Re: [users] PDF

2010-12-26 Thread John Jason Jordan
On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 20:47:48 + Brad Rogers dijo: >On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 15:18:37 -0500 >David B Teague wrote: > >Hello David, > >> Double DANG! /I was twice wrong. /Foxit reader exists for >> Linux. I didn't find it for Mac. > >Indeed; I hadn't noticed lack of Mac build. > >The printing issu

Re: [users] PDF

2010-12-26 Thread Brad Rogers
On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 15:18:37 -0500 David B Teague wrote: Hello David, > Double DANG! /I was twice wrong. /Foxit reader exists for > Linux. I didn't find it for Mac. Indeed; I hadn't noticed lack of Mac build. The printing issue would appear to be because I run a pure 64 bit system, but the F

Re: [users] PDF

2010-12-26 Thread David B Teague
On 12/26/2010 2:46 PM, David B Teague wrote: DANG IT! Foxit Reader is WINDOWS ONLY, a fact that I did not know until I looked on their web site. (This annoys me greatly, as I prefer to use tools that work on Linux and Windows.) D

Re: [users] PDF

2010-12-26 Thread Brad Rogers
On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 14:46:36 -0500 David B Teague wrote: Hello David, > Foxit Reader is WINDOWS ONLY, a fact that I did not know Look at; More than Windows d/l's there. > until I looked on their web site. (This annoys me greatly, > as I pr

Re: [users] PDF

2010-12-26 Thread David B Teague
On 12/26/2010 5:56 AM, Brad Rogers wrote: There are several options available to those that simply wish to read PDFs. I suggested Adobe's reader because it's (probably) the one most people will have heard of, and likely to be available to run on the end users OS; Other options are Windows only,

Re: [users] PDF

2010-12-26 Thread Brad Rogers
On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 09:05:33 -0500 David B Teague wrote: Hello David, > I find that Foxit Reader is smaller, loads quicker, and is There are several options available to those that simply wish to read PDFs. I suggested Adobe's reader because it's (probably) the one most people will have heard