Re: MICRO Magazines Library Now Complete

[Mike <maginnis@computist-project.net>]

On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 07:38:24 -0700 (PDT), "bill.martens@gmail.com"
<bill.martens@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jul 28, 11:15�pm, Mike <magin...@computist-project.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 07:58:47 -0600, Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> <magin...@computist-project.net> wrote:
>> >On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 07:12:38 -0700 (PDT), Calibrator
>> ><calibra...@freenet.de> wrote:
>>
>> >>On Jul 27, 10:53�am, "Michael J. Mahon" <mjma...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>> Great news, Bill--and thanks to all who made this possible.
>>
>> >>Yes, it's definitely a wealth of information. I always thought micro
>> >>was strictly for the single-board computers of the early eighties
>> >>so this was a positive surprise.
>> >>I also like the "no compromise" hi-res full-color approach of the
>> >>newer scans.
>>
>> >>> It does look like "micro_50_jul_1982.pdf" is damaged, though. �;-(
>>
>> >>You may want to try downloading it again as I had no problems
>> >>with the file.
>> >>It's 126,385,707 bytes large, by the way, and a scroll-through
>> >>showed no problems (I use the Foxit PDF viewer).
>>
>> >>bye
>> >>Marcus
>>
>> >Hmm. �I'm having the same problem as Michael. �Acrobat tells me it's
>> >not a valid PDF, though I'm seeing the file as being 41,934,848 bytes
>> >- about the same size as all the others. �Foxit Reader also chokes on
>> >it...
>>
>> >Issues 48, 49 and 51 also fail to open.
>>
>> >- Mike
>>
>> Hmm. �I was able to get good copies using Firefox instead of Chrome.
>> Weird.
>>
>> - Mike
>
>I have downloaded and checked all 4 with Acrobat and absolutely no
>issues exist.   Could it be that your downloads of the issues are not
>completing?  That is the only thing I can see that would cause the
>file size difference and then naturally it would not open.
>
>--billm--

Bill,

Firefox was able to get good copies.  For some reason, Chrome was not.

- Mike