Adobe Reader X


Recommended Posts

Still using about 60Mb of ram in Windows XP

And the problem with that is?

When people have 2gb of ram nowdays (on average) this isn't an issue. Explorer on XP uses more than Adobe does.*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does Reader X offer over Preview? I use Reader all the time on Windows but I just don't see the need for it on Mac OS X.

Indeed. It's the case for Ubuntu as well, which comes with a PDF reader of its own. Even on Windows I use NitroPDF, which is a lot slimmer and some would argue more feature-packed. In the end Reader is a bloated piece of junk, in my humble opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

415MB for a goddamn PDF reader? What the hell does it do? MS Office 2007 Ultimate only occupies double that, and all this does is read bloody PDF files. To be honest though, I don't care, I've been using Foxit for years now, and I have no intention of going back to Adobe Reader.

Only Adobe could so badly **** up the software for the file format that they created and standardized. :rofl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

415MB for a goddamn PDF reader? What the hell does it do? MS Office 2007 Ultimate only occupies double that, and all this does is read bloody PDF files. To be honest though, I don't care, I've been using Foxit for years now, and I have no intention of going back to Adobe Reader.

Only Adobe could so badly **** up the software for the file format that they created and standardized. :rofl:

You guys can stop with the 415MB nonsense now... It's only 100mb after installation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adobe Reader 10 (151MB) is 10x fatter than Foxit Reader (11MB) :D

And has way more features and is way more compatible. And is the same price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll stick with Mac OS X Preview......

yeah same as you. So far, I've never read any pdf file that I had to install Adobe Acrobat to read because of some very advanced features

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got Adobe Acrobat X Standard on Windows and I like it so far. By far the simplest interface I've seen in Adobe Acrobat in awhile. Not sure about feature rich.... still evaluating. I liked the call-out commenting function. Upgraded from v7.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And has way more features and is way more compatible. And is the same price.

More compatible? Please show me one document Foxit cant open that Adobe Reader can? And what features are missing? The only one I can think of is the OCR engine if that is even included in the Reader and not only in the full Acrobat. But realistically, how often do people use that (excluding people scanning a lot of documents to PDF but they are usually using the full Acrobat anyway) ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any installers without AIR available?

Extract the MSI, and find the AIR installer .exe or .msi and delete it, then install.

Well, it used to work like that anyway, acrobat would install and try to launch adobeairinstall.exe which I instantly terminated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys can stop with the 415MB nonsense now... It's only 100mb after installation.

Oh is that all? My 12MB Foxit install must be quaking in its boots :rofl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the days of hard drives starting at 500+ GB, is it really such a big deal if something is (gasp!) 100 MB?

It's like when people complain some process takes up 100 MB of memory when they have 4+ GB of RAM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And has way more features and is way more compatible. And is the same price.

Agreed. We tried Foxit here at work, it caused so many headaches we removed it quite fast.

Working perfectly now on Acrobat 9 but now we have to get the updates for 10 pushed out, yay!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the hovering toolbar used by default in browsers. Kind of looks vaguely like Chrome's built in PDF viewer (but with proper rendering of text unlike Chrome's).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never knew so many people are so low on hard drive space. No big deal to me. :D

In the days of hard drives starting at 500+ GB, is it really such a big deal if something is (gasp!) 100 MB?

Software like this typically gets deployed via GPO where I work. When an AD admin assigns software to a computer, it will automatically install the next time the computer boots up. Now, imagine 750-ish people coming in and all turning their computers on at the same time, each trying to move over 400Mb of data at the same time over the network... That's gonna screw up the network for the better part of the morning.

Plus something of that size probably would take 10-20 minutes to install. Even longer if you got many computers loading it off the server at the same time. With GPO-based installations, no one can log into a computer until the installer finishes, so that could add up to hundreds of man hours of people waiting to use their computer because of a software install.

Hard drive space isn't even remotely an issue for me... I just have problems with its size for other reasons. Anyone else who has to do mass software deployments will probably know what I'm talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Software like this typically gets deployed via GPO where I work. When an AD admin assigns software to a computer, it will automatically install the next time the computer boots up. Now, imagine 750-ish people coming in and all turning their computers on at the same time, each trying to move over 400Mb of data at the same time over the network... That's gonna screw up the network for the better part of the morning.

Plus something of that size probably would take 10-20 minutes to install. Even longer if you got many computers loading it off the server at the same time. With GPO-based installations, no one can log into a computer until the installer finishes, so that could add up to hundreds of man hours of people waiting to use their computer because of a software install.

Hard drive space isn't even remotely an issue for me... I just have problems with its size for other reasons. Anyone else who has to do mass software deployments will probably know what I'm talking about.

Our setup was modular enough to deploy by arbitrary computer-type. For huge installations, we'd push out updates to a room at a time; 20 computers each day for installations over 10 GB. The point is that for something like this, where the software isn't mission critical, you can minimize the impact on end users by stretching out the update schedule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our setup was modular enough to deploy by arbitrary computer-type. For huge installations, we'd push out updates to a room at a time; 20 computers each day for installations over 10 GB. The point is that for something like this, where the software isn't mission critical, you can minimize the impact on end users by stretching out the update schedule.

We can do that too, as our computers are all divided into OUs, with each OU containing about 20 to 35 computers. So a staggered deployment is completely possible by linking the GPO to one OU at a time.

However, that would only work for the original deployment. If an update came out later and we wanted to just replace the MSI file the original GPO links to, we can only click the "reinstall package" (or redeploy, I don't remember off the top of my head), and then all the computers that are currently getting the GPO will reinstall the package. The only way around that is to unlink the current GPO from all the OUs and relink it one-by-one (which can become problematic if you can't remember all the OUs that it was originally attached to), or if you create a new GPO, meaning you have two GPOs for the same software, just a slightly different version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can do that too, as our computers are all divided into OUs, with each OU containing about 20 to 35 computers. So a staggered deployment is completely possible by linking the GPO to one OU at a time.

However, that would only work for the original deployment. If an update came out later and we wanted to just replace the MSI file the original GPO links to, we can only click the "reinstall package" (or redeploy, I don't remember off the top of my head), and then all the computers that are currently getting the GPO will reinstall the package. The only way around that is to unlink the current GPO from all the OUs and relink it one-by-one (which can become problematic if you can't remember all the OUs that it was originally attached to), or if you create a new GPO, meaning you have two GPOs for the same software, just a slightly different version.

It seemed to me that after about version 9.2, Adobe started releasing incremental update installers to Reader, so that pushing out an entirely monolithic update is no longer necessary...although fairly noted, that's applicable to Reader only. It has been a few years since I dabbled on deploying CS in its entirety, but I suppose that even if they offered only the updated package installer, that it would still be incredibly hefty.

Yeah, they've tried, but Adobe is no friend to mass deployments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After disabling its speedlaunch (sneaky thing) ; it still opens any document instantly . It was worth the restart .

On a mac , I don't think there's room for it , when preview does the same job .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.