Try THIS on Windows
George Graves
e-mail to somebody but it's a big PDF and all you want to do is just
e-mail the pages that are germain to the subject at hand. Now, on your
Windows machines, without resorting to purchasing Adobe Acrobat
distiller or any other third party software, take just the article pages
you want to send and make them into their own, much smaller PDF, leaving
the rest of the original PDF behind.
Spins and appologies for it not being possible on a Windows PC without
expensive third party software eagerly awaited.
You're welcome.
--
George Graves
------------------
My Three Favorite Words WRT Women, Wine, food, cars and motorcycles:
"Made in Italy"
William F. Adams
<< You've got a PDF file. It has an article or some data that you want to
e-mail to somebody but it's a big PDF and all you want to do is just
e-mail the pages that are germain to the subject at hand. Now, on your
Windows machines, without resorting to purchasing Adobe Acrobat
distiller or any other third party software, take just the article pages
you want to send and make them into their own, much smaller PDF, leaving
the rest of the original PDF behind.
Spins and appologies for it not being possible on a Windows PC without
expensive third party software eagerly awaited.
>>
Actually, installing pdfTeX, LaTeX and the spiffy package, ``pdfpages'' makes
this trivial.
Basically, after installing TeX, you'd create a file which contained:
\usepackage{pdfpages}
\documentclass{minimal}
\begin{document}
\includepdf{pages=_desired pages_]{_filename_}
\end{document}
where _desired pages_ and _filename_ match what one needs.
www.tug.org for details --- while you're there, check out the texshowcase
(shameless plug, some of my stuff is in there).
And of course, one can script this as needed.
There are some pretty cool graphical front-ends for it in Mac OS X though, and
TeXShop, a pretty spiffy front-end won an Apple Design award.
BTW, Microsoft currently employs Leslie Lamport, the guy who created LaTeX as a
researcher.
William
--
William Adams
http://members.aol.com/willadams
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
Mayor of R'lyeh
<gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>You've got a PDF file. It has an article or some data that you want to
>e-mail to somebody but it's a big PDF and all you want to do is just
>e-mail the pages that are germain to the subject at hand. Now, on your
>Windows machines, without resorting to purchasing Adobe Acrobat
>distiller or any other third party software, take just the article pages
>you want to send and make them into their own, much smaller PDF, leaving
>the rest of the original PDF behind.
>
>Spins and appologies for it not being possible on a Windows PC without
>expensive third party software eagerly awaited.
>
>You're welcome.
Just how expensive do you think Open Office is?
--
I am so old that I can remember when other people's
achievements were considered to be an inspiration,
rather than a grievance.
Thomas Sowell
George Graves
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 21:53:11 GMT, George Graves
> <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >You've got a PDF file. It has an article or some data that you want to
> >e-mail to somebody but it's a big PDF and all you want to do is just
> >e-mail the pages that are germain to the subject at hand. Now, on your
> >Windows machines, without resorting to purchasing Adobe Acrobat
> >distiller or any other third party software, take just the article pages
> >you want to send and make them into their own, much smaller PDF, leaving
> >the rest of the original PDF behind.
> >
> >Spins and appologies for it not being possible on a Windows PC without
> >expensive third party software eagerly awaited.
> >
> >You're welcome.
>
> Just how expensive do you think Open Office is?
Open office can make a PDF without Acrobat Distiller? Not the version I
tried a few months ago on the Mac.
Tim Smith
> Just how expensive do you think Open Office is?
OpenOffice reads PDF?
--
--Tim Smith
George Graves
Looks like a lot more trouble to me.
Mac:
Open PDF in question using Apple Preview application (or Acrobat Reader,
but Preview is better). Command-P; select page range; hit "Save as PDF"
button. Tell the dialog box where you want to put the new PDF. Done.
BTW, you seemed to have missed the part where I said to do this using no
third party apps.
Rick
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 21:53:11 GMT, George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>>You've got a PDF file. It has an article or some data that you want to
>>e-mail to somebody but it's a big PDF and all you want to do is just
>>e-mail the pages that are germain to the subject at hand. Now, on your
>>Windows machines, without resorting to purchasing Adobe Acrobat distiller
>>or any other third party software, take just the article pages you want
>>to send and make them into their own, much smaller PDF, leaving the rest
>>of the original PDF behind.
>>
>>Spins and appologies for it not being possible on a Windows PC without
>>expensive third party software eagerly awaited.
>>
>>You're welcome.
>
> Just how expensive do you think Open Office is?
Are you implying OO.o reads PDF's. If so, please tell me how to do it.
--
Rick
Mayor of R'lyeh
<gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>In article <7keo101t0mj5tet2s...@4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 21:53:11 GMT, George Graves
>> <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> >You've got a PDF file. It has an article or some data that you want to
>> >e-mail to somebody but it's a big PDF and all you want to do is just
>> >e-mail the pages that are germain to the subject at hand. Now, on your
>> >Windows machines, without resorting to purchasing Adobe Acrobat
>> >distiller or any other third party software, take just the article pages
>> >you want to send and make them into their own, much smaller PDF, leaving
>> >the rest of the original PDF behind.
>> >
>> >Spins and appologies for it not being possible on a Windows PC without
>> >expensive third party software eagerly awaited.
>> >
>> >You're welcome.
>>
>> Just how expensive do you think Open Office is?
>
>Open office can make a PDF without Acrobat Distiller? Not the version I
>tried a few months ago on the Mac.
When you open the word processor there's a little button on the
toolbar that is the PDF logo. When you push it it saves your document
as a PDF.
Wade Williams
Adams <will...@aol.com> wrote:
> Actually, installing pdfTeX, LaTeX and the spiffy package, ``pdfpages'' makes
> this trivial.
>
> Basically, after installing TeX, you'd create a file which contained:
>
> \usepackage{pdfpages}
> \documentclass{minimal}
> \begin{document}
> \includepdf{pages=_desired pages_]{_filename_}
> \end{document}
>
> where _desired pages_ and _filename_ match what one needs.
You're kidding right?
Tex is great and all that, but you're not serious that this is an
adequate solution at all for the problem presented?
Wade
MuahMan
Done. Tried and done on windows for free and much faster too.
"George Graves" <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:gmgravesnos-F49B...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
MuahMan
party apps for the PC's. Poor Mac users stuck with the shoddy buggy Apple
progies.
"George Graves" <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:gmgravesnos-E13B...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
MuahMan
"Rick" <ri...@none.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.02.01...@none.com...
Rick
> You mean you can't figure it out? Wow. Mac users.... (shrugs shoulders)
Translation... you don't the slightest idea...
--
Rick
George Graves
"MuahMan" <mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Purchase Adobe Acrobat 6 full version? It's free. www.winmx.com
>
> Done. Tried and done on windows for free and much faster too.
You seem to have missd the part where I said USING NO 3rd PARTY
SOFTWARE. Are all of you Windroids this poor at reading comprehension?
And it figures that Pratt is advocating STEALING software. He has all
the morals of a Mafia hit man. What a pathetic individual.
George Graves
George Graves
"MuahMan" <mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Why not use third party apps.
Because the Mac doesn't need them to do this.
> Oh yeah, because there are actually third
> party apps for the PC's.
There are a number of third party apps for the Mac that will do this,
including Acrobat 6. Thing is, the Mac doesn't need 'em. The PC does.
> Poor Mac users stuck with the shoddy buggy Apple
> progies.
It works Pratt. And it works without Mac users resorting to software
piracy as you advocate. A doper and a thief. Why am I not surprised that
this disgusting little worm would be a thief?
George Graves
Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> In article <7keo101t0mj5tet2s...@4ax.com>, Mayor of R'lyeh
> wrote:
> > Just how expensive do you think Open Office is?
>
> OpenOffice reads PDF?
That's what I asked. I don't think so.
George Graves
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 23:54:43 GMT, George Graves
> <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <7keo101t0mj5tet2s...@4ax.com>,
> > Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 21:53:11 GMT, George Graves
> >> <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >You've got a PDF file. It has an article or some data that you want to
> >> >e-mail to somebody but it's a big PDF and all you want to do is just
> >> >e-mail the pages that are germain to the subject at hand. Now, on your
> >> >Windows machines, without resorting to purchasing Adobe Acrobat
> >> >distiller or any other third party software, take just the article pages
> >> >you want to send and make them into their own, much smaller PDF, leaving
> >> >the rest of the original PDF behind.
> >> >
> >> >Spins and appologies for it not being possible on a Windows PC without
> >> >expensive third party software eagerly awaited.
> >> >
> >> >You're welcome.
> >>
> >> Just how expensive do you think Open Office is?
> >
> >Open office can make a PDF without Acrobat Distiller? Not the version I
> >tried a few months ago on the Mac.
>
> When you open the word processor there's a little button on the
> toolbar that is the PDF logo. When you push it it saves your document
> as a PDF.
But to do what I'm talking about, you have to OPEN the original PDF
first, and I don't think that OO does that. OTOH, you seem to have
missed the part where I said to do it on Windows using NO THIRD PARTY
APPS.
Tim Smith
Graves wrote:
>> gmgraves said:
...
>> Spins and appologies for it not being possible on a Windows PC without
>> expensive third party software eagerly awaited.
> BTW, you seemed to have missed the part where I said to do this using no
> third party apps.
You didn't say no third party apps. You said no "expensive" third party
apps. I believe the apps he suggested are free.
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
>
> Mac: Open PDF in question using Apple Preview application (or Acrobat
> Reader, but Preview is better). Command-P; select page range; hit "Save as
> PDF" button. Tell the dialog box where you want to put the new PDF. Done.
Acrobat Reader is available for Windows, for free, and supports printing
selected pages.
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
wrote:
> Acrobat Reader is available for Windows, for free, and supports printing
> selected pages.
Ignore this. Not all systems include a print-to-PDF option, so that's not
good enough.
--
--Tim Smith
Sandman
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 21:53:11 GMT, George Graves
> <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >You've got a PDF file. It has an article or some data that you want to
> >e-mail to somebody but it's a big PDF and all you want to do is just
> >e-mail the pages that are germain to the subject at hand. Now, on your
> >Windows machines, without resorting to purchasing Adobe Acrobat
> >distiller or any other third party software, take just the article pages
> >you want to send and make them into their own, much smaller PDF, leaving
> >the rest of the original PDF behind.
> >
> >Spins and appologies for it not being possible on a Windows PC without
> >expensive third party software eagerly awaited.
> >
> >You're welcome.
>
> Just how expensive do you think Open Office is?
How do I open a PDF in Open Office?
--
Sandman[.net]
zurg
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> You've got a PDF file. It has an article or some data that you want to
Just to confirm it. I read through the responses and not one of them
actually showed how this could be done on Windows without having to
install something first.
George: 1. Wintrolls: 0
Tim Smith
>> Are you implying OO.o reads PDF's. If so, please tell me how to do it.
>
There's nothing to figure out since OO.o doesn't read PDF files. I just
downloaded it and installed it on my Windows machine to verify this, just in
case the Windows version provided that (I already knew the Linux version
didn't).
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
> Just to confirm it. I read through the responses and not one of them
> actually showed how this could be done on Windows without having to
> install something first.
>
> George: 1. Wintrolls: 0
Maybe you should go back and read George original's post again. The very
first reply to it showed a way to do it that met all of George's conditions.
(Here's another: Ghostview)
--
--Tim Smith
William F. Adams
>> Just to confirm it. I read through the responses and not one of them
>> actually showed how this could be done on Windows without having to
>> install something first.
>>
>> George: 1. Wintrolls: 0
Uh, I'm not a WinTroll or troll of any sort. I'm a NeXT user whose company was
taken over by Apple w/o my approval or consent :/
Then Tim Smith corrected:
>Maybe you should go back and read George original's post again. The very
>first reply to it showed a way to do it that met all of George's conditions.
Thank you Tim. As Tim pointed out earlier, George moved the goal post on this
requiring no _expensive_ third party software (though he acknowledged that it
was possible w/ expensive third party software in his initial post --- perhaps
he thought that excluded any third party software?).
Also, the scripting of the process includes _AppleScript_ so it should be
trivial to make a little icon onto which on drops a .pdf which creates a dialog
box asking for page range(s) and then returns a .pdf w/ just those pages in it
--- might be that there's a front-end for this already.
>(Here's another: Ghostview)
Excellent point. I was a bit rushed, and had intended to mention that.
I'm pretty sure there's been some discussion of this sort of thing on
alt.comp.freeware and that there's now a freeware printer driver for Windows
which uses GhostScript to create .pdfs and so would have the sort of graphical
front-end George Graves would prefer.
This has a serious disadvantage in that one is limited to the capabilities of
the print driver / dialog though, so in his example, if one needs to send a
non-contiguous set of pages / ranges, one will have multiple .pdfs which will
then have to be stitched together in Adobe Acrobat or handled as a set. Using
pdfpages keeps all the files in a single .pdf which is much easier to manage,
and allows one the option of inserting blanks at need at creation time to keep
left / right page spreads together.
As I'd started to note, Mac OS X's pervasive support of .pdf is way cool though
(especially if one turns on pdfservices), and there are a number of things one
can do far more readily / affordably in Mac OS X than in Windows, incl. at
least one which is pretty much impossible in Windows:
- get a press ready .pdf (well, one which supports the PDF/X standard ---
takes some doing to find a printer in the US who'll accept this, but it's
becoming prevalent in Europe) from _any_ application, incl. Microsoft Word
(doing that in Windows wants a copy of Adobe Acrobat and Enfocus PitStop to fix
Word's nasty RGB and ugly translation of WMF to PostScript (start by exporting
straight to Acrobat from w/in Word))
- transfer text from a .pdf to a word processor easily and directly w/
conceptual formatting, incl. paragraphs (This requires Marcel Weiher's
TextLightning.app which allows one to directly drag a .pdf to TextEdit.app and
have it opened in by way of file services. The alternative in Windows is to get
Adobe Acrobat (which can then do an essentially useless line-by-line
extraction) and the BCL Drake plug-in which provides a formatted version like
to TextEdit (and can do tables))
- readily create a .pdf using any text / script in the world while using the
native keyboard input schemes. This requires that one install TeX, TeXShop or
iTeXMac and requisite fonts (David Olivier recently did a nice set of
instructions on how to get CyberBit and Chinese Characters to work on the Mac
OS X TeX mailing list). Granted one then has an odd dichotomy of using Mac OS
X's lovely fonts on-screen and getting blocky not all that attractive CyberBit
in print, but it works and it's quite affordable compared to a similar setup in
Windows.
- view a PostScript file and convert it to .pdf. Apple _finally_ has added
that NeXTstep capability in Panther (for viewing / displaying PostScript). (But
one still can't view anything other than a lousy bitmap preview of a placed
.eps in most DTP apps ::grr:: I miss Display PostScript)
BTW, if anyone is curious, I'm pretty sure I did a similar post to this on
Slashdot.org a while back. Maybe I missed something here, but remembered there.
William
(who really does need to dig up that TeX program which he wrote to typeset a
directly listing by way of AppleScript)
MuahMan
again. The third party apps work wonderfully and there are just so darn many
of them. Fear not though, at CompUSA the Mac section is half of the bottom
shelf. It's loaded with at least errrr 10 apps for the Mac. LOL
"George Graves" <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:gmgravesnos-7032...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
MuahMan
morals.
"George Graves" <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:gmgravesnos-440C...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
MuahMan
"William F. Adams" <will...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040201070252...@mb-m06.aol.com...
Tim Smith
wrote:
> I'm pretty sure there's been some discussion of this sort of thing on
> alt.comp.freeware and that there's now a freeware printer driver for
> Windows which uses GhostScript to create .pdfs and so would have the sort
> of graphical front-end George Graves would prefer.
>
> This has a serious disadvantage in that one is limited to the capabilities
> of the print driver / dialog though, so in his example, if one needs to
> send a non-contiguous set of pages / ranges, one will have multiple .pdfs
> which will then have to be stitched together in Adobe Acrobat or handled
> as a set. Using pdfpages keeps all the files in a single .pdf which is
> much easier to manage, and allows one the option of inserting blanks at
> need at creation time to keep left / right page spreads together.
Does that print->PDF driver do one PDF file per page, or one per print job?
If it is one per print job, then all you should need is Acrobat Reader.
That allows selecting a non-contiguous set of pages for printing (just
enable the thumbnail view, and then control-click on the thumbnails of the
pages you want, and then select "print selected pages" in the print dialog).
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
>>> George: 1. Wintrolls: 0
>
> Uh, I'm not a WinTroll or troll of any sort. I'm a NeXT user whose company
> was taken over by Apple w/o my approval or consent :/
Zurg's definition of "wintroll" is anyone who who has ever said anything
that wasn't negative about Windows.
--
--Tim Smith
Rick
> In article <Vj1Tb.5734$CJ1.4470@lakeread01>,
> "MuahMan" <mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Purchase Adobe Acrobat 6 full version? It's free. www.winmx.com
>>
>> Done. Tried and done on windows for free and much faster too.
>
> You seem to have missd the part where I said USING NO 3rd PARTY SOFTWARE.
> Are all of you Windroids this poor at reading comprehension? And it
> figures that Pratt is advocating STEALING software. He has all the morals
> of a Mafia hit man. What a pathetic individual.
>
If rumors are true, Mafia hit men kill only when contracted. That would
seem to imply they are morally superior to Pratt.
>
>
>> "George Graves" <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>> news:gmgravesnos-F49B...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
>> > You've got a PDF file. It has an article or some data that you want to
>> > e-mail to somebody but it's a big PDF and all you want to do is just
>> > e-mail the pages that are germain to the subject at hand. Now, on your
>> > Windows machines, without resorting to purchasing Adobe Acrobat
>> > distiller or any other third party software, take just the article
>> > pages you want to send and make them into their own, much smaller PDF,
>> > leaving the rest of the original PDF behind.
>> >
>> > Spins and appologies for it not being possible on a Windows PC without
>> > expensive third party software eagerly awaited.
>> >
>> > You're welcome.
>> >
>> > --
>> > George Graves
>> > ------------------
>> > My Three Favorite Words WRT Women, Wine, food, cars and motorcycles:
>> > "Made in Italy"
>>
>>
--
Rick
Rick
No, he suggested pirating apps using winmx.
--
Rick
Rick
But can it save only hose selected pages to a new and smaller PDF?
BTW, can acroread do it in Linux?
--
Rick
Tim Smith
>> You didn't say no third party apps. You said no "expensive" third party
>> apps. I believe the apps he suggested are free.
>
> No, he suggested pirating apps using winmx.
You are confused...you have crossed the thread lines. Not as bad as
crossing the beams, but still not a good thing to do. This line of the
thread is about the suggestion to use LaTeX.
--
--Tim Smith
C Lund
> Actually, installing pdfTeX, LaTeX and the spiffy package, ``pdfpages'' makes
> this trivial.
>
> Basically, after installing TeX, you'd create a file which contained:
>
> \usepackage{pdfpages}
> \documentclass{minimal}
> \begin{document}
> \includepdf{pages=_desired pages_]{_filename_}
> \end{document}
>
> where _desired pages_ and _filename_ match what one needs.
>
> www.tug.org for details --- while you're there, check out the texshowcase
> (shameless plug, some of my stuff is in there).
So you need to install *three* apps and then write a script like the
above? Doesn't quite compete with OS X's "save asŠ" function. Not only
is it trivial to do on OS X, it's trivial to implement as well:
[[self dataWithPDFInsideRect:[self bounds]]
writeToFile:filename atomically:YES];
The above line will plop the contents of "self" into "filename.pdf".
I used LaTeX when I was a student, btw. It works, it's usable, but it
can be a real PITA as well. And WYSIWYG is one thing it isn't - well,
not back then anyway.
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
Rick
Oops.. my bad. Sorry.
--
Rick
William F. Adams
>So you need to install *three* apps and then write a script like the
>above?
Just one (For the most part, TeX includes pdftex and LaTeX, whether or no you
need to go to CTAN to get pdfpages is a function of which version you get).
>Doesn't quite compete with OS X's "save as " function. Not only
>is it trivial to do on OS X, it's trivial to implement as well:
> [[self dataWithPDFInsideRect:[self bounds]]
> writeToFile:filename atomically:YES];
>The above line will plop the contents of "self" into "filename.pdf".
PDF support in Mac OS X is almost as nice as PostScript support was in NeXTstep
;)
>I used LaTeX when I was a student, btw. It works, it's usable, but it
>can be a real PITA as well.
Actually, LaTeX has improved _hugely_ over the past couple of years, and
there's a tremendous amount of stuff at CTAN to help out the new user. I didn't
have to resort to any Plain TeX hackery in my first pass at a recent LaTeX book
at work (Daniel Kaplan's _Introduction to Scientific Computation_). There's a
new version of the Companion due out soon, which presages more work on LaTeX3
too.
>And WYSIWYG is one thing it isn't - well,
>not back then anyway.
Instant TeX / TeXView in NeXTstep was. There're a number of other projects
along these lines, Preview LaTeX (works inside of emacs), TeXmacs (a merging of
LaTeX and emacs) are two notable ones, and with things like srcltx, one can get
a good synergy between a preview app and editor.
LyX, www.lyx.org presents what is arguably a better paradigm though (and the QT
versions of it for Windows and Mac OS X are like to native apps).
That said, I'd like to turn this thread around and ask if there's anything like
to abletinkpdf for Tablet PC edition for Windows XP for Mac OS X. This is a
small, freeware tool which allows one to open a .pdf and then apply ``ink''
annotations to it. While we have the full version of Adobe Acrobat at work, its
pencil tool for annotations is _really_ awkward to use (if you lift the mouse /
stylus it marks an annotation object as complete, and trying to continue an
annotation results instead in moving the incomplete object).
I've tried convincing the proofreaders at work that they should just do all
annotations in cursive, but that's not flying for numbers....
Ideally there'd be some InkWell aware tool which would load a .pdf, allow one
to make annotations to the .pdf using InkWell and then save the .pdf w/ the
annotations in place so that it could be opened / viewed by Adobe Acrobat
Reader.
William
Daeron
>> Zurg had said:
>>>> George: 1. Wintrolls: 0
and you definition of a troll is anyone who says something positive
about Apple on a Mac advocacy group
I see you doing the MICROS~1 shuffle over on "Mac or PC gets debated
again." This is the Zen form of fud where you waffle on about word and
frames trying to distract from the salient points in the article.
George Graves
Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
Try reading what I wrote, Tim. I said WITHOUT USING ANY THIRD-PARTY
APPLICATIONS. All of the responses showing Windows solutions involve
third-party apps - including your above recommendation to use Ghostview.
George Graves
will...@aol.com (William F. Adams) wrote:
> Zurg had said:
> >> Just to confirm it. I read through the responses and not one of them
> >> actually showed how this could be done on Windows without having to
> >> install something first.
> >>
> >> George: 1. Wintrolls: 0
>
> Uh, I'm not a WinTroll or troll of any sort. I'm a NeXT user whose company
> was
> taken over by Apple w/o my approval or consent :/
>
> Then Tim Smith corrected:
> >Maybe you should go back and read George original's post again. The very
> >first reply to it showed a way to do it that met all of George's conditions.
>
> Thank you Tim. As Tim pointed out earlier, George moved the goal post on this
> requiring no _expensive_ third party software (though he acknowledged that it
> was possible w/ expensive third party software in his initial post ---
> perhaps
> he thought that excluded any third party software?).
My first paragraph plainly says: "without the use of any third party
software." Only in my last paragraph did I insert the word 'expensive.'
> Also, the scripting of the process includes _AppleScript_ so it should be
> trivial to make a little icon onto which on drops a .pdf which creates a
> dialog
> box asking for page range(s) and then returns a .pdf w/ just those pages in
> it
> --- might be that there's a front-end for this already.
>
> >(Here's another: Ghostview)
>
> Excellent point. I was a bit rushed, and had intended to mention that.
Third-party software.
George Graves
Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> In article <20040201070252...@mb-m06.aol.com>, William F. Adams
> wrote:
> > I'm pretty sure there's been some discussion of this sort of thing on
> > alt.comp.freeware and that there's now a freeware printer driver for
> > Windows which uses GhostScript to create .pdfs and so would have the sort
> > of graphical front-end George Graves would prefer.
> >
> > This has a serious disadvantage in that one is limited to the capabilities
> > of the print driver / dialog though, so in his example, if one needs to
> > send a non-contiguous set of pages / ranges, one will have multiple .pdfs
> > which will then have to be stitched together in Adobe Acrobat or handled
> > as a set. Using pdfpages keeps all the files in a single .pdf which is
> > much easier to manage, and allows one the option of inserting blanks at
> > need at creation time to keep left / right page spreads together.
>
> Does that print->PDF driver do one PDF file per page, or one per print job?
> If it is one per print job, then all you should need is Acrobat Reader.
That's THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE, Besides, how are you going to get Windows
to produce that new PDF once you've opened it in Acrobat Reader? Another
piece of Third-Party Software which the Mac doesn't require to do this
task.
> That allows selecting a non-contiguous set of pages for printing (just
> enable the thumbnail view, and then control-click on the thumbnails of the
> pages you want, and then select "print selected pages" in the print dialog).
--
George Graves
"MuahMan" <mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Score: Every Other OS 1 Georgetard 0
Again, Brian, show me HOW to do what I proposed on a Windows PC without
ANY third-party Software (which is what my original post was about).
NOBODY has come up with anything that comes even close, and certainly
NOT you.
George Graves
George Graves
Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
IT'S THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE!
George Graves
Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> In article <gmgravesnos-E13B...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>, George
> Graves wrote:
> >> gmgraves said:
> ...
> >> Spins and appologies for it not being possible on a Windows PC without
> >> expensive third party software eagerly awaited.
> ...
> > BTW, you seemed to have missed the part where I said to do this using no
> > third party apps.
>
> You didn't say no third party apps. You said no "expensive" third party
> apps. I believe the apps he suggested are free.
Read again please.
"You've got a PDF file. It has an article or some data that you want to
e-mail to somebody but it's a big PDF and all you want to do is just
e-mail the pages that are germain to the subject at hand. Now, on your
Windows machines, without resorting to purchasing Adobe Acrobat
distiller OR ANY OTHER THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE, take just the article pages
you want to send and make them into their own, much smaller PDF, leaving
the rest of the original PDF behind.
Only in my second sentence did I say expensive third party software (I
was obviously thinking about Acrobat 6).
And semantics don't matter. My point was, and remains that with the Mac
no software other than that which ships with Panther is necessary to do
this, while with Windows, you either have to buy or at least download
and install thirsdt party solutions. Windows itself cannot do it.
George Graves
Rick <ri...@none.com> wrote:
That was Pratt, not me. I never suggest pirating because I do not
believe in it.
George Graves
"MuahMan" <mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If Mr. Gates decided to include a proprietary app for this he'd get sued
> again. The third party apps work wonderfully and there are just so darn many
> of them. Fear not though, at CompUSA the Mac section is half of the bottom
> shelf. It's loaded with at least errrr 10 apps for the Mac. LOL
Go back to your dope, Dope!
George Graves
Rick <ri...@none.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 09:12:50 +0000, George Graves wrote:
>
> > In article <Vj1Tb.5734$CJ1.4470@lakeread01>,
> > "MuahMan" <mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Purchase Adobe Acrobat 6 full version? It's free. www.winmx.com
> >>
> >> Done. Tried and done on windows for free and much faster too.
> >
> > You seem to have missd the part where I said USING NO 3rd PARTY SOFTWARE.
> > Are all of you Windroids this poor at reading comprehension? And it
> > figures that Pratt is advocating STEALING software. He has all the morals
> > of a Mafia hit man. What a pathetic individual.
> >
>
> If rumors are true, Mafia hit men kill only when contracted. That would
> seem to imply they are morally superior to Pratt.
I agree. I should have said "serial killer." instead. It fits Pratt's
morality much better.
George Graves
"MuahMan" <mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yeah I ocassionaly go over the speed limit too. Damn mafia hit man! No
> morals.
Stealing software = No Morals.
Face it, Pratt, you're a common theif, a criminal.
MuahMan
"George Graves" <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:gmgravesnos-4404...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
MuahMan
to download for the mac.
"George Graves" <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:gmgravesnos-1108...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
MuahMan
for mercy killings.
"Rick" <ri...@none.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.02.01...@none.com...
MuahMan
them like you are.
"George Graves" <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:gmgravesnos-9830...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
MuahMan
apps. Now anyone that dare uses a third party app on either platform is a
wintroll. I bet fucking walking abortion has an Apple Tat on his back.
What a fucking redneck hillbillie freak.
"George Graves" <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:gmgravesnos-D120...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
William F. Adams
(again)
>Read again please.
>
>"You've got a PDF file. It has an article or some data that you want to
>e-mail to somebody but it's a big PDF and all you want to do is just
>e-mail the pages that are germain to the subject at hand. Now, on your
>Windows machines, without resorting to purchasing Adobe Acrobat
>distiller OR ANY OTHER THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE, take just the article pages
>you want to send and make them into their own, much smaller PDF, leaving
>the rest of the original PDF behind.
The third party software which I suggested doesn't need to be purchased. I read
the ``and'' in the conjunction to include third party software in purchasing.
>And semantics don't matter. My point was, and remains that with the Mac
>no software other than that which ships with Panther is necessary to do
>this, while with Windows, you either have to buy or at least download
>and install thirsdt party solutions. Windows itself cannot do it.
Actually, if you had a copy of Tablet PC for Windows XP, you could selectively
``print'' the .pdf into the bundled Microsoft Journal software, mark it up
there and then send the file off to anyone using Windows who had d/l'd and
installed the free Journal viewer program. (The Journal viewer is from
Microsoft, so not a third-party, and it's free so need not be purchased)
Granted it's no longer a .pdf, but the more flexible and much nicer annotation
tools available in Journal are a decent tradeoff on that.
William
(who would be _very_ interested in a Mac OS X alternative to abletinkpdf)
George Graves
"MuahMan" <mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It would only cost a $5 contract to kill a Maccie. We hitman give discounts
> for mercy killings.
F.O. Pratt.
George Graves
"MuahMan" <mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Lock up the whole country then. Don't be mad at me because there ARE no apps
> to download for the mac.
Actually, I understand that there are. However I wouldn't know, because
I wouldn't even THINK of stealing software. Why do you think good
software costs so much? It's because everyone who buys a software
package is paying not only for their own copy but for the pirated copies
as well (well, OK, that's a little simplistic, but...). IOW, you
software pirates drive the prices up for the rest of us. I, for one,
will be happy when the software manufacturers implement a methodology
for piracy prevention that requires THE original disc and won't work
with bit-for-bit clones of the disc or for files downloaded from
peer-to-peer piracy groups. That'll fix your felonious little wagon, now
won't it?
George Graves
will...@aol.com (William F. Adams) wrote:
You're still grasping at straws. Windows can't do it. End of story.
George Graves
"MuahMan" <mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Why? I'll just one the hundreds of third party apps. I'm not screrred of
> them like you are.
What are you, on your third or fourth joint today? Because your posts
are getting slurred. You ought to be in fine shape by the time the game
starts later today.
Mike Dee
> In article <7keo101t0mj5tet2s...@4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 21:53:11 GMT, George Graves
>> <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> >You've got a PDF file. It has an article or some data that you want
>> >to e-mail to somebody but it's a big PDF and all you want to do is
>> >just e-mail the pages that are germain to the subject at hand. Now,
>> >on your Windows machines, without resorting to purchasing Adobe
>> >Acrobat distiller or any other third party software, take just the
>> >article pages you want to send and make them into their own, much
>> >smaller PDF, leaving the rest of the original PDF behind.
>> >
>> >Spins and appologies for it not being possible on a Windows PC
>> >without expensive third party software eagerly awaited.
>> >
>> >You're welcome.
>>
>> Just how expensive do you think Open Office is?
>
> Open office can make a PDF without Acrobat Distiller? Not the version
> I tried a few months ago on the Mac.
Yes. The current vers of OO.o 1.1 now saves directly to PDF without need
3rd party software.
All of which has *nothing* to do with your original question. The Mayor, as
usual, gets it wrong.
I can print any PDF pages to .ps file and then use an inexpensive 3rd party
app [Jaws PDF] to output to PDF [a 2 step process only, no big deal]. So
yes, following your line of thought. There is no way a Windows user can do
what you're suggesting.
D.
Tim Smith
Graves wrote:
>> You didn't say no third party apps. You said no "expensive" third party
>> apps. I believe the apps he suggested are free.
>
> Read again please.
>
> "You've got a PDF file. It has an article or some data that you want to
> e-mail to somebody but it's a big PDF and all you want to do is just
> e-mail the pages that are germain to the subject at hand. Now, on your
> Windows machines, without resorting to purchasing Adobe Acrobat distiller
> OR ANY OTHER THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE, take just the article pages you want to
> send and make them into their own, much smaller PDF, leaving the rest of
> the original PDF behind.
Hmmm...I'd say the most natural parse of that is
[...] (without resorting to purchasing) (Adobe Acrobat distiller or any
other third party software) [...]
but you are intending it as
[...] (without resorting to) ((purchasing Adobe Acrobat distiller) or
(any other third party software)) [...]
...
> And semantics don't matter. My point was, and remains that with the Mac no
> software other than that which ships with Panther is necessary to do this,
> while with Windows, you either have to buy or at least download and
> install thirsdt party solutions. Windows itself cannot do it.
Ahh...but it does matter, because under the first interpretation, your point
was very good if true--there was something that Mac users could easily do
that was beyond Windows users without expensive software. Find enough
things like that, and the PC price advantage over Macs for the average
person is gone. I.e., it was potentially a *great* advocacy point.
Under your intended meaning, however, it is just another "out of the box"
comparision, which is kind of boring, because both Windows and OS X are
so totally blown away by most Linux distributions in "out of the box"
functionality. (In fact, the usual answer on the OS X side to an "out of
the box" comparison with Linux is that they can get much of the Linux stuff
for OS X, and so the only fair comparison is after all the free stuff that
is available has been installed).
--
--Tim Smith
George Graves
Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> In article <gmgravesnos-2715...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>, George
> Graves wrote:
> >> You didn't say no third party apps. You said no "expensive" third party
> >> apps. I believe the apps he suggested are free.
> >
> > Read again please.
> >
> > "You've got a PDF file. It has an article or some data that you want to
> > e-mail to somebody but it's a big PDF and all you want to do is just
> > e-mail the pages that are germain to the subject at hand. Now, on your
> > Windows machines, without resorting to purchasing Adobe Acrobat distiller
> > OR ANY OTHER THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE, take just the article pages you want to
> > send and make them into their own, much smaller PDF, leaving the rest of
> > the original PDF behind.
>
> Hmmm...I'd say the most natural parse of that is
>
> [...] (without resorting to purchasing) (Adobe Acrobat distiller or any
> other third party software) [...]
>
> but you are intending it as
>
> [...] (without resorting to) ((purchasing Adobe Acrobat distiller) or
> (any other third party software)) [...]
That's correct. I should have put a "using" after the "or" and before
the "any." I type fast and often I leave out whole words when typing (I
think that I typed them, but if I go back and read it, I find that I
didn't). I usually catch the obvious ones, but others sometimes get by
me. This is one of those cases.
> > And semantics don't matter. My point was, and remains that with the Mac no
> > software other than that which ships with Panther is necessary to do this,
> > while with Windows, you either have to buy or at least download and
> > install thirsdt party solutions. Windows itself cannot do it.
>
> Ahh...but it does matter,
Initially, yes. But since I made my meaning clear above, there should be
no more misinterpretation. I.E. 'My Bad" I cop to it.
> because under the first interpretation, your point
> was very good if true--there was something that Mac users could easily do
> that was beyond Windows users without expensive software. Find enough
> things like that, and the PC price advantage over Macs for the average
> person is gone. I.e., it was potentially a *great* advocacy point.
>
> Under your intended meaning, however, it is just another "out of the box"
> comparision, which is kind of boring, because both Windows and OS X are
> so totally blown away by most Linux distributions in "out of the box"
> functionality. (In fact, the usual answer on the OS X side to an "out of
> the box" comparison with Linux is that they can get much of the Linux stuff
> for OS X, and so the only fair comparison is after all the free stuff that
> is available has been installed).
But I'm not arguing either for or against Linux. It's simply not on my
table. But if it were, and if we were comparing out-of-the-box features,
I could mention AppleWorks, iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, Preview, iDVD, Apple
Mail, Safari, iCalander, Gimprint/CUPS, integrated Address Book,
Integrated CD/DVD burning software (does it matter that I prefer Toast,
a commercial, extra cost app?), iChat, Image Capture, iSync, X11, Etc.,
etc., etc. Now. I'm aware that a decent Linux distribution has a lot of
stuff with it, but from what I've seen (and I will readily admit that I
have by no means seen everything), much of the capabilities of the
bundled software with a Linux Distro don't have either the breadth or
the depth of the above mentioned Apple bundled software. Granted, the
Linux stuff does different things mostly, and much of the Apple stuff I
mentioned have Open Software equivalents that can be added to Linux at
no cost. Nonetheless, my beef is with Windows and its many shortcomings
as an OS, not with Linux.
William F. Adams
>You're still grasping at straws. Windows can't do it. End of story.
I never said that Windows could do precisely what you delineated w/o third
party software --- you didn't make that angle clear in your initial post.
However, I have pointed out a tolerable work-around, moreover, there's a (free)
third-party tool (abletinkpdf) which makes available a capability which AFAICT
has no equal on Mac OS X --- I'd _really_ be interested in some equivalent or
other work-around.
William
Snit
> In article <RB4Tb.5164$jH6....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <010220040159485133%zu...@fakeaddress.com>, zurg wrote:
>>> Just to confirm it. I read through the responses and not one of them
>>> actually showed how this could be done on Windows without having to
>>> install something first.
>>>
>>> George: 1. Wintrolls: 0
>>
>> Maybe you should go back and read George original's post again. The very
>> first reply to it showed a way to do it that met all of George's conditions.
>>
>> (Here's another: Ghostview)
>
> Try reading what I wrote, Tim. I said WITHOUT USING ANY THIRD-PARTY
> APPLICATIONS. All of the responses showing Windows solutions involve
> third-party apps - including your above recommendation to use Ghostview.
You original request was:
> You've got a PDF file. It has an article or some data that you want to
> e-mail to somebody but it's a big PDF and all you want to do is just
> e-mail the pages that are germain to the subject at hand. Now, on your
> Windows machines, without resorting to purchasing Adobe Acrobat
> distiller or any other third party software, take just the article pages
> you want to send and make them into their own, much smaller PDF, leaving
> the rest of the original PDF behind.
>
> Spins and appologies for it not being possible on a Windows PC without
> expensive third party software eagerly awaited.
Note that you make clear reference to not having to *purchase* third party
software ("without having to buy ... distiller or any other ... software",
and again "expensive third party software")
Clearly you were in reference to doing this without having to *purchase*
software. People have shown you ways this can be done on Windows without
purchasing anything. Granted, it is not as easy as on a Mac, and it does
require additional software and greater knowledge to get working, but your
request for people to ask you how this can be done with Windows was answered
completely and, at least in some of the posts, accurately.
This does not mean that XP is OS X's equal here. It clearly is not.
Snit
> You've got a PDF file. It has an article or some data that you want to
> e-mail to somebody but it's a big PDF and all you want to do is just
> e-mail the pages that are germain to the subject at hand. Now, on your
> Windows machines, without resorting to purchasing Adobe Acrobat
> distiller or any other third party software, take just the article pages
> you want to send and make them into their own, much smaller PDF, leaving
> the rest of the original PDF behind.
>
> Spins and appologies for it not being possible on a Windows PC without
> expensive third party software eagerly awaited.
>
> You're welcome.
There are a number of free PDF print drivers for Windows. If you have one
of those, you should be able to "print" to a PDF document and select the
pages you want.
Not as flexible as on a Mac, not built in, not as standardized, but it
should be possible.
I do not use PDF Services much on my computer, but for the times I have
needed it that feature has been a huge time saver.
Snit
> In article <oE3Tb.5489$GO6....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <gmgravesnos-E13B...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>, George
>> Graves wrote:
>>> Looks like a lot more trouble to me.
>>>
>>> Mac: Open PDF in question using Apple Preview application (or Acrobat
>>> Reader, but Preview is better). Command-P; select page range; hit "Save as
>>> PDF" button. Tell the dialog box where you want to put the new PDF. Done.
>>
>> Acrobat Reader is available for Windows, for free, and supports printing
>> selected pages.
>
> IT'S THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE!
It is not *purchased* software, which was your original criteria. When and
why did it change? You seem to not be happy with the idea that this process
is better on OS X, instead you seem to want to make it seem almost
impossible on XP. It is not.
By the way, the easiest way to have this set up on a Mac is to have PDF
Services set up, then you can just go to your print dialog, set your page
range, then select the PDF Services menu and select "Mail as PDF". Works
with almost all programs. Love it. As far as I know, nothing like that
exists for XP.
Anyway, here is your original post. Look carefully at your request. It
does not state it must be done without freeware:
----- Begin Quote
You've got a PDF file. It has an article or some data that you want to
e-mail to somebody but it's a big PDF and all you want to do is just
e-mail the pages that are germain to the subject at hand. Now, on your
Windows machines, without resorting to purchasing Adobe Acrobat
distiller or any other third party software, take just the article pages
you want to send and make them into their own, much smaller PDF, leaving
the rest of the original PDF behind.
Spins and appologies for it not being possible on a Windows PC without
expensive third party software eagerly awaited.
You're welcome.
--
George Graves
------------------
My Three Favorite Words WRT Women, Wine, food, cars and motorcycles:
"Made in Italy"
----- End Quote
Snit
You did not emphasize your sentence correctly. It should be, if we follow
the rules of English:
"... without resorting to *PURCHASING* Adobe Acrobat distiller *OR* any
other third party software, ..."
Did you write that incorrectly? If so you should admit it and apologize...
and then ask if it can be done without *any* third party software on XP.
The answer is no.
If you did not write that incorrectly, then you should just admit that your
conditions have been met.
Snit
> gmgravesnos said:
> (again)
>> Read again please.
>>
>> "You've got a PDF file. It has an article or some data that you want to
>> e-mail to somebody but it's a big PDF and all you want to do is just e-mail
>> the pages that are germain to the subject at hand. Now, on your Windows
>> machines, without resorting to purchasing Adobe Acrobat distiller OR ANY
>> OTHER THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE, take just the article pages you want to send and
>> make them into their own, much smaller PDF, leaving the rest of the original
>> PDF behind.
>>
> The third party software which I suggested doesn't need to be purchased. I
> read the ``and'' in the conjunction to include third party software in
> purchasing.
In other words, you read it the way it was written. For some reason that
seems to offend George.
>
>> And semantics don't matter. My point was, and remains that with the Mac no
>> software other than that which ships with Panther is necessary to do this,
>> while with Windows, you either have to buy or at least download and install
>> thirsdt party solutions. Windows itself cannot do it.
>>
> Actually, if you had a copy of Tablet PC for Windows XP, you could selectively
> ``print'' the .pdf into the bundled Microsoft Journal software, mark it up
> there and then send the file off to anyone using Windows who had d/l'd and
> installed the free Journal viewer program. (The Journal viewer is from
> Microsoft, so not a third-party, and it's free so need not be purchased)
> Granted it's no longer a .pdf, but the more flexible and much nicer annotation
> tools available in Journal are a decent tradeoff on that.
>
> William (who would be _very_ interested in a Mac OS X alternative to
> abletinkpdf)
Just read the description. I am not sure what an "Ink Doodle" is, but you
can save just about any file as a PDF on OS X.
Snit
> That was Pratt, not me. I never suggest pirating because I do not
> believe in it.
Even if you do not believe in it, I assure you it is very real.
Ok... just being silly. :)
Snit
> gmgravesnos said:
>> You're still grasping at straws. Windows can't do it. End of story.
>
> I never said that Windows could do precisely what you delineated w/o third
> party software --- you didn't make that angle clear in your initial post.
>
> However, I have pointed out a tolerable work-around, moreover, there's a
> (free)
> third-party tool (abletinkpdf) which makes available a capability which AFAICT
> has no equal on Mac OS X --- I'd _really_ be interested in some equivalent or
> other work-around.
What is it this software does? If there really is no equal on the Mac, I
will add it to my comparison page:
George Graves
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
> "William F. Adams" <will...@aol.com> wrote on 2/1/04 12:09 PM:
>
> > gmgravesnos said:
> > (again)
> >> Read again please.
> >>
> >> "You've got a PDF file. It has an article or some data that you want to
> >> e-mail to somebody but it's a big PDF and all you want to do is just
> >> e-mail
> >> the pages that are germain to the subject at hand. Now, on your Windows
> >> machines, without resorting to purchasing Adobe Acrobat distiller OR ANY
> >> OTHER THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE, take just the article pages you want to send
> >> and
> >> make them into their own, much smaller PDF, leaving the rest of the
> >> original
> >> PDF behind.
> >>
> > The third party software which I suggested doesn't need to be purchased. I
> > read the ``and'' in the conjunction to include third party software in
> > purchasing.
>
> In other words, you read it the way it was written. For some reason that
> seems to offend George.
Really? I wasn't aware I was offended. I fucked up, I left out a word.
George Graves
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
> "George Graves" <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote on 2/1/04 11:46 AM:
>
> > In article <oE3Tb.5489$GO6....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> > Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <gmgravesnos-E13B...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> >> George
> >> Graves wrote:
> >>> Looks like a lot more trouble to me.
> >>>
> >>> Mac: Open PDF in question using Apple Preview application (or Acrobat
> >>> Reader, but Preview is better). Command-P; select page range; hit "Save
> >>> as
> >>> PDF" button. Tell the dialog box where you want to put the new PDF. Done.
> >>
> >> Acrobat Reader is available for Windows, for free, and supports printing
> >> selected pages.
> >
> > IT'S THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE!
>
> It is not *purchased* software, which was your original criteria. When and
> why did it change? You seem to not be happy with the idea that this process
> is better on OS X, instead you seem to want to make it seem almost
> impossible on XP. It is not.
I said without resorting to purchasing Adobe Acrobat
distiller or any other third party software. I should have put the word
using after or. That's my fault. The bottom line is that without 3rd
party software you cannot do it on Windows. And that's my point.
> By the way, the easiest way to have this set up on a Mac is to have PDF
> Services set up, then you can just go to your print dialog, set your page
> range, then select the PDF Services menu and select "Mail as PDF". Works
> with almost all programs. Love it. As far as I know, nothing like that
> exists for XP.
>
> Anyway, here is your original post. Look carefully at your request. It
> does not state it must be done without freeware:
I know what I wrote. I missed the word 'using' after 'or' and before
'any'. That was my original intent and I'm angry at myself for missing
it. I knew that there are third party solutions on Windows, and by
leaving that word out, it makes it looks like I thought one had to
purchase any Windows solution. That was not my intent. My intent was to
show that it cannot be done on Windows PERIOD without some third party
solution that the Mac doesn't need. Why are you making a federal case
out of this?
George Graves
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
Yes I wrote it incorrectly and have said so in at least three subsequent
posts. The germane sentence SHOULD have read:
"...without resorting to purchasing Adobe Acrobat distiller OR *USING*
ANY OTHER THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE."
> If you did not write that incorrectly, then you should just admit that your
> conditions have been met.
I wrote it incorrectly. I left out a word.
George Graves
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
It can't be done without third party software on Windows, and that's my
point, my only point.
> This does not mean that XP is OS X's equal here. It clearly is not.
>
--
George Graves
will...@aol.com (William F. Adams) wrote:
> gmgravesnos said:
> >You're still grasping at straws. Windows can't do it. End of story.
>
> I never said that Windows could do precisely what you delineated w/o third
> party software --- you didn't make that angle clear in your initial post.
For that I humbly apologize. It was a typo, I skipped a word.
Steve Carroll
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Hey... he's a teacher, remember? He's obviously trying to teach you the
same thing he's taught several people on this NG already. I'm too polite
to state it... but you can if you feel the need:)
Steve
MuahMan
always get the code and change the executables. Piracy will never stop, in
fact it will get worse as the software prices go up.news:gmgravesnos-26DA...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
MuahMan
cut it.
"George Graves" <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:gmgravesnos-DCE7...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
William F. Adams
(re: abletinkpdf)
>What is it this software does? If there really is no equal on the Mac, I
>will add it to my comparison page:
It allows one to mark up a .pdf using Tablet PC ``ink'' tools and then save it,
sending it on to others who can then see your annotations.
>Just read the description. I am not sure what an "Ink Doodle" is, but you
>can save just about any file as a PDF on OS X.
Right, one can save any file as a .pdf --- but how does one mark it up and then
send it on while it's still a .pdf?
In Mac OS X, the only tool for this seems to be Adobe Acrobat, and the pencil
tool in this is dodgy (one has to mark up w/o lifting the cursor, or it'll mark
an object as complete and one's attempt to finish it will be interpreted as an
attempt to move the incomplete object).
I've tried convincing the proofreaders here at work that they should write in
cursive, but that doesn't work for numbers.
What I'm trying to set up is a station where we can transfer all ``marks''
indicating colour breaks, queries &c. to a .pdf before printing it so as to
save on the effort of printing multiple colour copies and marking them up, or
feeding a copy through the copier (far easier to just hit print).
_If_ I can find a tool like to abletinkpdf for Mac OS X, I'll finally have a
justification for the Wacom Cintiq display I've always wanted --- if not, I
guess my boss will be getting a TabletPC....
An equivalent tool in Mac OS X would load up a .pdf, turn on InkWell, allow one
to interactively and easily mark up the .pdf, and then allow one to save it as
a .pdf
George Graves
"MuahMan" <mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The games are stressful. I need some valium for this one. M.J. ain't gonna
> cut it.\
That explains the "coherency" of your posts.
BTW, the only thing in the first half of the game worth watching was the
Budweiser commercial where the horse farted (just about killed me). For
the most part, both teams played like a Pop Warner game. They did manage
some passable football in the second half, though. All in all, NOT the
best game of the season by a long shot.
George Graves
"MuahMan" <mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> No, because all the good pirate groups have people on the inside and can
> always get the code and change the executables. Piracy will never stop, in
> fact it will get worse as the software prices go up.
It wouldn't if people stopped supporting it. A few jail terms might help.
Snit
Because you were in denial for a while.
Now that you have seen the error... it is done and over with as far as I am
concerned.
Thanks.
forge
wrote:
>Why not use third party apps. Oh yeah, because there are actually third
>party apps for the PC's. Poor Mac users stuck with the shoddy buggy Apple
>progies.
Why the fuck would you want to use third party apps that you usually
have to pay out the ass for, when the apps that come WITH YOUR SYSTEM
do the damn job just fine?
MuahMan
your opinion. It will go down in history as one of the best SuperBowls in
history without a doubt. Check the ratings.......
"George Graves" <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:gmgravesnos-BC54...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
Steve Mackay
> I hope you aren't serious. You certainly don't much about football if that's
> your opinion. It will go down in history as one of the best SuperBowls in
> history without a doubt. Check the ratings.......
I agree with George. It was a *VERY* boring game untill about the last 15
minutes. It's unfortunate that the Packers lost to Philly. The Packers
could have most likely beat the Panthers and the Patriots. Would have been
a much more interesting game too. I haven't seen a boring game with Bret
Favre in it yet :)
MuahMan
post is why nerds shouldn't even be allowed to watch sports. A SuperBowl
with 61 points scored, several lead changes coming down to a last second
drive by the next Joe Montana is a boring game. Hahaha That explains the
ratings and why every sports analyst is the world has the game listed in the
Top 3 of all time.
"Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.02.03...@hotmail.com...
Snit
> Keep your sexual fantasies about Farve to yourself. Your post and Graves
> post is why nerds shouldn't even be allowed to watch sports. A SuperBowl
> with 61 points scored, several lead changes coming down to a last second
> drive by the next Joe Montana is a boring game. Hahaha That explains the
> ratings and why every sports analyst is the world has the game listed in the
> Top 3 of all time.
Whinnie brawk oink chirp oink cluck bark brawk. Brock whinnie brawk snort
oink quack meow maaah snort snort brock hoot cluck tweet moo bark tweet
growl moooo meow brawk moooo chirp. Brooock moo baaah brock brawk whinnie
chirp quack hoot meow. Bark maaah brooock meow bark grunt tweet tweet snort
quack brawk baaah oink brawk moo brawk. Tweet maaah brooock brawk tweet
brooock moooo hoot brooock grunt chirp brooock maaah oink brock hoot meow
grrrr quack meow hoot tweet. Brock brooock brock snort grunt moo baaah bark
whinnie whinnie. Tweet grunt brawk growl brock brooock hoot brawk baaah
grunt whinnie. Bark chirp quack moooo snort meow. Meow moooo tweet snort
brooock brawk chirp. Tweet ? Grunt quack growl quack brawk oink quack
cluck bark cluck grunt brawk baaah chirp whinnie bark grrrr meow. Brooock
maaah brock tweet cluck quack grunt quack oink chirp baaah meow grunt
brooock whinnie brooock baaah grunt! Quack moooo meow hoot brawk snort
whinnie oink meow brawk moo cluck grunt. Cluck oink grunt grrrr moo baaah
baaah snort bark quack bark grrrr? Grrrr whinnie quack chirp brawk cluck
whinnie snort maaah snort grunt growl quack baaah chirp maaah brooock.
Chirp moooo oink snort chirp brooock brock oink brawk moooo tweet grunt
brawk grunt bark grunt brawk snort. Chirp moo chirp grunt quack moooo snort
maaah moooo oink snort moo grunt brooock cluck brawk grrrr baaah snort brawk
quack. Brock grunt moo baaah bark moo chirp hoot brooock tweet snort baaah
hoot oink hoot moo grunt? Cluck growl quack maaah. Tweet growl grunt growl
brawk moooo tweet oink growl snort quack moo cluck hoot snort snort bark
baaah hoot maaah maaah snort. Brooock grunt whinnie meow meow quack growl
growl bark oink. Chirp whinnie brawk brooock grrrr tweet hoot maaah tweet
cluck moo. Grunt oink quack growl chirp tweet grunt cluck snort snort hoot.
Grunt snort snort moo grunt grrrr grrrr snort brooock bark cluck. Growl
grunt meow tweet! Cluck brock growl oink brawk baaah brock whinnie quack
grunt. Baaah meow brooock maaah grunt maaah whinnie brawk quack snort snort
brooock quack oink quack bark snort brawk cluck. Grunt brock bark moooo
tweet quack snort brawk. Maaah snort grrrr grrrr quack grrrr hoot grunt
snort growl grunt growl growl. Growl quack maaah brooock. Grunt quack
meow. Chirp snort grunt? Bark growl snort cluck brooock quack growl
brooock quack cluck meow grrrr grunt cluck moo snort grrrr baaah brooock
oink quack cluck. Snort baaah quack moo grunt brock. Brawk whinnie snort
quack maaah oink tweet quack grunt chirp snort whinnie hoot grrrr. Brooock
baaah grunt bark moooo moo quack grunt baaah brock quack oink brock grunt
grunt brawk grunt. Cluck brock brawk baaah brock grunt meow tweet moooo
oink brawk snort. Maaah oink moooo baaah snort hoot. Moo maaah grunt chirp
whinnie bark grunt chirp! Quack bark grrrr cluck baaah hoot cluck hoot
snort.
George Graves
"MuahMan" <mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I hope you aren't serious. You certainly don't much about football if that's
> your opinion. It will go down in history as one of the best SuperBowls in
> history without a doubt. Check the ratings.......
I don't care if GOD was watching. Both teams played poorly in the first
half and only marginally better in the second. I've seen more
interesting high-school football games. As for ratings; it was the
SUPERBOWL dumb-ass. Everybody in the USA watches the Superbowl. It
doesn't matter that the game wasn't very good football. Sheesh, it's a
wonder Pratt can even tie his own shoes.
MuahMan
the first half. They kept the Panthers to NEGATIVE yards. I'm sorry you
don't get excited about defense but it's just as important as offense. The
Patriots defense also added five sacks and a forced fumble in the first half
which they converted to a touchdown. As far as the ratings go.... You once
again have no clue. It was the HIGHEST RATED SUPERBOWL since 1978. Not the
highest rated show you fucking tool! Also, the game featured two of the best
QB performances in Super Bowl history. Add to that Janet's boob and a
streaker and it was absolutely amazing. Stop watching Tech TV for ten
minutes and watch SportsCenter for a change. Maybe you'll learn something.
SportsCenter is on ESPN if you can't find it.
"George Graves" <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:gmgravesnos-E5CC...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
Steve Mackay
> Keep your sexual fantasies about Farve to yourself. Your post and Graves
> post is why nerds shouldn't even be allowed to watch sports. A SuperBowl
> with 61 points scored, several lead changes coming down to a last second
> drive by the next Joe Montana is a boring game.
You're calling Brady the next Joe Montana? No there's your sexual
fantasy....
He over-threw almost EVERY pass in the 1st half of the
game! You ever see a game with Favre in it? That's an exciting game...
Tim Adams
"MuahMan" <mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Once again George shows his ass. The Patriots Defense played brilliant in
> the first half. They kept the Panthers to NEGATIVE yards.
WRONG. They were negative yards for the first quartewr NOT the first
half.
> I'm sorry you
> don't get excited about defense but it's just as important as offense. The
> Patriots defense also added five sacks and a forced fumble in the first half
WRONG. The Patriots only had 4 total Sacks, NOT 5.
To verify these you might wnat to watch ESPN when your not stoned out of
your mind OR visit <http://www.superbowl.com/gamecenter/live/NFL_20040201_CAR@NE>
MuahMan
ever! Very exciting.
Brady 2 World Championsip 2 Super Bowl MVPs
Farve 1 WC 1 MVP
Seems brady is TWICE as good.
"Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.02.03....@hotmail.com...
Greg Campbell
> "MuahMan" <mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Purchase Adobe Acrobat 6 full version? It's free. www.winmx.com
>>
>>Done. Tried and done on windows for free and much faster too.
>
> You seem to have missd the part where I said USING NO 3rd PARTY
> SOFTWARE. Are all of you Windroids this poor at reading comprehension?
> And it figures that Pratt is advocating STEALING software. He has all
> the morals of a Mafia hit man. What a pathetic individual.
Cripes, dude. All you've done is set up a very carefully designed straw
man. The only real point you've made is that your OS comes bundled with
more applications. Judging from your overall tone, this is supposed to
somehow prove the inherent "superiority" of the mac platform.
Sorry, no points! Being required to download and install a FREE
application hardly a BFD.
George Graves
Greg Campbell <nos...@null.net> wrote:
Ehhh! Thanks for playing. Actually, it is a BFD. It's not the
applications that Macs come bundled with that makes this possible, it's
the system level support for PDF, because PDF is the Mac's native
graphics format. That makes it work with PDF and Postscript files
natively. Rasterizing Postscript to a inkjet printer, for instance, does
not require a commercial Postscript rasterization application such as
Birmy's expensive PowerRIP or even GhostScript. Windows still requires
such a program (although not necessarily those, although GhostScript is
available for Windows.). These types of third-party solutions, either
free or expensive are far from transparent to the user under most
circumstances, however.
Adding third party software to a PC, for instance, will not allow
programs like InDesign to raster Postscript images on-screen while doing
a layout (a feature that the Mac version has, and the PC version does
not) thus allowing for real WYSIWYG. All any program has to do on the
Mac is to take advantage of the feature, because, like ColorSync, its a
Mac core technology that Windows doesn't have.
Of course, if you never use PostScript or if all you ever do with PDFs
is read them, then this technology is hardly important to you. Likewise,
if you aren't a graphic artist or a DTPer, ColorSync doesn't mean
anything to you either. But If Windows advocates can come here and tout
the lack of AutoCAD for Mac, then I've a perfect right to tout the lack
of native PDF and PostScript support on Windows. Fair is fair, after
all, right?
Greg Campbell
> In article <c_lUb.7770$IF1.4315@fed1read01>,
> Greg Campbell <nos...@null.net> wrote:
>
>
>>George Graves wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "MuahMan" <mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>... Done. Tried and done on windows for free and much faster too.
>>>
>>>You seem to have missd the part where I said USING NO 3rd PARTY
>>>SOFTWARE. Are all of you Windroids this poor at reading comprehension?
>>>And it figures that Pratt is advocating STEALING software. He has all
>>>the morals of a Mafia hit man. What a pathetic individual.
I don't know what prior fun you two have engaged in, but at first sight
this sort of slur only confirms people's 'Typical Mac Nazi" stereotypes.
If you want to wallow in Limbaughesque spite and vitriol... well
that's your choice. Have fun.
>>All you've done is set up a very carefully designed straw man.
>>...
> Ehhh! Thanks for playing. Actually, it is a BFD. It's not the
> applications that Macs come bundled with that makes this possible, it's
> the system level support for PDF, because PDF is the Mac's native
> graphics format. That makes it work with PDF and Postscript files
> natively. Rasterizing Postscript to a inkjet printer, for instance, does
> not require a commercial Postscript rasterization application such as
> Birmy's expensive PowerRIP or even GhostScript. Windows still requires
> such a program (although not necessarily those, although GhostScript is
> available for Windows.). These types of third-party solutions, either
> free or expensive are far from transparent to the user under most
> circumstances, however.
>
> Adding third party software to a PC, for instance, will not allow
> programs like InDesign to raster Postscript images on-screen while doing
> a layout (a feature that the Mac version has, and the PC version does
> not) thus allowing for real WYSIWYG. All any program has to do on the
> Mac is to take advantage of the feature, because, like ColorSync, its a
> Mac core technology that Windows doesn't have.
>
> Of course, if you never use PostScript or if all you ever do with PDFs
> is read them, then this technology is hardly important to you. Likewise,
> if you aren't a graphic artist or a DTPer, ColorSync doesn't mean
> anything to you either. But If Windows advocates can come here and tout
> the lack of AutoCAD for Mac, then I've a perfect right to tout the lack
> of native PDF and PostScript support on Windows. Fair is fair, after
> all, right?
I suppose so, if you need it to be.
After perusing this group for two short days, I'm left with a very
strong first impression: All this arguing and soapbox posturing is NOT
a means to a valiant and just end (repelling the evil Windoze hordes
that threaten The Great Mac Motherland.) Rather, the arguing IS the
end, in and of itself. This must be beyond my puny powers of
comprehension - it appears to be nothing more than a huge wank and, as
such, a complete waste of time and effort. May I gently suggest you
step away from the computer (it's just a box of chips, honest!) and get
some fresh air. ;)
FWIW (zilch, I'm sure!) I'm moving on to other newsgroups in search of
meaningful (IMO) discussion. You all play nice...
Later, much later.
-Greg
George Graves
Greg Campbell <nos...@null.net> wrote:
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, ya heah?
GreyCloud
> If Mr. Gates decided to include a proprietary app for this he'd get sued
> again. The third party apps work wonderfully and there are just so darn many
> of them. Fear not though, at CompUSA the Mac section is half of the bottom
> shelf. It's loaded with at least errrr 10 apps for the Mac. LOL
Guffaw! And the upper shelf is just monopoly crapware that crashes alot.
GreyCloud
Ignore MuahMan... just a turkey that is a wanna be virus.