PDF printer

I have Q2009D, but I don't know if the PDF printer was installed with my previous version or this one [previous: Q2006B]. Anyhow: I see that I have a printer "Quicken PDF printer", and I thought that'd be cool [I was going to install one of those PDF-via-printer drivers and I was surprised to see that I already had one]. BUT: when I go to print I get "printer not activated, error -30". Is this something that is supposed to be there or is it some [dead?] leftover of a previous quicken? If it *IS* supposed to work, what do I need to do to 'activate' it? THANKS!

/bernie\

Reply to
Bernie Cosell
Loading thread data ...

I recall when I played around with that driver in the past, that use of the driver was limited to Quicken only. It apparently has an internal check to look at the calling program to decide if it will work or not.

Reply to
Robert Neville

From: "Bernie Cosell"

| I have Q2009D, but I don't know if the PDF printer was installed with my | previous version or this one [previous: Q2006B]. Anyhow: I see that I have | a printer "Quicken PDF printer", and I thought that'd be cool [I was going | to install one of those PDF-via-printer drivers and I was surprised to see | that I already had one]. BUT: when I go to print I get "printer not | activated, error -30". Is this something that is supposed to be there or | is it some [dead?] leftover of a previous quicken? If it *IS* supposed to | work, what do I need to do to 'activate' it? THANKS!

| /bernie\ | -- | Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers | snipped-for-privacy@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA | --> Too many people, too few sheep

Reply to
David H. Lipman

Check out the free PDF printer at

formatting link

Bernie Cosell wrote:

Reply to
Stevey

Reply to
Laura

The Quicken PDF printer is not a general purpose PDF converter and will only work with Quicken. I have had the best results with PDF995 which is a $9.95 program (free with nags).

Reply to
glass

files from

I use PDFCreator also. It is also great for creating PDF copies of receipts from online shopping. I Just print the receipt page to the PDF printer. I created a "Receipts" folder, so they all stay together.

It is free, safe, and easy to use.

I also use PDF-XChange Viewer for viewing PDF files. In addition to viewing and printing, It lets you easily edit PDF files. That makes filling in dental claim forms, etc. forms much easier.

-- Jim

Reply to
JimH

"glass" wrote in news:4978820e$0$35413$ snipped-for-privacy@auth.newsreader.octanews.com:

I like that myself. They also have a product called PDFedit which has many uses.

scott s. .

Reply to
scott s.

| I use PDFCreator also. It is also great for creating PDF copies of | receipts from online shopping. I Just print the receipt page to the PDF | printer. I created a "Receipts" folder, so they all stay together.

| It is free, safe, and easy to use.

| I also use PDF-XChange Viewer for viewing PDF files. In addition to | viewing and printing, It lets you easily edit PDF files. That makes | filling in dental claim forms, etc. forms much easier.

| -- | Jim

Another added benefit is that you can stop the PDFCreator print service and then send multiple dicuments to the PDFCreator. You can then combine them into one PDF file in a similar fashion to Adobe Distiller.

Reply to
David H. Lipman

} glass wrote: } > The Quicken PDF printer is not a general purpose PDF converter and } > will only work with Quicken. I have had the best results with PDF995 } > which is a $9.95 program (free with nags). } I don't understand the allure or attraction of a pdf file. Why not } simply configure a printer, any old printer, to print to a "FILE:" port. } Then you have a print out contained in a file that can be printed at any } time. Isn't that what you are aiming for?

Ever tried emailing one of those to your accountant? Or you want to make a report in color and don't have a color printer (but your thumb drive can take you to someplace that does]?

Also, is it easy to print out one of those files these days? It used to create a .PRN file that was really hard to get printed -- I think you needed to fire up a command prompt and do a "copy /b FILE.prn USB1:" to get the thing to print, quite a nuisance compared with right-click/PRINT on a .pdf file.

/bernie\

Reply to
Bernie Cosell

| I don't understand the allure or attraction of a pdf file. Why not | simply configure a printer, any old printer, to print to a "FILE:" port. | Then you have a print out contained in a file that can be printed at any | time. Isn't that what you are aiming for? | -- | Andrew DeFaria | Sometimes too much drink is not enough.

By printing to a PDF you have a published, unalterable, file that is digitally stored for convienient viewing.

Reply to
David H. Lipman

From: "Andrew DeFaria"

| By printing to a Postscript file you also have the same thing. That's my | point!

t!

No, .PS (PostScript) files are NOT easiliy viewable and can be altered. PostScript as an interpreted file that can be edited. PDF is a published file.

Reply to
David H. Lipman

} Bernie Cosell wrote: } > Ever tried emailing one of those to your accountant?

} Well considering until this year I hadn't had an account, no. However I } don't need to. Instead I'd just send HTML - directly in the email. Have } I ever done that for my accountant? Yes frequently. So what's your point?

Ah, you're arguing that HTML is a better document format than PDF? Hardly!

} However if you print to a PostScript printer configured as a FILE: you } get a PostScript file. Like PDF files, PostScript files have viewers } too. So again, what makes a .pdf file special?

Granted. What makes PDF files special is that *EVERYONE* has a PDF file viewer. If you send me a .ps file and then send me instructions on how to install some new programs so I can view it, I can assure you it won't happen.

} > Or you want to make a report in color and don't have a color printer } > (but your thumb drive can } > take you to someplace that does]? } Don't have a color printer? Hell I don't have a B&W printer either! By } and large I don't print anything, or if I do, my work has way better } printers anyway. So I email it so myself and just print it there. Again, } what's the problem?

Only that you're fond of HTML rather than a more standard/useful document format.

} Besides, I can as easily transport and print the PostScript file instead } of the .pdf file if I really wanted to.

Exactly right! In fact PDF is a descendent of [encapsulated] PostScript, and was specifically designed for describing _documents_, whereas PS is a general programming language [I did some really cool fractal-like things and op-art stuff in PS back in the day..:o)]. PDF is standard and essentially *everyone* has a PDF viewer.

} You get a PRN file with old, old, printers. Instead install a FILE: } printer that is PostScript and you'll get a PostScript file. Then } download GhostScript (Which is free) if you must have a viewer. But } again, by and large I avoid anything printed and prefer to use } electronic copies, preferably in HTML...

Well, so with your scheme, you like installing a FILE /PS printer and then asking everyone who might want to view the file to install ghostscript. What a joke!

The real bottom line answer to your original question [as to why PDF is special] is that PDF is *standard*. Essentially everyone already *has* a PDF viewer. If you're going to install a special printer-driver to generate a file-image of your print job, a person would be really foolish to pick anything other than PDF.

HTML is a possibility, but not every app can create HTML output and it is often very funky/ugly in different browsers. [I know, I should just install a FILE: HTML printer...:o)]. Also, HTML doesn't do documents very well [things like headers, footers, page numbers, laying things out with cognizance of the 8½x11-ness of the final output. [e.g., is it even possible to get a multi-page HTML doc to properly print with page #s, much less "page 1 of 4" page #s?]

/Bernie\

Reply to
Bernie Cosell

} > Well, so with your scheme, you like installing a FILE /PS printer and } > then asking everyone who might want to view the file to install } > ghostscript. What a joke! } Where did I say I like it? I didn't. All I'm saying is that PDF is just } one type of way to store data. There's nothing particularly special } about it except that creating them generally requires that you spend } money, which I don't see as an asset.

I guess you haven't paid much attention to this thread -- there are quite a few *free* PDF printer drivers. and of course, there are several free PDF viewers [I use Foxit in preference to the [also freeware] Adobe one].

} > The real bottom line answer to your original question [as to why PDF } > is special] is that PDF is *standard*. Essentially everyone already } > *has* a PDF viewer. If you're going to install a special } > printer-driver to generate a file-image of your print job, a person } > would be really foolish to pick anything other than PDF. } PDF is as "standard" as many other document formats. More popular? } Perhaps. But why is it more popular? That's exactly the question I asked } "Why is it special" meaning more popular. Years ago Postscript was more } popular and PDF was up and coming.

PS was never popular as a file-format: PS *printers* were more popular than, although a lot more expensive than, printers using other rendering technologies, but Adobe had a hammerlock on PS and you had to license a fairly expensive pile of *very* proprietary stuff to add PS-capability to your printer. [and you talk about 'standards not dominated by one company' and can actually mention PostScript with a straight face..:o)]

Adobe came up with PDF as a variant of PostScript *specifically* to be used as an open file format. It was simplified [rendering PostScript is really quite a tricky technical proposition] and as a marketing ploy [they gave away the PDF reader for free [and worked to get it to integrate cleanly and easily with windows, and work as a browser plugin, etc]] and basically it worked.

PS was still a nightmare to "interpret", didn't integrate cleanly with the OS, the only real rendering engine you could find, Peter Deutch's "GhostScript" wasn't supported by Adobe [I believe he had to implement it by reverse-engineering PS from the Blue and Red books] and [back then, at least -- I haven't looked at it in years] it was ugly and big and a pain to install, didn't play-nice with windows or browsers, etc... [interesting, about the only thing I use GhostScript for is that it includes a PS->PDF translator, which I use as a command-line tool on our Unix servers..:o)]

} > HTML is a possibility, but not every app can create HTML output and it } > is often very funky/ugly in different browsers. ...

} I'm sorry you're having difficulty with HTML.

Not "difficulty", just observing that HTML was designed for one environment [online web content] and doesn't do a very good job when pressed into service in a different one [actual *document* description]. And it isn't even very good at describing online web content. If you're at all picky about how your stuff looks you'll grow to HATE HTML: it is such a poorly specified language and its implementations are so varying and [often] incompatible that it is quite hard to get web pages to "look the same" from one browser to the next.

Also, in the context of this thread: how, exactly, do you email HTML-ized versions of the Quicken reports to yourself (which you claimed that you do). I just looked and it doesn't seem that HTML is one of the "print" options in Q2009 -- did I miss that? [not that I'd use it, since I think that HTML is near-worthless for *careful* document formatting]. In fact, almost NONE of the apps I use that generate docs provide HTML output [e.g, Access, and the two different apps I use for music-notation].

} ... HTML has another advantage } in that it's editable and simpler to use. That's why web pages are in } HTML instead of PDF.

No, that's not why web pages are in HTML, instead of PDF. Sigh. And it certainly isn't simpler to use: try doing a view-source on some "modern" web page and then come back and tell us how simple it is.

} ... HTML is standard and not dominated by one company } (cough, Adobe, cough).

Only someone who hasn't tried doing much with HTML would argue that it is "standard". It is non-standard in multiple dimensions [both in terms of vagueness in the spec and in the vagaries of the way different browsers render it]. And I don't exactly understand what "dominated" means in this context. There are a bunch of PDF-generators, all by independent parties [and many free], the Adobe reader is free, and there are other [free] readers [I prefer Foxit]. In fact, PDF's being an open-standard and not proprietary was a requirement before the US gov't standardized on using PDF for its documents [No, you cannot download IRS booklets or passport applications in HTML format..:o)]

} ... I'm no fan of closed formats like PDF and Word, } that cannot be easily shared and built upon by using simple and freely } available tools like a simple editor.

Well, first off if you'd just said that at the beginning that'd shorten this thread: that you believe that PDF is "too proprietary" for your tastes. Although it is odd, because PDF is **LESS** proprietary that PostScript and you argued in favor of PS over PDF. [and on the editing front, no one in his right mind would edit PS in a "simple editor" [you've clearly never looked at much PS source-code. yes, it is *possible*, theoretically, to do so [since it is a plain-text file] but it is WAY too difficult to do by hand [take it from someone who has done it]]] and there are *bunches* of PDF-generation choices that don't involve having to purchase Acrobat [Perl has a fairly nice suite of PDF-generation modules].

} HTML can do headers and footers with no problems. Page numbers and 8 } 1/2x11-ness is important to you only because you think in terms of } physical papers. As stated I don't care about physical papers.

No, you didn't state that at all. You argued that a PS-printer-driver together with Ghostscript was a more sensible choice than a PDF-printer-driver and a PDF-renderer. If you don't want to print

*at*all*, that's fine -- then why did you stick your oar into a discussion of "how to print"?

} ... Ever here } the term paperless? If so then why do you care about 8 1/2x11? It is you } sir who is stuck in past paradigms, not me.

Not at all. The nice part about PDF is that it is a *BETTER* document-description format than HTML is [and it is the -successor- to PS, and so even *thinking* about using PS as a doc-description file format is

*very* "past paradigm"]. Sometimes the specifics and format of a document are important. When you don't care how it actually looks, then HTML is fine [although not every programs will produce HTML for you and so you'll still have the problem of how to capture their output].

In terms of past paradigms, actually I think the 'future' of *document* layout is probably along the lines of the 'docbook' work, but it is still way too early in its development to use it for general use [IMO]. But I

*can* see a day when there'll be a 'docbook' option for generating reports. I *don't* see HTML _ever_ becoming a standard for actual, serious documents

-- that's not its purpose and it does way too poor a job of it.

/Bernie\

Reply to
Bernie Cosell

| And you haven't been paying attention to what I wrote. I said "creating | [PDF]

ee?

PDFCreator on SourceForge

formatting link
Under... GNU Free license FairPlay License AFPL License

And yes, FoxIt viewer is also free.

I don't understand the argument. PDF is the standard for a published file format - period.

Personally I have used Acrobat since v4.0. I create all our office forms in PDF format and our database manager even links those fields into a MS Access database. In short I use the PDF format every day. Both free, PDFCreator, and paid for Acrobat.

Reply to
David H. Lipman

| I'll ask you a question that may get you thinking along the right lines. | Why would somebody purchase Adobe Writer?

Adobe PDFWriter is a component of the Adobe Acrobat product and it depends on the version of what options are available in Adobe Acrobat Professional or Adobe Acrobat Standard. One can...

- create PDF files through the Print Driver and/or thorough various program installed macros.

- use distiller to merge multiple files into one PDF

- use Acrobat to enable user rights in Adobe Reader

- use Acrobat to insert or delete pages in a PDF file

- use Acrobat to change the security of a given PDF

- use the Life Cylcle Designer component of Acrobat Professional to create forms in PDF format.

- use Acrobat and package an Adobe Form within another PDF file.

- use the Life Cylcle Designer component to create a form and then merge an MS Access database to the form fields and Adobe Acrobat.

Examples: Take IRS form f1040a.pdf. User rights have been enabled in the PDF form such that Adobe Reader (or other) users can save data with the form. Lets say you need access to a service. One can create an instuctiona manual on the service and how to apply for access to that service and package the PDF form for access to said service in the PDF manual.

| It's not open. You need to acquire a license.

Nope. The PDF format is an open format and that is why there is a plethora of available programs to do what Adobe does with PDF. Adobe is however the benchmark for all uses of PDF.

| format and our database manager even links those fields

| short I use the PDF format every day.

| | Why did you buy Acrobat?

I use PDFCreator at home. It is free and I can print to the PDFCreator Printer and create PDF files. Even merge multiple documents into on PDF file.

I use Acrobat at work because of te many capabilities it provides as I listed above. I can even scan a non-editable form into Adobe and then use Life Cycle Designer to create an editible form. I then use Acrobat to enable user rights in Reader.

With Life Cycle Designer I can create forms that have pull down fields where the user can select from a defined list of entries (like states of the country) or type their own. I can also create a date field that provides a calendar so all you have to do is select the date and it will enter the text into the field in the format you choose it to display in (format examples; 20090125, January 25, 2009, 1/25/09, etc).

There is so much that I can do, in a business setting, using Acrobat Professional and that's why at work I have numerous licenses for Acrobat Professional v7, v8 and v9. I do most of my work in Acrobat Professional v8.1.3.

Reply to
David H. Lipman

From: "David H. Lipman"

ADDENDUM:

formatting link

Reply to
David H. Lipman

From: "Andrew DeFaria"

| Cool! So again, where's the free Acrobat that I can use? | -- | Andrew DeFaria | ... File not found. Should I fake it? (Y/N)

Enjoy your Sunday Andrew.

Reply to
David H. Lipman

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.