On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 2:00 AM, William Tracy wrote: > > This is new and interesting to me. How does mupdf stack up against xpdf?
I really haven't done any timing tests. However, I've read that mupdf was designed by some of the ghostscript developers to be more efficient than poppler (poppler itself being based on xpdf). If you search the web, you'll find some timing comparisons like this one ( http://hzqtc.github.io/2012/04/poppler-vs-mupdf.html ). mupdf has very basic features. I find it runs faster than any other pdf viewers I've tried on my netbook and laptop. If I were to pick just one pdf viewer for my system, at this point, I'd go with mupdf. There are some other projects that use the mupdf engine and may add more features. There are far fewer projects based on mupdf than on poppler though. If you're interested, you can find more on mupdf at http://www.mupdf.com/ One other interesting thing about mupdf, there are no real Gnome or KDE dependencies ( http://packages.debian.org/squeeze-backports/mupdf ). Sincerely, Laura http://www.distasis.com/cpp
-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
