Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!


Click here to return to the 'Can do, but why?' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Can do, but why?
Authored by: WaltFrench on Feb 14, '03 09:26:53AM

Dunno if it's kool or not, but why would somebody want to lose Acrobat's various features that are tuned to viewing PDF's? Like side-by-side pages and other layout-aware formats, easy zooming, bookmark/thumbnail smarts, ... ?

I never did like Swiss Army Knives -- big hunks of metal in your pocket, but the corkscrew is more likely to shred the cork than help you enjoy a nice sip. Ditto for the idea that a good piece of software ought to do everything in one place. Once upon a time Apple had a vision for user-designed inter-operability, but it's dead. Turning the light-on-its-feet Safari into Bloatware that Wants to Do Everything Poorly seems like a travesty.

C'mon Apple: bring back the USER's ability to link together first-class functionality, rather than force us to choose a "home base" app that we kludge to do all our work in, because it's too painful to be swapping between various apps.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Can do, but why?
Authored by: Spartacus on Feb 14, '03 10:57:50AM

FYI, the official Swiss Army Knife has no corkscrew.

Do you know anybody who put a Swiss Army Knife in your pocket without asking? I'd be interested.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Re: Can do, but why?
Authored by: ChuckEye on Feb 15, '03 09:57:01PM

As far as I know, PDF rendering is built into the Quartz engine. That's why Preview, a 1.6 MB app, can render them, and Safari too. So it's not really bloatware if the functionality is system-wide, and not an inflated app.

Then again, Jamie Zawinski's Law of Software Development states ``Every program attempts to expand until it can read mail. Those programs which cannot so expand are replaced by ones which can.''



[ Reply to This | # ]
Re: Can do, but why?
Authored by: red30 on Feb 17, '03 07:02:46AM

let's see here, on my system, Safari comes in at ~7 MB. Acrobat Reader, on the other hand, tips the scales at 77.4 MB (wait, that can't be right... ...holy sh**, Acrobat READER is 77 MB, and I'm not even talking about the full Acrobat). Now that's B L O A T W A R E. Thanks, but anything that takes 77 MB, and is that slow, I'm gonna replace with Safari. Good tip, thanks.



[ Reply to This | # ]