Bruce documented his experiences with Adobe Acrobat and since his
experience was positive, I decided to give it one more try.  I
downloaded the version pointed to by Bruce's URL and installed on my
486/100 with 24 MB memory.  Using the same document that I previously
had problems with I was able to view it completely in this latest
version of Acrobat Reader.  Viewing on the screen had quite acceptable
performance.  Printing the document still took a long time (at least
10-15 minutes for 11 pages) and almost, but not quite, made my PC
unusable for other purposes.
 
Bruce then goes on to say ...
 
>HTML is fine for displays, but not for producing printed
>documentation.  I've had my share of wonky HTML displays, though most
>of these were on pages far more complex than those encountered in
>ordinary documentation.  If I'm writing documentation, I want the page
>layout to stay the way I fix it. The layout is important to making the
>document easy to read, and I use fonts, whitespace and other
>HTML-invisible elements to direct the reader's attention and provide
>visual cues.
 
I would agree that HTML has a lot of problems for producting more
complex documents.  My concern was that *all* of my experiences with
Acrobat Reader had been very negative (e.g., today was the first time
that I didn't get GPFs).  I think that the PDF format is the way to go
in the long-term -- I'm less certain if the free Acrobat Reader is
quite ready for prime time.  Your milage may vary (by quite a bit :).
 
Cheers,
 
David    <[log in to unmask]>