Acrobat Reader 5.0 on several W98SE and W2K machines, works well.
>> Like it better than Foxit.
>
> Is v5.0 better than v7.0 (speed wise)? I reverted back to v7.0 and just
> took out all but a couple of plugins so it starts up very quickly.
FWIR, yes.
> Let's face it - most of us just use a pdf reader to look at things coz
> they have been done in that format. I always hated using pdfs.
AINIDUHTROOT!
--
John Corliss BS206. I try not to reply to trolls like Andy Mabbett,
Craig
Well, I don't see the screen since I'm launching Sumatra via a pdf
document. But, for /the/ answer to your question, go to
<http://blog.kowalczyk.info/forum_sumatra/> and type 'color' in the
search field.
One of the benefits of being "master of your domain."
-Craig
Craig
> Mike Echo wrote:
>> In article <5n99lqF...@mid.individual.net>, m...@invalid.com says...
>>
>>>> Yes, I've been keeping an eye on the Sumatra comments in ACF. And
>>>> coincidentally, I was considering reinstalling AAR 5 just this
>>>> morning. Might still do it too. In fact, I'm going to do it right now.
>>
>> The thing that bugged me about Sumatra was the fact it didn't remember
>> the last window size and always started up way too small. Still, early
>> days yet and worth keeping an eye on this one.
>>
>>> I've use Acrobat Reader 5.0 on several W98SE and W2K machines, works
>>> well. Like it better than Foxit.
>>
>> Is v5.0 better than v7.0 (speed wise)? I reverted back to v7.0 and
>> just took out all but a couple of plugins so it starts up very quickly.
>
> FWIR, yes.
5.x loads & renders faster than v7.x. But beware, there may be some
security <blah blah> with very <yadda yadda> repercusions in running
older versions.
>
>> Let's face it - most of us just use a pdf reader to look at things coz
>> they have been done in that format. I always hated using pdfs.
>
> AINIDUHTROOT!
Not for me. I pretty much like .pdf. I mean, .pdf displays exactly the
way I want on practically any medium my audience might use. And it's
good enough for pre-press work which saves us a tidy sum each quarter.
My one TRULY BIG AND HUGE(tm) complaint is that it isn't open (yet).
IOW, we have a /proprietary/ document format so pervasive that even
governments practically require their citizens to have access to it. I
mean, wow.
I said it ain't open "yet" because back in January of this year, Adobe
submitted the .pdf format to the ISO for inclusion as an "open
standard(1)." If this happens, I'll not have a single qualm in using
.pdf. And, if this happens, we have Microsoft to thank(2).
Btw, as far as wrath and file formats, I reserve a special place in my
bilious gallbladder for MS' "Office Open XML." Really, even the file
format's name harkens back to their Halloween tactics and antitrust
antics.
If the anti-christ has a preferred file format, OOXML is it.
-Craig
1)
<http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/200701/012907OpenPDFAIIM.html>
2)
<http://blogs.adobe.com/insidepdf/2007/09/fast_tracking.html>
Foo
news:470e3697$0$90420$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com:
> I now use PDF XChange viewer. IMO it is better than Foxit
> reader as it is just a reader with no non-functioning menu
> items. It's like Acrobat Reader without all of the bloat.
> It is substantially bigger than Foxit, but does a better
> job IMO, and I don't get the "available in the $ware
> version" messages.
>
However, it, per its web site, it works only with W2000 and on,
not Win 98.
ms
@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:
Thanks, Craig
Mike Sa
Craig
> Craig <netbu...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote:
>
>> ms wrote:
>>>
>>>> <http://blog.kowalczyk.info/software/sumatrapdf/>
>>>>
>>>> -Craig
>>> It opens in a bright yellow screen. Is there any way to change colors?
>>>
>>> Mike Sa
>> Well, I don't see the screen since I'm launching Sumatra via a pdf
>> document. But, for /the/ answer to your question, go to
>> <http://blog.kowalczyk.info/forum_sumatra/> and type 'color' in the
>> search field.
>
>
My pleasure Mike.
Krazee Brenda
> > Thanks, Craig
> >
> My pleasure Mike.
LoveOnACFware :)