I do. I leave Flash Player on that machine though and Windows Servers
probably account for a decent percentage of computer connected to the
internet.
They may well do, but the statistics clearly state that they refer to
Internet-enabled desktops not computer connected to the internet so
-Original Message-
From: James Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 4:29 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Bloomberg article
I do. I leave Flash Player on that machine though and Windows Servers
probably account for a decent percentage of computer connected
dave wrote:
he just doesnt like flashpaper because he doesnt like the way it displays
fonts
Far beyond that. I'm saying that not only do I dislike it (because it's
less powerful), it's redundant as a product as far as Adobe is
concerned.
I think the use of rasterised fonts is a step back
I think you hit the nail on the head. I could easily see Acrobat supporting PDF
for print and FlashPDF (formerly Flashpaper) for online presentation. Same
source document, different distillation, to use the Adobe terminology.
You mean the new FlashPDF (formerly flashpaper)? I love it.
Adrocknaphobia wrote:
Uhhh... considering the post you replied to cut+pasted one of several
paragraphs which explicity talked about FlashPaper... exactly what are
you talking about?
The FAQ mentions FlashPaper nowhere. Nowhere. It mentions Flash alright,
but nowhere does it mention
-Original Message-
From: Rick Root [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 9:32 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Bloomberg article
While looking at news articles about the buyout, I noticed a few
interesting things in the Bloomberg news...
Paragraph one of the article:
Rick Root wrote:
Macromedia's Flash Player, which displays moving images and sound on
Web pages, is installed in more than 98 percent of Internet-connected
desktop computers. By buying Macromedia, Adobe Chief Executive Bruce
Chizen, 49, is reducing reliance on his flagship Acrobat
: Re: Bloomberg article
Rick Root wrote:
Macromedia's Flash Player, which displays moving images and sound on
Web pages, is installed in more than 98 percent of Internet-connected
desktop computers. By buying Macromedia, Adobe Chief Executive Bruce
Chizen, 49, is reducing reliance on his
Calvin Ward wrote:
I fail to see what is wrong with Flashpaper, it has a smaller footprint and
can be easily embedded in pages, and is supported by more browsers than PDF
is.
Are you talking about executable footprint or file footprint? If it's
executable footprint, then that's just because
Calvin Ward wrote:
I fail to see what is wrong with Flashpaper, it has a smaller footprint and
can be easily embedded in pages, and is supported by more browsers than PDF
is.
My problem was the length of time it took to print anything that was
converted from something like powerpoint. For
Aye, they both have challenges, but I think Flashpaper has a place.
- Calvin
-Original Message-
From: Rick Root [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 11:48 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Bloomberg article
Calvin Ward wrote:
I fail to see what is wrong with Flashpaper
Gaughan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 11:32 AM
To: CF-Talk cf-talk@houseoffusion.com
Subject: Re: Bloomberg article
I'm just hoping that this will mean the end to the awful pointless
abortion of an idea that is FlashPaper. Now that Macromedia as been
consumed by PDF's creators, there's
Embedded pdfs still take a long time to load...flashpaper is supported
on over 98% of the computers on the internet, Acrobat is not near
that. Flashpaper is more widely supported. The executable footprint is
unbeleively different 500k vs 10+ MB the SWF vs PDF sizes are simular
though PDF wins out
://www.keslabs.com
Coldfusion Remote Dashboard ::
http://www.keslabs.com/crd
-Original Message-
From: Keith Gaughan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 9:28 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Bloomberg article
Rick Root wrote:
Macromedia's Flash Player, which displays moving images
Flashpaper is here to stay. The simple reason... mobile. PDF is not
fit for mobile deployment. Flashpaper will help solidify Adobe's web
document manifesto.
From the FAQ.
'Do you expect to integrate the FlashPlayer and the Adobe Reader? The
complementary functionality of FlashPlayer and Adobe
You mean the new FlashPDF (formerly flashpaper)? I love it.
Everyone who's been using flashpaper on the sites I use it on rave
about.
You may not like it but the uses sure do, slick, clean, fast, no adobe
plugin necessary, sure it needs a flash one but who doesn't have
that?
Adam Haskell wrote:
Embedded pdfs still take a long time to load...flashpaper is supported
on over 98% of the computers on the internet, Acrobat is not near
that.
Where'd you get that statistic from?
Flashpaper is more widely supported. The executable footprint is
unbeleively different
dave wrote:
That's just silly.
If you look at it from Adobe's point of view, it's not so silly.
Everyone who's been using flashpaper on the sites I use it on rave about.
You may not like it but the uses sure do, slick, clean, fast, no adobe
plugin necessary, sure it needs a flash one but
Kevin Aebig wrote:
Maybe my view is biased, but I'll take a 150k plugin over a 10 mb plugin for
my users anyday. The bloated abortion that is called the acrobat plugin is a
utter waste of time. My guess is that within 2 versions, flashpaper *would*
have surpassed PDF's in features...
Yup, I
: Monday, April 18, 2005 1:22 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Bloomberg article
Adam Haskell wrote:
Embedded pdfs still take a long time to load...flashpaper is supported
on over 98% of the computers on the internet, Acrobat is not near
that.
Where'd you get that statistic from?
Flashpaper is more
Adrocknaphobia wrote:
Flashpaper is here to stay. The simple reason... mobile. PDF is not
fit for mobile deployment. Flashpaper will help solidify Adobe's web
document manifesto.
From the FAQ.
'Do you expect to integrate the FlashPlayer and the Adobe Reader? The
complementary
Adam Haskell wrote:
Embedded pdfs still take a long time to load...flashpaper is supported
on over 98% of the computers on the internet, Acrobat is not near
that.
Flashpaper requires Flash Player 6, which currently has an installation
base of 95% as of December '04.
You have to go all the
Keith Gaughan wrote:
Adam Haskell wrote:
Embedded pdfs still take a long time to load...flashpaper is supported
on over 98% of the computers on the internet, Acrobat is not near
that.
Where'd you get that statistic from?
http://www.macromedia.com/software/player_census/flashplayer/
...
Kevin
-Original Message-
From: Keith Gaughan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 11:30 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Bloomberg article
Kevin Aebig wrote:
Maybe my view is biased, but I'll take a 150k plugin over a 10 mb plugin
for
my users anyday. The bloated abortion
Wyle Laboratories, Inc. | Web Developer
-Original Message-
From: Calvin Ward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 12:31 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Bloomberg article
Aye, they both have challenges, but I think Flashpaper has a place.
- Calvin
-Original Message
Rick Root wrote:
http://www.macromedia.com/software/player_census/flashplayer/
Though technically Flashpaper is only supported on 95.1% of platforms as
of December 2004. ;)
Forgive me if I take those with a grain of salt: have you seen where it
ranks Windows Media Player?
K.
Kevin Aebig wrote:
Notice how I said would... =]
D'oh! Sorry 'bout that. I'm overloaded with work this week and my
attention isn't exactly 100%.
My biggest worry is that Adobe has a horrible history of supporting only Win
and Carbon based Mac apps. They're untested when it comes to servers
Burns, John D wrote:
Any reason they couldn't get rid of FlashPaper but make a lite version
of Acrobat Reader in the Flash 8 player that could decyfer PDFs?
Little or none, especially if you don't expect the cut-down version to
cope with things like embedded JavaScript or Forms. However, it
Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer
Wyle Laboratories, Inc. | Web Developer
-Original Message-
From: Keith Gaughan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 2:08 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Bloomberg article
Rick Root wrote:
http://www.macromedia.com/software/player_census
MX Developer
Wyle Laboratories, Inc. | Web Developer
-Original Message-
From: Keith Gaughan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 2:14 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Bloomberg article
Burns, John D wrote:
Any reason they couldn't get rid of FlashPaper but make a lite
Burns, John D wrote:
What wrong with high rankings for WMP? Windows machines are all over
the place. Most times, people do have WMP, the problem with delivering
it usually falls to firewalls and filters and packet inspectors. The
numbers for WMP on the internet probably are staggeringly
: Monday, April 18, 2005 2:15 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Bloomberg article
What wrong with high rankings for WMP? Windows machines are all over
the place. Most times, people do have WMP, the problem with delivering
it usually falls to firewalls and filters and packet inspectors. The
numbers for WMP
maybe that has to do with all the reports of it being microsofts spyware
From: Keith Gaughan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 2:28 PM
To: CF-Talk cf-talk@houseoffusion.com
Subject: Re: Bloomberg article
Burns, John D wrote:
What wrong
: Bloomberg article
Rick Root wrote:
http://www.macromedia.com/software/player_census/flashplayer/
Though technically Flashpaper is only supported on 95.1% of platforms as
of December 2004. ;)
Forgive me if I take those with a grain of salt: have you seen where it
ranks Windows Media Player
: Keith Gaughan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 2:23 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Bloomberg article
Burns, John D wrote:
What wrong with high rankings for WMP? Windows machines are all over
the place. Most times, people do have WMP, the problem with delivering
it usually
dave wrote:
Forgive me if I take those with a grain of salt: have you seen where it
ranks Windows Media Player
well wmp does kinda suck
Maybe so, but it's on EVERY windows machine. Do you really believe that
only 42% of internet connected PCs have Windows Media Player?
I can see
PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 2:38 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Bloomberg article
Can WMP version be detected via a JS script like Flash? I'd be curious
to know. What if firewalls block WM content, would that show up as a
non-existent player?
John Burns
Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX
On 4/18/05, Keith Gaughan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Adam Haskell wrote:
Embedded pdfs still take a long time to load...flashpaper is supported
on over 98% of the computers on the internet, Acrobat is not near
that.
Where'd you get that statistic from?
-Talk
Subject: Re: Bloomberg article
dave wrote:
Forgive me if I take those with a grain of salt: have you seen where
it ranks Windows Media Player
well wmp does kinda suck
Maybe so, but it's on EVERY windows machine. Do you really believe that
only 42% of internet connected PCs have
-Original Message-
From: Burns, John D [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 3:30 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Bloomberg article
Actually, it's not on EVERY windows machine. For many companies that
build a single image of Windows they choose for Windows Media to not be
installed
On 4/18/05, Matthew Small wrote:
OK, but it's on almost every other Windows machine. If it's a server it
shouldn't even matter if it has Flash.
This is going pretty far off-topic, but . . . .
MSFT will soon be selling a version of Windows in Europe that doesn't
include WMP. So, it'll be
Uhhh... considering the post you replied to cut+pasted one of several
paragraphs which explicity talked about FlashPaper... exactly what are
you talking about?
PDF on a mobile device does not make sense. PDF is for PRINT. Why
would someone want a printable document on thier phone? Not to mention
he just doesnt like flashpaper because he doesnt like the way it displays fonts
From: Adrocknaphobia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 6:12 PM
To: CF-Talk cf-talk@houseoffusion.com
Subject: Re: Bloomberg article
Uhhh... considering the post
PDF on a mobile device does not make sense. PDF is for PRINT.
Why would someone want a printable document on thier phone?
Not to mention the quality and filesize issues. FlashPaper is
perfect for the mobile document. Don't expect them to get rid
of it any time soon, the only thing you'll
44 matches
Mail list logo
