foxit vs adobe reader 9

[Death Blade]

which one shld i use?

[bluewind.]

Try both. Most people think there's no reason for foxit since adobe reader now starts as fast if not faster. But Foxit takes less HD space, which really isn't an issue for most.

[C++]

Foxit is an absolutely wonderful product. I install it on any new system I build for anyone. Though, I have to confess, personally I use Adobe PDF Reader. I just deal with so many super sensitive PDF documents, that I haven't brought myself to trust in Foxit rendering every last bit and byte correctly.

[Mr. Gibs]

I would say foxit. Adobe seems to get even more bloated with every new version.

I think the new adobe acrobat 9 professional is like 900mb or something

[CoolCatBad]

Adobe Reader Lite 9.0 http://fileforum.betanews.com/detail/Adobe...te/1215097676/1

[anonymous_user]

+1 for Adobe Reader Lite.

Its very fast and you dont have to worry about PDF not working right.

[RadishTM Veteran]

The regular Adobe Reader 9 opens instantly for me.

Radish?

[Mathachew Veteran]

If this were Adobe Reader 8 vs FoxIt, FoxIt hands down. However, Adobe Reader 9 blows 8 out of the water and is comparable to FoxIt. It literally opens as fast as FoxIt on my system, and since performance was the biggest complaint, Adobe Reader 9 for me. I just recently started using FoxIt and have already ditched it because there really isn't a good reason to avoid Adobe Reader 9. The bloat simply does not appear when you use it.

[joe_banana]

sumatrapdf works well for me..:)

[tsupersonic]

Adobe is fast, but it also adds a startup process (which you can disable through msconfig) and also adds another process even when adobe reader isn't running. It's also memory heavy. So, I prefer Foxit for this and other reasons

[tsupersonic]

http://blog.micropledge.com/2008/07/adobe-reader-9/

read it

[Aerrow]

I usually use Sumatra PDF portable, but when I'm lazy I use Adobe Reader.

[ViZioN]

Havent tried adobe 9, but foxit is awesome!

[Aerrow]

Try Foxit.

[brentaal]

I'd recommend PDF-Xchange Viewer, availible here. There's also a portable version of it (link), so you don't even need to install it.

[ViperAFK]

I would say foxit. Adobe seems to get even more bloated with every new version.

I think the new adobe acrobat 9 professional is like 900mb or something

200, which is still ridiculous but you are waaaay off.

[soldier1st]

adobe reader 9 lite as it renders pdfs great and starts fast,if foxit had the rendering capability then i would use it but the only thing foxit has over adobe is smaller size but adobe reader 9 lite blows foxit away.

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

Adobe is fast, but it also adds a startup process (which you can disable through msconfig) and also adds another process even when adobe reader isn't running. It's also memory heavy. So, I prefer Foxit for this and other reasons

Same here, I use Vista and I have enough services running, I don't need another one to just read a .pdf file. There is nothing that Adobe can do that Foxit can't AFAIK.

[nomis_nehc]

wow humm, seems adobe reader 9 is receiving positive response, might have to try out this lite version.

[BryanChung]

Same here, I use Vista and I have enough services running, I don't need another one to just read a .pdf file. There is nothing that Adobe can do that Foxit can't AFAIK.

I have the same thoughts as you. :)

[[deXter]]

Same here, I use Vista and I have enough services running, I don't need another one to just read a .pdf file. There is nothing that Adobe can do that Foxit can't AFAIK.

If you open the preferences window of both the readers, you'll get to know of plenty more features that Adobe Reader has over Foxit.

--

Personally though, I couldn't care much less about the features. I prefer using Adobe Reader as it's simply faster and works better (for me). Adobe is much better in handling large/complex PDF files and it's rendering speed and quality surpasses Foxit and similar readers. I switched over to Foxit when Adobe 7 came out, but I've now switched back to Adobe (9) as it's a much better product. The UI is also much more elegant and refined than Foxit's.

The only reason why one might want to use Foxit or similar is to have on a USB key/avoid installation. On the other hand, I use my own portable Reader 9 which is a self contained exe @ 20MB.

--

Btw, the only background "service" that runs is reader_sl.exe, which is the preloader - but you can remove it as even without it Adobe Reader 9 now loads as fast as Foxit. (Tested on a PIII - 450, Celeron 1Ghz)

And if you want to reduce the memory consumption, just remove the plugins you don't need. The only critical plugins that are needed are EScript.api, reflow.api, Search.api and Search5.api.

[Mr. Gibs]

200, which is still ridiculous but you are waaaay off.

Nope:

• 1.3GHz or faster processor
  
• Microsoft? Windows? XP Home, Professional, or Tablet PC Edition with Service Pack 2 or 3 (32-bit and 64-bit); Windows Server? 2003 (with Service Pack 2 for 64-bit); or Windows Vista? Home Basic, Home Premium, Business, Ultimate, or Enterprise with or without Service Pack 1 (32-bit and 64-bit)
  
• Internet Explorer 6.0
  
• 512MB of RAM2.35GB of available hard-disk space
  
• 1,024x768 screen resolution
  
• DVD-ROM drive
  
• Video hardware acceleration (optional)
  

The download itself for pro extended is like 900mb...

[Harlem39s Finest]

adobe 9

installer - 33 MB - install folder - 210 MB

firefox plugins required to download the installer - 1

startup entries -1

foxit reader

installer - 2.13 MB - install folder - 5.03 MB

firefox plugins required to download the installer - 0

startup entries - 0

if anyone cares foxit uses less ram as well.

[[deXter]]

^ Why would anyone need a firefox plugin to download the installer? It makes no sense :s

Just enter the URL in your download manager/browser and download..

http://ardownload.adobe.com/pub/adobe/reader/win/9.x/9.0/enu/AdbeRdr90_en_US.exe

And I've already mentioned that the startup entry is completly optional and unnecessary. Also, the installer folder can be brought down by deleting the copy of setup files. Finally, you can reduce the RAM usage by removing unnecessary plugins.

You really shouldn't compare Foxit and Adobe Reader though. It's like comparing Apples to Oranges. Just choose what fits your requirements.

Edited July 7, 2008 by [deXter]

[anonymous_user]

I like the new Adobe Reader 9, especially Shark007's Lite version :cool:

[Roger H. Veteran]

i don't get it, what are people installing? I downloaded the version from Adobe and yeah it's 33MB but it didn't put any special shortcuts on my start menu or anything. (edit - OOPS - i see it now :) lil bugger)

Right now i go to start, click Adober Reader 9 and it opens in less than 1 second.

MOV_0001.3gp

Ok so people say that's just opening a blank thing which will open fast. So here's me opening this document:

http://cob.fsu.edu/tech/printermanuals/las...s/HPLJ2600n.pdf

Which is full of graphics and all that.

MOV_0002.3gp

(yes i restarted after each test)