** john lewis <johnlewis@???> [2007-10-17 09:19]:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 22:55:18 +0100
> Paul Tansom <paul@???> wrote:
> > I was aware of the Opera archive, but last time I looked at it the
> > version in there was so old as to be useless. I've not checked back
> > since on the assumption that they had abandoned the idea.
>
> currently opera ver 9.23
Thats and improvement. Last time I looked it was about versino 5 when
Opera was at version 7 or 8 - something like that anyway.
> > Likewise with the Marillat one, I was aware, although this time I
> > made the decision to go straight to Adobe as I've not had that much
> > confidence with archives for proprietary software and/or ones
> > outside the main distribution. Much like with the Opera one I've
> > often found them to be several versions out of date.
>
> currently acroread ver 8.11
Again that maches up. I don't think I've ever installed from the
Marillat archive, but then last time I did an instal under Linux I was
testing out the beta version, so Marillat would have been no help at ll
:)
> The Adobe version of acroread 7.0 wanted to report back which pdf's
> you had opened and the Debian version removed this spyware stuff
> (some javascript) so I have used the debianised version since.
>
> See: http://lwn.net/Articles/129729/
I'll have a read.
As a side issue, what has happened to the Debian weekly news? It seems
to have died a death. I think I've had about 3 so far this year!
> one thing I dislike about the current version of acroread is that it
> now opens each pdf* in a separate window instead of putting them all
> in one window and allowing choice of document displayed with the
> Window option in the menubar. That still works but it was neater when
> it was only one window. Don't know if it makes any difference to
> memory usage having multiple windows.
Logic would have it that managing the information for two complete set
of window information should take up at least a little more memory.
Having said that I have little faith that modern programmers take the
same amount of notice of this sort of thing as they used to.
Over the life of the good old Sinclair Spectrum the quality of software
improved, to my mind, faster than that of modern PC software, and that
was with no change to the hardware. Modern programmers seem to rely on
plugging together libraries of existing routines as fast as possible to
get product out the door. As a result they seem to eat up the extra
processing power at least as fast as it becomes available - in fact
looking at Vista I'd say he sotware is ahead of the current hardware and
will ony be able to run nicely when the hardware has caught up.
Maybe I'm just getting old and grumpy. I've said it before, but if
Windows was the only OS out there I'd have lost interest in computers
long ago!
** end quote [john lewis]
--
Paul Tansom | Aptanet Ltd. |
http://www.aptanet.com/ | 023 9238 0001
======================================================================
Registered in England | Company No: 4905028 | Registered Office:
Crawford House, Hambledon Road, Denmead, Waterlooville, Hants, PO7 6NU
