Adobe Reader

[drummer]

Another Foxit evangelist here, particularly since v2.0 was released.  Earlier versions were a bit idiosyncratic and handled graphics rather poorly, but since v2.0 I've never, ever felt the need to install Adobe Reader.

The standalone exe is less than 3Mb, which is a pretty small footprint in my books.

Before I dumped Reader for good I did some benchmarking on a 1.2Mb pdf with lots of graphics and opening (as opposed to saving) directly from a hyperlink.

Cleared browser cache and clicked the link with Foxit as the default pdf reader, then cleared the browser cache again, made Adobe the default pdf reader and clicked the link again and the results were as follows:

Foxit    2 seconds
Adobe 12 seconds

Not the end of the world in the grand scheme of things but to compound it, the graphics only rendered on Reader when I accessed the relevant page, whereas they were already there with Foxit.

Then (because I'm like that), I checked out Task Manager on both, and Adobe used between 5-20Mb of RAM and up to 20% of the CPU whilst Foxit utilised less than 1Mb of RAM and didn't even impact on the CPU unless I was frantically scrolling.

I'm not knocking Adobe (Photoshop is one the best pieces of software ever written), but Reader is as bloated as the newer versions of Nero and isn't very good at doing its basic job (like Norton AV) and I don't understand Adobe's blind spot on this one simple app.

That was a bit longer than the one-line post I intended to write...

[miker]

I use Foxit, not Adobe reader. Its a much smaller footprint and does it all.

[Sebby]

I must try this Foxit. I've always used Adobe Reader, but I must say that every time I download it I can't believe the size of the download. Foxit sounds a lot more efficient.

[Noreen]

It's here, Sebby. http://www.foxitsoftware.com/downloads/

[Sebby]

Thanks, Noreen.

[Simon]

I think I'm going to give this a try as well - thanks for the link Noreen. 

[Inactive]

I don't think you will regret the change, it just plain works.

[Rik]

What you have to remember is that Adobe's interest in Reader is simply to get people using the PDF format so that they can sell the creation package (the full Adobe Acrobat). There's little incentive, therefore, to improve Reader.

[Inactive]

Yes I realise that Rik, however you have this historical bond with Adobe, we don't.. 

[Noreen]

All I want it to do is to read PDFs both commercial and other people's.

[Inactive]

Exactly Noreen.. 

Same here.

[Rik]

I know. It's just history with me - I was there when the PDF was launched.

[Inactive]

By the way Rik, what does PDF stand for?...I never did know.

I presume the " F " is Format.

[Rik]

Yup. Portable Document Format. It was originally envisaged as a way of having feature-rich documents which could be moved between machines and platforms without the need for the creating app to be on the machine. However, because it's based on Postscript, as DTP programs developed, it soon became the standard way to submit artwork for printing, rather than pushing out Postscript files.

[Noreen]

I've just found this in the manual (which has to be downloaded separately). This is what the free Reader CAN'T do as opposed to the paid-for Pro version.....................

  Can annotate a PDF document but save the annotated pages with
evaluation marks.
  Cannot convert PDF to text file.
  Can view text in text viewer but fail to use the copy function and save text file.
  Cannot use Advanced Editing Tools, such as measure tools, loupe tool, image
tool, file attachment tool, link tools, and annotation selection tool, but save
the modified pages with evaluation marks.

I do find that that that quote makes rather confusing reading, not that I think that it'll bother me anyway.

You can download the manual here http://www.foxitsoftware.com/support/usermanuals/