![]() ![]() Anyone purchasing a new computer must either sacrifice using Adobe PDF tools, step back to Windows XP, or pay an upgrade fee to version 8 to be able to continue using Adobe products. Adobe has also refused to support past versions (version prior to version 8 - their latest) under Windows Vista. ![]() To make matters worse, they apparently also fail to terminate when a document is closed, thereby leaving behind various CPU-intensive application threads that all but cripple the operating system until the next reboot. The plug-ins do not support full asynchronous loading, thus causing browsers to appear to "lock up" until the document has been fully downloaded. Many have also noted poor behavior in the Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox Acrobat plug-ins. There are a few sections in criticism that seem sub-par: Furthermore, the "Updates" Preference in Reader 8 has been moved from "Edit | Preferences" to a much less obvious location." This may seem less obvious to some, this is an opinion, lots of update options appear in the help menu in other programs, i.e. "There is currently no official option to stop Reader 8 from Phoning home. Its the same idea with explorer and firefoxĮxplorer.exe runs less then firefox.exe but i still prefer firefox regardlessįoxit is a smaller download and a faster startup and on my computer i notice little to no difference runing foxit is more then internet explorer yet less then firefox by like 30,000k Atomic1fire 07:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC) The writing should also make it clear that this is not a general criticm of the Acrobat family, just the Adobe Reader, if that is the case. I think the whole section has to go, for now, and be rewritten from a more neutral perspective. I looked into rewriting it but I couldn't really do that in a way that left the meaning intact. So, I don't think anyone could describe Foxit Reader as "less resource draining" on the basis of that source, memory being a crucial resource (and people generally have less of it than other things like hard disks). In our tests, it took up 210MB, compared to 21MB for Acrobat with the same documents". The review says many things but includes a few lines after the quoted portion "Unfortunately, Foxit PDF Reader has one considerable flaw: it hogs a huge amount of system memory. The reason to remove it is that the actual link given doesn't support the assertion. The reason is not to deny that these criticms exist (though "user reviews" and "blogs" are not especially reliable as sources). It's monstrously large, slow to load, and includes many features that most users will hardly ever need." Less resource draining alternatives to Acrobat are available, such as Foxit Reader and eXPert PDF Reader, both of which are free. A good example of this criticism can be found in the CNET editor's review of the rival Foxit Reader - "To put it gently, Acrobat Reader is a real pain in the hindquarters. It does this both at instalation and when automatically updating. Many users also dislike that it tries to install the Yahoo! Toolbar and other third party software even if the user does not want it to. Some users feel that it is "bloatware" which takes up an excessive amount of system resources. I've deleted the section Criticism, which ran like this:Īdobe Reader has been criticized in blogs and user reviews on websites such as CNET.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |