From: "Robert Comer" 

> One of the magazines we advertise in uses it, some of their pdf files on
> their website are really pathetic, I can't believe they would put such
> poor
> quality out in public like that.

Probably just a settings problem, PDF's just postscript basically and it
isn't rocket science...

Quality isn't really our main concern, but PDF995 looks just as good as the
other ways I produce PDF's.  I also have a PDF maker on the AS/400, but
it's quite expensive, and I scan straight to PDF's for email and such.  Our
whole corp is very heavy into PDF's as a document exchange...

If you have a doc you want to send me I can print it to a PDF with PDF995,
or any other way for that matter, if you want to see the results.  That
goes for anyone else here btw, just don't make the source file so big it
clogs up my internet connection!  I don't have autocad on my PC, but I
think I can get ahold of a viewer. (that may compromise the quality though)

- Bob Comer

"Geo"  wrote in message
news:432d6398$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> I've never used PDF995 so I can't comment on it but I've received a number
> of very poor PDF files and each time I check the properties to see what
> PDF
> maker program was used, every single one is made by some pdf maker that
> doesn't identify itself in the pdf so it's probably some freeware stuff
> trying to avoid adobe's radar.
>
> One of the magazines we advertise in uses it, some of their pdf files on
> their website are really pathetic, I can't believe they would put such
> poor
> quality out in public like that.
>
> Geo. (I'll see if I can get a URL so you can see what I mean)
>
> "Robert Comer"  wrote in message
> news:432ce738{at}w3.nls.net...
>> Just a datapoint, but I have both Acrobat and PDF995, and I prefer PDF995
>> for everything but specially set up reports...
>>
>> - Bob Comer
>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5