Has anyone else noticed and been affected by the changes that 1899 have made to their invoicing? This may also apply to their associated providers 18185 etc. I have not checked yet so I am not sure.

They seem to have moved over to producing "pdf" invoices on line, but their invoices are not produced in a true pdf format; in fact they do not appear to be real pdf at all! They seem to be producing "pdf" invoices using a free utility they have downloaded from www.paologies.com.  This utility however seems to produce files labelled "pdf" which are only viewable if you are using a MS operating system!

The whole point of pdf is supposed to be that the files are portable across all operating systems. I have changed all of my systems over to Linux now. I have 3 or 4 different pdf applications and I can view all proper pdf files without any problem. I cannot view their new "pdf" invoice files at all though. In all of my pdf applications their invoices appear as blank files.

Has anyone else had this problem?

dorf,

I must confess to being weak willed here and still use Microsoft Windows XP Home as my operating system (my other excuse is the notebook PC involved is now just over 4 years old), although I do use Firefox and Thunderbird for my web browsing and email.  Hence I have not experienced the problems you mention with 18185.

However could this be an opportune moment to possibly consider switching to Callax's new rival www.zerop.co.uk service, assuming that is that their billing does not suffer from the same problems.  The basic deal is the same as www.18185.co.uk and also uses an Indirect Access code to make calls.

As you know with Finarea call brands you can email them with technical problems until you are blue in the face but they will not normally reply. >:(

Hi NGM'sG,

Clearly if you happy with XP then there is no reason for needing to change. I had become increasing sickened by the attitude of MS and the instability and unreliability which I had experienced, culminating in the ridiculous bloat, insecurity and inability to continue using what you had paid to use after 30 days, unless you then played further adventure games. I thus determined to make the effort. It is not easy purely because there is so much confusion out there, amongst many who have no idea what they are talking about, but post in forums making supposedly valid statements! Once you have put in the groundwork and sorted out the wheat from the chaff in Linux, you find that there are distros which are now very advanced and easy to install and maintain. If anyone considers making the change I can now point in the right direction. (There are basically two extreme types of Linux - Linux for nerds who want to spend all of their time playing Linux, and Linux for those who want to install it and get on with using it!) I now have various distros of Linux running on a total of more than 5 PCs, with proper working wireless networking, sound, video, printing, scanning and MIDI.)

As you observe, Finarea do not generally respond to their customers' problems or needs. However in this case I did get a number of replies from them, although it is clear that they cannot be bothered if their new invoices may be read only on MS OSs with Adobe, even though their invoices are not produced using Adobe Acrobat. (There is a version of Acrobat for Linux, but that also cannot read their invoice files produced with the freeware utility they have decided to use, which does not produce proper pdf files.)

My recent communication with 1899 was as follows:  

"Dear customer,
You must install Adobe reader for system to work.
Kind regards
Customer service"

My reply:

"That is a fatuous reply! Adobe is just one proprietary application for pdf. By definition pdf files (Portable Document File) must be able to be read by any pdf application! That is the international standard. The objective of pdf is that they can be read when any operating system is being used - not only Microsoft systems.

An increasing number of people are going to be moving to Google's on-line OS (which is essentially Unix based) in the near future. What are you going to do then? Only have customers who do not use the Google system? How is it that all other companies produce pdf files which are proper pdf files and can be read on all OSs? Only you decide to use a free downloaded inadequate application which cannot produce proper pdf files, presumably because you cannot be bothered to purchase a genuine commercial application which works properly?

Your processes worked properly until you decided to change over to using this piece of free software to produce your invoices in sham pdf. Why you chose this particular one is difficult to understand, since there are many other freeware applications (to work from MS OSs) available to produce proper pdf files, which do work with all other OSs. Rather than dictate to your customers that they must purchase one particular pdf software application only, and must use MS operating systems only, I suggest that you need to become more customer centric; otherwise, particularly as users turn to the Google OS you will lose customers.

Customers are the lifeblood of enterprises. If any enterprise is not customer focussed then it will not prosper in the long term. That means doing what the market wants and needs - not attempting to dictate to the market what it must do !!"


Thanks for the tip about zerop NGM'sG; I will look at that and see if they do not have this sort of problem.

Ok, it may be a larger program than some others, but what's wrong with using Adobe Reader?

NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 11^th, 2009 at 11:44am:

However could this be an opportune moment to possibly consider switching to Callax's new rival www.zerop.co.uk service, assuming that is that their billing does not suffer from the same problems.  The basic deal is the same as www.18185.co.uk and also uses an Indirect Access code to make calls.

They've changed their website to http://www.call1301.co.uk now.

Beware though, they currently only accept payment by (dangerous) continuous payment authority on credit or debit cards (i.e. no direct debits).

Additionally, many of their prices are double or triple 18185's (e.g. triple 18185's 1p/minute to Spain, double 18185's 1p/minute to New Zealand).

I can't find any published charges for 0845 calls either.

And in any case, what's wrong with viewing the invoice via the other link instead of the pdf one? This one seems a bit more detailed anyway, for example specifying how payment will be taken and how it will appear on your statement, though it doesn't have the itemised calls on it, which are via a link on the bottom

Heinz wrote on Aug 12^th, 2009 at 12:05pm:

Beware though, they currently only accept payment by (dangerous) continuous payment authority on credit or debit cards (i.e. no direct debits). Additionally, many of their prices are double or triple 18185's (e.g. triple 18185's 1p/minute to Spain, double 18185's 1p/minute to New Zealand). I can't find any published charges for 0845 calls either.

I expect you may well be right Heinz.  I was just interested to see that there was now at least now one Indirect Access alternative to the Finarea brands just when you might have thought the Indirect Access market was nearly dead due to Indirect Access Call barring being more and more common with non BT suppliers and the additional the disgrace of Ofcom letting BT ever bump up the connection charge to try to blackmail most people in to taking a call package with them or ripping off anyone who does not notice the ripoff and still fails to route their non call package included calls elsewhere.

I would only be nervous about continuous credit card authority with a company I had never heard of.  Callax has been around for several years now and seems a reasonably large supplier and I would have no reason to expect them to suddenly make unwarranted debits on my credit card.

dorf,

I admire your determination to avoid the curse of Microsoft and I heard an interesting interview with the head of Red Hat Linux on BBC Radio 4's In Business program.  However one thought that occurs to me is that I believe a PC can be set up to dual boot so you can run both Linux or Windows and I wonder if it wouldn't be worth keeping one of your PC's with that facility for dealing with those stubborn companies who only write their websites to work properly in the Windows and IE8 environments?

I am sure that if it is any good that Google's new PC operating system will be a success althogh I am not yet that impressed with the Google Chrome web browser as it seems to need more development to be anywhere near as good as the latest version of Firefox.  I guess only time will tell...............

NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 12^th, 2009 at 1:09pm:

dorf, ... for dealing with those stubborn companies who only write their websites to work properly in the Windows and IE8 environments?

But I don't think that is the case here, though I wonder if dorf has assumed that.

There are versions of Adobe Reader for Linux, and they are free, and the one I used earlier works with the files in question, and there is alternate link to read the invoice in apparently ordinary html format ...... so I don't really understand the objection this time, particulary the suggestion that the company is forcing anyone to buy any particular software

NGM'sG, I did look at  http://www.call1301.co.uk but it is not clear what format they produce their invoices in. It seems that Heinz is correct and some of their charges are higher.

You can indeed set up a dual boot or even triple boot or more configuration with Linux if you want; but the whole idea of migrating to Linux is to get rid of MS altogether. Indeed if you still want for some particular reason to run Windoze applications there are ways of doing that in Linux, such as using "Wine".

I cannot see any option to view 1899 invoices as HTML Andy 9 in the new setup. I only get one option displayed, and that is supposed "pdf" which it turns out is not real pdf. I had an experience in Italy many years ago attempting to use a Visa credit card in a shop displaying the Visa symbol in their window. When I came to present  my card at the checkout the girl said "No I can't accept your card! We only accept Bank of America Visa cards!" What 1899 are trying to do is similar to that. Either a file is genuine pdf or it is not. Only accepting Adobe pdf files is not pdf and defeats the purpose of pdf.

dorf wrote on Aug 13^th, 2009 at 8:11am:

We only accept American Express Visa cards!

Surely American Express would only issue American Express cards, even though other card issuers (eg MBNA) do now issue Amex cards.

Thanks for pointing out my error NGM'sG. I had been distracted whilst making that post. I have amended it now to be correctly "Bank of America". Of course the point is that all Visa cards must be accepted if the Visa symbol is displayed - not only those Visa cards issued by BoA!

dorf wrote on Aug 13^th, 2009 at 8:11am:

I cannot see any option to view 1899 invoices as HTML Andy 9 in the new setup. I only get one option displayed, and that is supposed "pdf" which it turns out is not real pdf.

Try again. Hover the cursor around a bit and I think you'll find the Invoice N and the pdf/Reader logo, though close together, are separate links, though they are similar enough that you don't realise this from the javascript:__doPostBack(... shown in the status bar

Both this and the other PC with Linux open both fine using IE or Firefox or Adobe Reader as applicable.

I wonder if the non-standard may actually be the other reader programs you're using, but I don't have any to try myself, bar a downloaded but uninstalled version of Foxit

Yes, I see what you mean now Andy9. I have found the html version. It is not at all clear that this is available, and it is accessed from the underlined link next to the pdf icon; I had imagined that this was just part of the link to the pdf file icon next to this underlined link, and had not tried it before. Thanks for that tip. Normally such a link is clearly shown as an html link if there is another type of link as well.

I have as already mentioned 3 pdf applications running in Linux, and these have always worked properly with every pdf file I have had occasion to open (many). It was only when I attempted to open 1899's new "pdf" files that I discovered this problem and that their files were not true pdf at all. As it happens I have now decided to install Adobe for Linux and I can now at last open their fake pdf files using this; but this would not have been necessary if they had been true pdf files.  

There are several versions of the PDF file format.  Which version do the files claim to be?

dorf wrote on Aug 15^th, 2009 at 9:36am:

I have found the html version.

I've had 1899/18866/18185 accounts for more than 5 years and have never used anything but the HTML version.  Very easy to copy and paste onto a Excel spreadsheet (sorry, mentioned Microsoft software there).

Heinz wrote on Aug 16^th, 2009 at 10:06am:

I've had 1899/18866/18185 accounts for more than 5 years and have never used anything but the HTML version.  Very easy to copy and paste onto a Excel spreadsheet (sorry, mentioned Microsoft software there).

Ditto I have only ever used the HTML version myself.  However I am sure that copying and pasting from the HTML version works just as well in to the free OpenOffice equivalent of Excel.

Heinz and NGM'sG, I have always previously used the html version of their invoices only. This problem only arose because they made a change to supposed "pdf" invoices. The way in which they made this change on their site had made it unclear that there was still an html version of their invoice available on the site, because they had arranged the sham "pdf" link to look as if it was the same link as what is now the html link right next to it. Until Andy9 pointed this out to me I was not aware as a result of the close proximity that the html link still existed.

There are several versions of the PDF file format standard.  Which version of the standard do the files claim to be?

dorf wrote on Aug 16^th, 2009 at 4:30pm:

Heinz and NGM'sG, I have always previously used the html version of their invoices only. This problem only arose because they made a change to supposed "pdf" invoices. The way in which they made this change on their site had made it unclear that there was still an html version of their invoice available on the site, because they had arranged the sham "pdf" link to look as if it was the same link as what is now the html link right next to it. Until Andy9 pointed this out to me I was not aware as a result of the close proximity that the html link still existed.

dorf,

The html link version still appears clearly on my PC using Mozilla Firefox 3 for Windows.  So could this problem be being caused by your Linux version web browser of whatever kind?

NGM'sG, the html link appears but is now almost sequential with the "pdf" offering. I am using Firefox mostly, and I have looked at the link on another PC using Windoze in Firefox and it appears the same.

dorf wrote on Aug 17^th, 2009 at 12:51am:

NGM'sG, the html link appears but is now almost sequential with the "pdf" offering. I am using Firefox mostly, and I have looked at the link on another PC using Windoze in Firefox and it appears the same.

dorf,

You may be interested to hear that I have just upgraded to Firefox's new Version 3.5.x with its supposed bunch of extra features over Version 3.0.x only to find that basic text search on a web page is currently mysteriously scuppered by this trendy new version.  So it would seem that not only Microsoft release rubbish poorly tested software on the unsuspecting public...............

There are several versions of the PDF file format standard.  Which version of the standard do the files claim to be?

catj,

You cannot have "versions" of a "Standard". The whole point of having a Standard in any sector of interactivity is that it is a fixed and specified format to ensure compatibility and interoperability! Once you decided to have more than one version of a Standard that would not be a Standard any longer. That would defeat the whole purpose of having a Standard, and would not conform to the definition "Standard".

Take an example: the metre is a Standard unit measure of length. If you had more than one standard for a metre where would we be? This is why in Standardization we have a complex system of International Standards, sub-standards and sub-sub standards to maintain the structure, and the value of the intrinsic unit.

I take your point NGM'sG. It is a prevalent problem with all SW that new versions have bugs introduced and if not tested properly cause every user problems.  All I can say is that at least if the product is not selling at prices to create one of the very richest proprietors in the world, one can perhaps be more forgiving of human error and a failure to thoroughly test?

So USB 1.0, 1.1 and 2.0 were just imagined then?

What about Bluetooth 1.0, 1.0A, 1.0B, 1.1, 1.2, 2.0 and 2.1?

No such thing as "different versions"? Sorry, but you're very wrong.


There have been nine versions of the PDF file format, with corresponding Acrobat releases for each. Version 1.4 is the basis for the ISO standards for PDF/X and PDF/A and PDF documents conforming to ISO 32000 carry the PDF version number 1.7. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Document_Format for further enlightenment and edification.

So, again, I will ask: which PDF file format version do these files claim to be?

Catj,

Sorry, I meant of course that you cannot have different versions of a Standard which are incompatible and not interoperable; that is the definition of a Standard. That is its very purpose - to ensure compatibility. You can of course have different versions of software, and these may not be interoperable, and increasingly often are not; but they are not Standards. This is one of the problems with the immaturity of today in engineering and software - the failure to understand why Standardization is so important and that to have no engineering rigour and to just change things "willy nilly" leads to a great waste of resources and costs, and great confusion!

One of the great difficulties arises when children who do not understand things, are unwisely treated as if they were adults and given unfettered ability to wreak havoc. This is what has happened now with the original IBM PC Standard for example. IBM always paid attention to these things since they had proper engineers and proper engineering Standards with rigour. Once the situation changed and IBM lost control we then began to have the problems we now experience and suffer increasingly; no one can be sure quite what OSs will work with what hardware and what software will work with what OS etc. The whole point of pdf was to overcome those difficulties, and to have a format which was portable across all operating systems and hardware. If children who did not understand the original purpose of this have been unleashed as supposed experienced adults, and allowed to make different versions of pdf which are incompatible then it has completely lost its purpose and become a white elephant. If some "versions" of pdf will not work with some OSs or older versions of pdf applications (backward and forward compatibility) then pdf has lost any relevance to anything. What could it possibly exist for any longer except perhaps to attempt to replace MS Word?

As I pointed out before, if we had different versions of the Metre then everything would fall apart! However child "engineers" will probably want to change that soon, because they do not understand what they are doing in the totality of things or how we got here. [Queen Elizabeth I is reputed to have had a plaque on the wall of her bedroom. It listed the causes for the collapse and fall of the Roman civilisation, probably one of the greatest which ever existed, to remind her to avoid the same mistakes. One of the reasons on that list was "Accepting youthful council."]  

Maturity and mature civilisation understands Standardization and the need for it.

If I use the word 'revision' instead of the word 'version', would that facilitate an actual answer to the original question?