Ron, if you are merely in search of universality, keep searching.
If you are in search of a solution for your problem, then why do you sneer at the helpful, well-meaning, and sensible response from W.T.Allen, who asked you all the right questions and got nothing from you but a huff and a puff?
This is a user community forum, not a "bash Adobe" forum. If you're having problems and want help, you're welcome to it as much as we all can provide (but we need as much detail as possible, as with any and all troubleshooting). If you just want to complain, save our time, please.
Firstly I'd point out that the document is fully screen readable in Acrobat
Reader 5.x so your claim above is suspect.
Suspect or not, it's fact.
"Adaptive Compression" can utilize JPEG2000 compression which will not work in Acrobat 5.x. The "not working" portion may only present itself when printing, as JPEG2000 can contain a preview image in old-style JPEG format that 5.x can render on-screen, but not print full-res.
Whether or not Acrobat 6's PDF Optimizer is smart enough to know not to use JPEG2000 (Adaptive Compression can use other encoding formats, but JPEG2000 is the real space-saving breakthrough) if it's also set to 5.x compatibility I don't know. Since you are unwilling to provide an example, we may never know.
I would suggest making up a file with dummy data in it so that client or company confidentiality is maintained, but the problem can be examined. You can post it here or email it to me for posting (allen at cerp dot net). Or, if you are willing to email me the file (I won't post it) I can examine it confidentially, but I can understand why you may be unwilling to do so (the same confidentiality concerns that prevent you from posting it here, and you don't know me from anybody).
If you are in search of a solution for your problem, then why do you sneer
at the helpful, well-meaning, and sensible response from W.T.Allen, who
asked you all the right questions and got nothing from you but a huff
and a puff?
Gibberish as anyone who reads the thread can see for themselves.
"Adaptive Compression" can utilize JPEG2000 compression which will not
work in Acrobat 5.x. The "not working" portion may only present itself
when printing, as JPEG2000 can contain a preview image in old-style JPEG
format that 5.x can render on-screen, but not print full-res.
Whether or not Acrobat 6's PDF Optimizer is smart enough to know not to
use JPEG2000 (Adaptive Compression can use other encoding formats, but
JPEG2000 is the real space-saving breakthrough) if it's also set to 5.x
compatibility I don't know. Since you are unwilling to provide an example,
we may never know.
Ah so now someone has a plausible suggestion and a stipulation of a probable Acrobat 6.0 Pro bug. So try it with the "Adaptive Compression" off is what I'll do. Can I use any compression that Acrobat 5.x reader will allow or are we back to photoeditors and resizing .jpg-s before giving them to Acrobat?
There's no point in anykind of a test file. I'm looking for operability under 99+% of the normal cases and how to confine my usage of Acrobat Pro 6.0 to realize that goal. I can't be coming here and generating test files for something like this...read the thread.
"There's no point in anykind of a test file. I'm looking for operability under 99+% of the normal cases and how to confine my usage of Acrobat Pro 6.0 to realize that goal. I can't be coming here and generating test files for something like this...read the thread.
"
Then don't come.
If the images are black and white a very neat technology called JBIG is
used. This is readable by Acrobat 5.0 and above.
Interesting and they are BW images in this case. But are JBIG images printable by Acrobat 5.x reader?
How do I confine my usage of Acrobat 6.0 Pro to make it most certain that the PDFs I'm producing are widely readable/printable by Acrobat 5.x reader? I jusy want to produce documents that I can assume will work except under very unusual circumstances. I tried the simpliest thing on my first encounter with Acrobat 6.0 Pro as described earlier in this thread and I get a Fortune 500 customer coming back saying my PDFs aren't printable and I'm saying what the hell is going on with this universal document distribution format of PDF???
"I'm saying what the hell is going on with this universal document distribution format of PDF??? "
Most likely being sabotaged by bad printer drivers and or client setups.
Acrobat has a feature called print as image. Have your clients tick this option and see if they can print the pdf files.
There's no point in anykind of a test file. I'm looking for operability
under 99+% of the normal cases and how to confine my usage of Acrobat
Pro 6.0 to realize that goal.
And test/example file would be the perfect tool for helping with that. I know how to examine the code of a finished PDF for features that may not work with older versions of Reader, you apparently do not. I was offering to help.
When you say they are black and white, do you mean true black and white (1 bit) or grayscale (8 bit)? I just want to make sure because a lot of people confuse the two.
Most likely being sabotaged by bad printer drivers and or client setups.
Acrobat has a feature called print as image. Have your clients tick this
option and see if they can print the pdf files.
And test/example file would be the perfect tool for helping with that.
I know how to examine the code of a finished PDF for features that may
not work with older versions of Reader, you apparently do not. I was offering
to help.
You guys aren't getting it. I'm sending PDFs to a Fortune 500 customer and would like to be able to use PDFs generally to distribute documents to anyone. Options NOT reasonably available are to start debugging some Fortune 500 company's PCs or printer driver installs. Test files are relevant to back room Adobe developers making their products more robust.
I'm looking for a set of guidelines of how to use Acrobat 6.0 Pro to reliably distribute documents while avoiding getting into all the nonsense you suggest.
What I do know is that I and most everyone view zillions of PDFs on the web and there is rarely a problem. On reflection and distilling the smoke screen comments like "sabotaged by bad printer drivers and or client setups" I remind myself of how infrequently I ever try and print from one of the zillion PDFs one finds on the web. On further reflection I remember that the last time I tried(1.5 years ago) printing from a PDF it failed miserably and I then set upon redoing all the printer drivers at that company. I found then that only PCL5e worked robustly and neither PCL6 nor PS worked well printing that PDF.
So putting all this together draws me to the conclusion that PDFs are widely workable and distributable for ON SCREEN VIEWING via Acrobat Reader but try and print and one has slipped back into 80's computing and finger pointing and swamps and aligators. Do I now have this all about right??
You guys aren't getting it.
With the greatest respect Ron I think it is you who is not getting it.
You are asking for generalizations are are getting them. You are also getting some specifics thrown into the bargain.
You refuse to accept any offer of help. I would suggest calling Adobe and asking them for their take on it. And I strongly suspect that they will ask you for a sanple file! Not everything can be solved by theory.
So putting all this together draws me to the conclusion that PDFs are
widely workable and distributable for ON SCREEN VIEWING via Acrobat Reader
but try and print and one has slipped back into 80's computing and finger
pointing and swamps and aligators.
I work in a publications department. We publish hundreds of documents, from PDF's, every month, including documents 1000+ pages containing tables and graphics. I have worked here 5 years; there are occasionally problems, but on the whole, we would have been out of business years ago if we COULD NOT print from PDF's.
So putting all this together draws me to the conclusion that PDFs are
widely workable and distributable for ON SCREEN VIEWING via Acrobat Reader
but try and print and one has slipped back into 80's computing and finger
pointing and swamps and aligators.
Everything is this thread confirms that conclusion as anyone who reads it can see.
Everything is this thread confirms that conclusion as anyone who reads
it can see.
Once agin this is very much a generalization that has no evidence outside your particular situation.
I would take up W T on his offer to look at a file and perhaps he might come up with a more definite explanation/solution - which you are not alone in wanting to know.
The other option is to pay Adobe to do this.
As you appear to loathe Adobe, I would choose the first option to avoid further lining their coffers. Having said that howver they seem to need all the money they can get to bring their software into the 21st century :)
As you appear to loathe Adobe, I would choose the first option to avoid
further lining their coffers. Having said that howver they seem to need
all the money they can get to bring their software into the 21st century
Eventually the forum troll shows himself.
I like Adobe and their products but then we oldtimers get quite good at distilling the truth from the bull. Thankyou all for facilitating that distillation.
Eventually the forum troll shows himself.
Indeed, this would seem to be the conclusion to be drawn. Hopefully no more time shall be wasted upon him.