92
Replies
Mike,
By definition, a PDF page defined with units beyond 14400 is an invalid PDF file, plain and simple. The specification is the specification! Whether a PDF viewer chooses to ignore such a PDF file's error is not Adobe's issue. (Why the PDF specification has that limit is probably lost to history, but remember that the original PDF specification was spec'd at a time when the majority of processors were 16-bit running at no more than about 20Mhz with no more than 8 megabytes of memory.)
To satisfy my own curiosity, I did take a valid one page PDF file and used some internal tools to change the page's dimensions from 612 x792 units (US letter) to 612x20000 units, to 612x14401 units, and then to 612x14400 units. At both 612x20000 and 612x14401 units, Acrobat claimed page size as 8.5"x200" but did not display any of the page's original contents. At 612x14400 units, Acrobat claimed page size (correctly) as 8.5"x200" and the original contents did properly display at the very "left" on this very wide page. Bottom line is that if you try specifying units for the page size that exceed 14400 (200"), Acrobat will treat the values as 14400 (200") but will likely not properly display the page. So now we know that answer! (Quite frankly, Acrobat should at least issue an error diagnostic for any such file! I'll file the bug report!)
What applications are you using that create PDF pages with any dimension greater than 200" without using UserUnit? Such applications by definition are creating invalid PDF files that do not comply with the ISO PDF standard, plain and simple! And to date, I have not encountered user complaints about having PDF files exceeding the 200" limit (created by non-Adobe tools) that would not properly display in Acrobat or Reader; there mustn't be many such files! 
In terms of 64-bit Acrobat, Adobe was effectively forced into making a 64-bit version for MacOS due to Apple mandates with regards to its current MacOS versions and that the vast majority of MacOS users of Acrobat are already on both 64-bit hardware and MacOS versions. The same urgency has not bubbled up (yet) for Windows. For better or worse (I think for worse), Microsoft still actively licenses Windows (including Windows 10) for 32-bit very low end Windows systems. Having to simultaneously develop and support both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Acrobat and Reader would require significant additional development and QA resource within Adobe. Note that pure performance improvements are not a reason for 64-bit versions of applications. In fact, on Intel processors, 64-bit applications may in fact run slower than the corresponding 32-bit versions of same. What 64-bit applications do bring is the ability to access a much larger address space. Only if that larger address space is utilized prudently (usually requiring significant re-engineering and not just recompiling and adjusting headers), will a 64-bit version of an application offer advantages. I personally would love to have 64-bit Acrobat for Windows, but don't expect it in the near future.
- Dov
Hmm. Don't know where to start. Sorry, just thick headed (especially as the day wears on).
CorelDraw will gladly create a PDF that does not use UU. It can be opened in Foxit (and others) and it will display properly (dims and all). And if one knows the secret handshake, one can get Acrobat (here using XI) to simply display it properly...but that is still using UUs.
The cap letters are 60" tall.
As for complaints, I think we all know and most everyone accepts the 200" limitation. So we all simply use scaled drawings. In AI, that means one must draw at scale, calculate and deal with any bitmaps at scale, etc. It is a right pita. So much so that once upon a time I wrote a spreadsheet to do the calculations for the office. So for the above 432" H "drawing," in AI I would do it at 25% scale, then size bitmaps accordingly, etc., etc. The spreadsheet I would hand to whomever would be like...
But in CD, if I needed to comply, I would design at 100% size, then grab everything and scale it down to the 25% and make everyone happy. It is by far the easiest approach that doesn't require hand-holding. But if AI, CD et al would just add the UU for over-sized work, it would be a good solution--though I still believe if Foxit can display it, Acrobat could.
Mike
Yep, CD has a limit on the size of Text. Dumb, ain't it. But then, once converted to curves, the sky's the limit in CD. What about AI?
And then there's the fact that AI & ID can create a page size that they cannot really output and it's own cousin cannot display. What's the use of that? the PDF I produced was out of CD, a screen shot of which is below. And in one part of the process, Adobe products were used (but no harm came of them).
Just like John H's mucking about with the OT Spec to "clarify" a couple important OT features (that AI/ID and others ignore by the way), me thinks the spec is long in the tooth and ought to updated to reflect reality. Then maybe, just maybe, Adobe et al could also work on updating their applications.
Peace, love, dove and all that (just felt like I had to throw that in).
Mike
https://forums.adobe.com/people/MW+Design wrote
…
As for "universally accepted across the commercial industry," well, I don't know if you have worked in the large format industry, but 9/10 shops I have dealt with curse AI files universally. Same goes for its PDFs, but especially ID PDFs. Same goes in some other industries.
"Non-Standard" is a joke. I have been producing, first, PostScript files for ripping and once PDFs became a thing, PDFs made from "Non-Standard" software since 1989. In the early 1990s I was producing 2-color Pantone gradients using a paper-white monitor that ripped just fine. Er, not made with Adobe software. It all can work just fine--the exception being what the client dictates. And if that is a CC version of ID, so be it.
We've come full-circle to Bob's point: I'll just happily rent at that point. Otherwise I'll just keep using my "Non-Standard"software along with CS6 products. It's less outlay for me, and, unfortunately, less for Adobe as well.
Mike
Absolutely amazing if you in fact have been “producing … PDFs made from ‘Non-Standard’ software since 1989.” In fact PDF only dates from 1993! 
In terms of a number of other problems you point to, many have nothing whatsoever to do with file format but rather, poor design work on the part of the graphic artist (or perhaps some untrained persons trying to serve as graphic artists). The file formats, whether .AI, .PDF, etc. only reflect what the original content had. GIGO — garbage in, garbage out.
With regards to perpetual licences, I will agree wholeheartedly that Adobe's communication with regards to the discontinuation of same was anything but stellar. That having been said, given the continuing incompatible changes in operating system and hardware features, especially on MacOS and now increasing on Windows as well, Adobe was put into a situation where customers were demanding OS and hardware compatibility and feature updates for previous perpetual license versions (“perpetual licensed software” is supported only for the hardware and operating system environments that were current while the particular perpetual license versions were current). Such support was untenable and actually impossible given revenue-recognition accounting rules as well as the gross incompatibilities between the OS version programming environments. In the “old days” users would continually bellyache when a new version of the applications came out with support for new hardware and OS versions, forcing them to pay for upgrades to maintain compatibility with their computer's features and OS. With the subscription model, we continually support the latest OS versions and hardware (at least within a few months of their release) without charging “upgrade” fees and making you wait for long, full release development cycles.
I'm glad that CS6 still works for you, but be aware that when you finally have to replace your PC with a new one that won't run anything but the latest Windows 10 (and possibly has a nice, big 4K monitor) or you replace your older Mac with a new one that runs MacOS 10.12 or later, CS6 will be at best very problematic for you.
- Dov
AdChoices