Adobe Acrobat format for documentation

[Tim Pickering]

On 23 Sep 1997 09:22:46 -0700, Steve Allen <sla at ucolick.borg> wrote:
>In article <slrn62et5j.m6.tim at lothar.as.arizona.edu>,
>Tim Pickering <tim at lothar.as.arizona.edu> wrote:
>>adobe acrobat is not a necessary prerequisite for viewing PDF files.
>
>I concur that ghostview/ghostscript make a better viewer than the one
>from Adobe, but it is admittedly a matter of taste.

acroread for win95/nt is pretty decent, but i find acroread for
solaris and linux really painful to use. it's really slow to redraw
(especially with font smoothing on) even on ultras and P6's whereas gv
is fine on a 486. but i digress...

>I offer that it is only by virtue of the facts that PostScript and PDF
>are openly published standards and that viewers are available from
>more than one source which make them acceptable as formats for
>distributing FITS information.

agreed. PDF is nice, but is not yet as firmly established as
postscript so it's too early to switch over to it entirely. 

tim

-- 
  Time is like fingers
Gesturing for me to stop      --- A Quake Haiku
   Why is the sun up?