It was not meant as a personal attack. I'm sorry you chose to take it
that way.

But I stand by my statement. Adobe does, in fact, have a history of
doing things that way. I've been dealing with Adobe for a long time, and
I have seen it with my own two eyes. And, after all, it makes good
business sense, doesn't it? The fewer retro versions a company has to
deal with, the easier it is for them. And there is also the matter of
keeping the coffers full. 

I meant it not as a condemnation but merely as what I state it to be: a
speculation. As I say, I'm sorry you chose to take offense.

Chuck


-----Original Message-----
From: Dov Isaacs [mailto:isa...@adobe.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 3:19 PM
To: Charles Beck; framers at lists.frameusers.com
Subject: RE: Acrobatlateral thinking : Implement simultaneous
multiplereleases [was "RE: Adobe Acrobat Reader 8.0"]

Your insinuation that I give my advice wrt/ multiple versions of Acrobat
installed in parallel as an "attempt to coerce everyone to keep up with
the latest offering"
is highly insulting and couldn't be farther from the truth!

        - Dov 



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Beck
> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 5:23 AM
> To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
> Subject: RE: Acrobatlateral thinking : Implement simultaneous 
> multiplereleases [was "RE: Adobe Acrobat Reader 8.0"]
> 
> FWIW, what you say should work for Acrobat does work for me now. I 
> have been using this approach for a number of years without any 
> apparent problem. I keep hearing that others have problems, but I have

> no idea specifically what they are--and in any case, I apparently do 
> not.
> 
> Is it possible that all the hullaballoo is just Adobe's attempt to 
> coerce everyone to keep up with the latest offering, so they do not 
> have to continue to support older versions any longer than absolutely 
> necessary?
> 
> Just wondering...
> Chuck


Reply via email to