Reviews of Adobe Reader for Windows

1. 
   Zootopia3001

   Reviewing 11.0.03 (May 15, 2013)

   Adobe is still providing updates for Reader 9.x(now 9.5.5).
2. 
   tickleonthetum

   Reviewing 11.0.03 (May 15, 2013)

   I use SumatraPDF for all my viewing, but you can't beat the Adobe Reader when it comes to printing.
3. 
   Zootopia3001

   Reviewing 11.0.02 (Feb 20, 2013)

   Also an update to Adobe reader 9.x...(as well as 10.x, which sux)
   http://www.adobe.com/sup...=windows&product=10
4. 
   FatBastard

   Reviewing 11.0.02 (Feb 20, 2013)

   More evil code from the evil corporation...
5. 
   LakotaElf

   Reviewing 11.0.01 (Jan 9, 2013)

   I stay away from this now, I am using PDF-XChange 2.5.207 and it works most excellent and has for some time, I like it. Give it a true, this software here is of no interest to me now, too bloated etc as mentioned below. But you all use what you like,,that is what the world is about freedom of choice.
6. 
   Zootopia3001

   Reviewing 11.0.01 (Jan 8, 2013)

   Outside of Windows 8, all anyone still needs is version 9.x. In fact, Adobe released an update to version 9 today(9.5.3). Version 10 was a bloated disaster, however, version 11 appears less bloated, but bloated nonetheless. Version 10.x was 1 star, version 11.x is 2 1/2 stars for the less bloat, and version 9.x is 4 stars.
   When Adobe no longer supports version 9, I'll give PDF-XChange Viewer a try. It does look very promising.
7. 
   Karol Mily

   Reviewing 11.0.01 (Jan 8, 2013)

   The best One. My default PDF viewer.
   First of all it needs like other programs virus free computer. Then there are no errors.
   Yes, I agree that for some specific purpose there is better PDF X-Change Viewer, free (export to Jpeg or Png is fine). Or for quick preview of simple PDF Sumatra. But for me Adobe PDF Reader is number one for many years.
8. 
   halc

   Reviewing 11.0.00 (Nov 27, 2012)

   Bloated and slow (even on 4GHz quadcore and 3rd gen SSD).
   
   Also, after install I get:
   
   "Attempt to access invalid address."
   
   And then force close.
   
   Nice going Adobe, you are killing your own product.
   
   Ah well, there are alternatives :)
9. 
   Adrea

   Reviewing 11.0.00 (Oct 24, 2012)

   I don't like Adobe Reader and prefer to use alternative softs, for example, PDF-XChange Viewer as the most stable, fast and functional pdf reader.
10. 
    Music4Ever

    Reviewing 10.1.4 (Aug 15, 2012)

    This software is intrusive, bloated & uses large amounts of system resources, 99.9% of users can get the same effect with an alternative that doesn't take your PC over. One of my most disliked programs of all time & on a par with the dreaded iTunes for Windows.
    
    chicgoods541 is a Chinese Spammer selling fake goods ~
11. 
    kstev99

    Reviewing 10.1.4 (Aug 15, 2012)

    Switched to PDF XChange years ago and haven't looked back.
12. 
    Aegis69

    Reviewing 10.1.4 (Aug 14, 2012)

    Use ANYTHING but this.
    
    Firefox and Chrome already render PDF's in HTML5 which is amazing, if you can't use that then get an alternative. Do not, under ANY circumstances download or install the invasive piece of crapware.
13. 
    Karol Mily

    Reviewing 10.1.2 (Jan 10, 2012)

    Best of all. Not so slim as some others but really most powerfull PDF viewer.
14. 
    Old Faithful

    Reviewing 10.1.1 (Dec 5, 2011)

    +1 concerning bloatware... There ARE alternatives that are light and that WORK, such as Foxit PDF Reader.
    
    I HATE tyrant corporations like Adobe with its in-your-face-we-know-what's-best-for-you attitude... I have well protected, thank you Adobe and STOP BUGGING ME ABOUT UPGRADING ALREADY!!!
    
    "those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither". Remember this...
15. 
    Inray

    Reviewing 10.1.1 (Sep 14, 2011)

    Adobe seems to like bloatware. I don't...
16. 
    Aegis69

    Reviewing 10.1.1 (Sep 13, 2011)

    Sumatra my friends, Sumatra
    
    http://blog.kowalczyk.in...df/free-pdf-reader.html
17. 
    FatBastard

    Reviewing 10.1.1 (Sep 13, 2011)

    The very definition of bloatware!
18. 
    arossetti

    Reviewing 10.1.1 (Sep 13, 2011)

    Wow. File size jumped 33% from 37.8MB for 10.1.0 to 50.2MB for 10.1.1. Crazy, I tell ya...
19. 
    Input Overload

    Reviewing 10.1.0 (Jun 15, 2011)

    There are at least 4 freeware applications that do the job as well & as fast or faster than Adobe & are much smaller. Also they don't creep in every vestige of your PC. Bloated & unneeded junk.
20. 
    DudeBoyz

    Reviewing 10.1.0 (Jun 15, 2011)

    Woah - is this a different version than before? How the heck is it only 37 meg after being such a huge monstrosity?
    
    I'm not necessarily complaining, but am a bit confused.
    
    Answers if someone can please.
    
    I'll post a full review soon.
21. 
    thartist

    Reviewing 10.1.0 (Jun 14, 2011)

    ha, they've shaved a few MBs from 45 to 37. I'd just like it to be much less than 150MBs installed.
22. 
    linjinhuan

    Reviewing 10.0.1 (May 23, 2011)

    I dont know what to say. This web site is superb. Thats not actually a seriously huge statement, but its all I could come up with immediately after reading this. You realize much about this issue.
    cheap body jewelry Cheap jewelry
23. 
    carlvui

    Reviewing 10.0.1 (Feb 27, 2011)

    I just changed to Foxit. I am tired of the critical vulnerabilities, they slow reaction to fix them and their overall ignorance and corporate arrogance.
    
    It seem they fallen victim of one of the worst traps for developers, where instead of improving quality and usability let alone the vulnerabilities they try to stay on the market by adding newer and newer functions for their own business benefit, till they make their software an exasperatingly bloated junk.
    Not even mentioning it K.O. s my browser in every now and then.
    
    Well, they have managed to have adobe reader pre-installed on most Windows and they might feel it's time to control, dictate and reshape users' habits.
    And I feel it's time for users to reshape developers' habits and to go for something else, something better. Luckily there are always choices more than one.
24. 
    nvic

    Reviewing 10.0.1 (Feb 10, 2011)

    It works, but I prefer foxit. As others have said, kill the browser plugin to avoid crashes if you use it.
    
    At the reviewer below me, PDF protection can be removed, so DRM is not a good reason to use bloated software.
    
    I'll give it a 3 because it is the standard, even though there is much to be improved when it comes to memory consumption, size, and bugs/crashes.
25. 
    malin

    Reviewing 10.0.1 (Feb 8, 2011)

    Adobe Reader 10 uses a lot of memory, and I never let the plugin view PDFs in browser windows because of the crashes that causes. However, Reader 10 has sandboxing - before the sandbox, there were more in the wild viruses distributed via PDF exploiting Adobe flaws than any other source (more than Java, Flash or browser exploits). It is VERY unsafe to use any version of Reader older than 10. Adobe Reader is required by the DRM of many digital magazines - Foxit can't view them - so I am glad that Adobe Reader remains free and now has the sandbox. However it is bloated, and make SURE to turn off the plugin if you don't like browser crashes.
26. 
    grimson

    Reviewing 10.0.1 (Feb 8, 2011)

    -Reader is now compatible with McAfee Virus Scan Enterprise 8.7.0i.
    -PDF files in a shared location can be opened in a distributed file system.
27. 
    Hilbert

    Reviewing 10.0.0.1 (Nov 20, 2010)

    (Background and my biases: I've used or have been required to test just about every version of the Adobe Reader since PDF version 1.0 in the early 1990s. However, by the end of 2005 I'd personally switched to Foxit because of the increasing slowness and excessive bloatware in Adobe Reader. Although Foxit has had problems, especially in its inability to accurately render detailed graphics which have now been fixed, Foxit has consistently outperformed Adobe Reader, especially in speed. Foxit is still my default reader and the one I still recommend to clients.)
    
    The best way to performance test PDF readers is to load old yellowing-page books with page print-through and other similar graphics noise (if anything is going to slow readers down then this will as whole pages have to be analyzed as graphics). For instance, a scan of Samuel Johnson's, 'A Dictionary of the English Language', 1755 or an early out-of-copyright volume of the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) can slow PDF readers down to the point where viewing becomes almost untenable--even on the fastest of machines.
    
    The test setup for this version 10.0 of Adobe Reader was a comparative runoff with Foxit version 4.2.0928 using large books with known difficult text/content that significantly slow PDF readers and thus make viewing awkward and tedious. If anyone wants to do similar tests using the same two books that I've used here then be advised that they're in the public domain and easily obtainable from the Net. They are:
    
    1. 'A New English Dictionary on a Historical Basis', Editor: Sir James Murray, Vol 6-part 2, letters: MN, 1908. (AKA: OED/Oxford English Dictionary, 1st edition.) PDF file size: 235,094,929 bytes. Scanned pages: 1118. Text: 3 columns of small-point per page.
    
    2. 'A textbook on the locomotive and the air brake - Car Lighting' etc, International Correspondence Schools, 1901. PDF file size: 22,943,291 bytes. Scanned pages: 462, Text: mostly single column per page interspersed with detailed b&w and color diagrams together with foldout pages with b&w and color diagrams.
    
    The machine chosen for the test was desktop model running XP-sp3 and an Intel Q9550, 2 Quad at 2.83 GHz with 4GB RAM. Whilst not the fastest available, it was considered typical of the average users that I have to support.
    
    Preliminary results.
    ------------------------
    
    As much as I hate to admit it, the Adobe Reader did noticeably better than Foxit. Adobe Reader 10 was faster in randomly accessing pages and one's ability to select text from within pages was enhanced over that of Foxit 4.2.
    
    Moreover, the last few versions of Adobe Reader (including the recent 'lite' version) have been significantly better than previous ones but this is the best Reader since perhaps versions 4 or 5. That said, both books were tolerable with regard to speed when read in Foxit although accessing the dictionary would not want to be any slower as far as this impatient reviewer is concerned.
    
    Accessing (cutting and pasting) text from within these volumes was another matter altogether. Leaving aside the terrible OCR inaccuracies--still a major problem for computers--cutting and pasting text using the Adobe Reader was much more successful than with Foxit (shame I can't post images here for you to see). With Reader 10 I could easily highlight one, two or three columns or any part thereof and paste the text contiguously into say a word processor (MS Word or OOo) and the pasted text was essentially free of multiple spaces. This was not so with Foxit.
    
    Adobe Reader was column-aware whereas seemingly Foxit was not. For this test I selected printed page 601 (scanned page 611) of the Oxford dictionary as the page scan was significantly skewed off square to the extent that highlighting column one within a rectangle of text would, if the PDF reader was not aware of columns, have the rectangle cross over into column two.
    
    The Adobe Reader had no problem with this task whatsoever whereas Foxit simply crossed the boundary into column two and some considerable juggling was required to only select text from column one.
    
    To make matters worse, the Foxit text viewer has two significant faults:
    
    (a) For some peculiar reason Foxit's text viewer attempts to justify the text which means that when we cut-and-paste plaintext into an editor or word processor we end up with random numbers of blank spaces between words which are very awkward to remove en masse. And given that each line ends in a cartridge return/line feed there's considerable work in post-processing and cleaning the text to a point sufficient to make it useful.
    
    (b) Whilst the Foxit text viewer actually separates text into justified columns, it is then impossible to select the text (cut-and-paste it) by columns, thus unless great care is exercised, pasted text will just become gobbledygook. It's hard to fathom why the Foxit people could screw up so badly (clearly they'd never bothered to scan a multiple-column newspaper during testing)!
    
    Given the existing OCR problems, one might as well retype the text from scratch if one has to rely only on Foxit. Whilst Adobe Reader is considerably better in this regard, it is still far from perfect, it too does not provide the option to keep wrapped page text still wrapped upon paste. To say the least, this is most annoying. Clearly, this and related OCR issues are still in their infancy.
    
    Although there's considerably more I could discuss I'll end the review here. I would however be very interested hearing what others have to say about this Adobe Reader and how it compares with both Foxit and other PDF readers. Preferably not qualitative rants, but actual reports with quantitative findings.
28. 
    Plumber

    Reviewing 10.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2010)

    No bloatware? Are you insane, or just drunk? I made the mistake of removing 9.4.1 and installing this despicable piece of digital drivel. I didn't install from here; I got it from Adobe.com.
    
    First, I had to deselect the unrelated McAfee garbage that Adobe wanted to install by default. There was no way to deselect Adobe AIR, which I didn't want. Installation was not a standard MSI or EXE file. No, that would not be aggravating enough. I had to install some ridiculous Firefox extension, which would not install because of some bogus version incompatibility (it claims it's compatible with Firefox 4.*. I have Firefox 3.6, so it should have worked.) Thanks for MR Tech Local Install, I was able to get the crap "Adobe DLM" extension installed.
    
    The fun commenced.
    
    Nothing happened, so I restarted Firefox and went back to the download link. Lather, rinse, repeat, and finally, the installation process began. It seemed to take eons, and in fact, went on for several minutes.
    
    Again--no bloatware? Why does a FIREFOX EXTENSION, ADOBE AIR, and a SERVICE ("nosGetPlusHelper") get installed, just to edit and view PDF files?
    
    And this was all for... What?
    
    Adobe Reader X (it's cute to use Roman numerals rather than regular numbers, don'tcha know) commenced the suck immediately. At first launch, it took around a full minute to appear. But appear it did. Then I closed it, and never saw it again. Each time I'd try to run it, nothing would happen. I'd check in Process Hacker, and sure enough, two instances of AcroRd32.exe were running. No window. Nothing.
    
    Going back to STDU Viewer.
29. 
    securtek

    Reviewing 10.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2010)

    Would not allow me to save a PDF file to my hard drive while in Internet Explorer. Stated that my hard drive was full. Uninstalled version 10.0.0.1 and reinstalled version 9.4.0 and all was well. For me this version was a complete failure.
30. 
    fh-16

    Reviewing 10.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2010)

    This new flavor is very good and lighter, without the bloatware others are reporting (they didn't test!).
    I use it now on my slate tablet PC because of some interesting new display features.
31. 
    mike_diack

    Reviewing 10.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2010)

    Seems much better. Loads much faster. Looks like they've finally rewritten it from scratch. Famous last words, but the new "Protected Mode" feature should make it less vulnerable insecurities wise by doing process isolation, a little bit like Chrome / IE 8. Quite impressed.
32. 
    DrTeeth

    Reviewing 10.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2010)

    Does what it says. It is very easy to remove the startup modules and speed loading. I can confirm an issue with changing the properties...the program does hang for 10-20 (sometimes longer) between changes.
33. 
    PaulWilliams

    Reviewing 10.0.0.1 (Nov 18, 2010)

    Slow as hell. Every time I try to change a setting it hangs for a half a second and I'm running a Core i5 Overclocked to 3.4GHz with a 2TB RAID0 Array. I thought they learned their lesson, but apparently not. I'm going to look into an alternative.
34. 
    nvic

    Reviewing 10.0.0.1 (Nov 18, 2010)

    Typical Adobe bloatware. I left this garbage behind years ago.
    
    If I have to use it, I download one of the custom "Lite" versions that leaves the startup components and other bloat out.
35. 
    jafo818

    Reviewing 10.0.0.1 (Nov 18, 2010)

    Isn't this 10.0.0.0?
36. 
    Input Overload

    Reviewing 10.0.0.1 (Nov 18, 2010)

    'djb247365',- ' I think it's every bit as good as PDF X-Change and Foxit, which are pretty darn good PDF readers too'
    
    Neither of these PDF readers add a 'start up entry' like Adobe that loads a good part of reader so it starts faster (very,very, naughty) and always in memory whether you use it or not. Check on Readers memory load compared to other free readers also. It also requires: Quote '260MB of available hard-disk space'. Eeeeek.
    
    'thartist', back up too 33 Meg from 26, no one knows why. (Unless it's size is linked to international currency variations?)
    
    'Sumatra PDF' weighs in at a massive 1,702 bytes, & unless you use a PDF reader all day it runs just fine, & 31 Meg less.
    
    'FixXxeR', It's utter, total, unmitigated, bloated, intrusive, memory hogging, oversized, insecure garbage. BTW, this is nothing new it's always been garbage though slightly less garbage like than it was a few years ago, but not a lot - Now for it's bad points...
37. 
    djb247365

    Reviewing 10.0.0.1 (Nov 18, 2010)

    Obviously, everyone's computer isn't playing well with Adobe Reader. If this isn't giving me any problems at all, I'm wondering how on earth it's causing problems for all the people with the negative reviews? My PDF files are loading really quick and I can save copies of PDFs without a problem, and I'm using FF 4 Beta 7 right now. I really think it comes down to how a person's computer is configured, to determine whether or not something like Adobe Reader will work smoothly on it.
38. 
    Aegis69

    Reviewing 10.0.0.1 (Nov 18, 2010)

    Doesn't run worth a crap on Ubuntu!!
    
    (this review is for FixXxeR)
39. 
    bobad

    Reviewing 9.4.1 (Nov 17, 2010)

    Of all the PDF readers, this is my least favorite. It's unnecessarily big and slow, stays in memory, and uses BHO's. The 1 I use consists of 1 file, and still plugs in to IE to view PDF files without having to download them to a folder.
40. 
    soldier1st

    Reviewing 9.4.1 (Nov 17, 2010)

    Adobe reader is very slow scrolling and it adds a startup entry which should not be needed as the other pdf viewers do not add a startup entry.
41. 
    ghammer

    Reviewing 9.4.1 (Nov 16, 2010)

    @Input Overload- Um, your fanboi 'reviews' are the absolute latest word in useless, bloated, slow to get to the point, crap.
    How about "I like nothing that is commercial" and leave it at that?
    
    Adobe Reader is the only tool that will open all PDFs and give the proper view of all of them.
42. 
    Input Overload

    Reviewing 9.4.1 (Nov 16, 2010)

    At Last:- (Trumpets Blow/Star Spangled Banner Played, at last THE MOTHER. OF ALL FIXES
    
    FixXxeR (Mr Adobe)
    They weren't very fast in bringing this major security update out in fact they were very slow. Still a piece of junk. I also add Apple Slowtime & MS Office 2010 to being junk too.
    
    A product that adds a startup entry to speed up later startups must be very aware that their program is bloated & slow.(Even MS has stopped doing this with Office) It's just as well that all software companies don't do this as we would end up with multi core/lots of RAM PC's behaving like an AMD 20 MHz 386 4 Meg RAM - With a 1 hour boot up. Few know they can remove this! Or even how to do so.
    
    13 systems eh, I bet you dread 'Patch Tuesday' coming up. I noticed that it's fast 'After a fresh Re-Boot, how about a PC's that's been up for weeks?
    
    Oh & BTW I have 12,641 PC's not counting my 13,986 laptops & a calculator, oh & an Atari 400 I use for Internet gaming.
    
    ghammer, Thanks! I like like my reviews like you & I thank you for your unbridled support, it's given me quite a boost this morning knowing others do too.
    
    Sadly reading 'Gary Hammer's' reviews aren't exactly appealing, I fell asleep to be honest.. And BTW for the record I probably buy more software in one month (week?) than you will do in your life.
    
    And get a grip, adding a little humour to a review isn't the end of the world. We don't live long enough to be upset by a man 5000 miles away with a Brit's sense of humour. No offence has been intended to anyone & no harm has been done, go for a walk in the forest.
43. 
    CyberDoc999

    Reviewing 9.4.0 (Oct 7, 2010)

    How many updates per month is too many?????????
44. 
    FixXxeR

    Reviewing 9.4.0 (Oct 6, 2010)

    some_guy: Why are you reviewing "Adobe reader for WINDOWS" if you use Linux? Not getting enough attention so you have to purposely troll?
    
    Cyberdoc: Based on what I read, you do not use this, am I right? If so, why do you continue to berate this program release after release? They are patching the program. I would RATHER them do that then just leave it be due to "too many updates". Windows XP had, and still receives, far more updates than any other product yet people praise it. Get over it and find something real to complain about, like the hackers which continually try and exploit the most used and widely deployed products out there (ala adobe reader).
    
    some_guy: Where in your original review did you mention a dual boot? The only thing you said was "I have linux fool", not "I dual boot linux fool".
45. 
    thartist

    Reviewing 9.4.0 (Oct 6, 2010)

    Version 9.4.0 shaved 14 MB from 40 to 26. nice.
46. 
    some guy

    Reviewing 9.4.0 (Oct 5, 2010)

    bloat resource hog foxit is way better and I have Linux fool
    FixXxeR I run a dual boot win7 & ubuntu you silly goof you know what a dual boot is don't you ?
47. 
    dotnetnightmare

    Reviewing 9.3.2 (Aug 22, 2010)

    This is the best pdf reader. All others have flaws. Foxit barely works with 1or 2 browsers via their half a** plugin. Adobe is fast and just works! This is the "LITE" version. Adobe Acrobat 9 PRO is the full version. This is to Acrobat what Foxit is to Phantom. Oh, and it,s FREE! What are people b****ing about? Hate proprietary software? Get linux and SHUT UP!
48. 
    FixXxeR

    Reviewing 9.3.4 (Aug 21, 2010)

    I must be the only person who truly likes adobe reader. I have several systems running and it runs great on them. I have a 933mhz p3 and adobe reader, this version, launches in under 2 seconds on a fresh reboot. In fact, out of the 13 systems I personally own, none of them take longer than 2 seconds to start up adobe reader after a fresh reboot.
    
    This product works very well, is very light on system resources, and is very responsive (Note: I always delete the startup task (acrotray.exe) so that is NEVER running or affecting my load time).
    
    This is a great PDF reader. That and the speed with which security updates are released is fantastic.
    
    The size of the program is negligible. If it ever comes down to my needing the additional 30MB of space that this program uses, I will surely look elsewhere before uninstalling this tool which works, works well, and does it in a very fast and sleek manner.
49. 
    Input Overload

    Reviewing 9.3.4 (Aug 20, 2010)

    Fuzzy John, because it's truly a piece of junk. BTW I do use it on others PC's & those I repair so it's a real review. There are few programs I feel that way about the only other commercial program I would rate as junk is Qucktime.
    
    Adobe is also 41 Meg in size whereas PDF-XChange Viewer is 12. On 13 systems Adobe weighs in at 533 Meg whereas PDF-XChange Viewer is 156 Meg a saving of 492 Meg, almost half a Gig. And Sumatra PDF 1.1 is just 1.6 Meg a saving of 512 Meg. The Adobe fix is 11.5 Meg also.
    
    Adobe also adds 'new startup entry:- HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run.....'
    
    This is to facilitate the faster start up of Adobe as on each boot you have already loaded most of the program.
    
    -2000 stars.
50. 
    Fuzzy John

    Reviewing 9.3.4 (Aug 20, 2010)

    Why do you guys keep putting you anti Adobe Reader stuff here? Use the discussions for those if you fell that you have to make you feelings known everytime Adobe Releases an update.
    
    KEEP THIS TAB FOR REAL REVIEWS !!!
51. 
    Mr Swiffer

    Reviewing 9.3.4 (Aug 20, 2010)

    See. Adobe does care about security. Adobe's Acrobat Reader is more secure than Apple's PDF reader in Snow Leopard.
    
    @FixXxeR - You are one of the very few people on here that actually knows what they are talking about. There is not a single PDF reader app available that is noticeably faster than Adobe's own Acrobat reader.
52. 
    Uriel

    Reviewing 9.3.4 (Aug 20, 2010)

    Blah blah blah blah Devil blah blah Adobe Blah blah!!!!
53. 
    Joco

    Reviewing 9.3.4 (Aug 19, 2010)

    Higher security risk, lower functionality than PDF-XChange Viewer (freeware)
54. 
    FatBastard

    Reviewing 9.3.4 (Aug 19, 2010)

    User this crap at your own risk but remember that you have been warned!
55. 

    Reviewing 9.3.3 (Jun 30, 2010)

    Adobe Reader works fine, but PDF-XChange Viewer is the best free PDF reader. Unlike Adobe, PDF-XChange Viewer lets you type onto any PDF file and a lot more, all for free and in a much smaller program.
56. 
    jaynbe

    Reviewing 9.3.3 (Jun 30, 2010)

    Quote:"Adobe Reader still offer the best PDF reading/creation experience for the vast, vast majority of businesses that work with PDF workflow on any serious level."
    The alternative pdf readers are merely pdf text readers and don't offer any comparable quality for professional use.
57. 
    Aegis69

    Reviewing 9.3.3 (Jun 29, 2010)

    100 megs for a reader.... a reader.. not an editor. f*k you adobe.
58. 
    DannyVeyt

    Reviewing 9.3.3 (Jun 29, 2010)

    Yuk!
59. 
    FatBastard

    Reviewing 9.3.3 (Jun 29, 2010)

    Warning !!
    
    Don't use this crap. Use Foxit Reader.
60. 
    mjm01010101

    Reviewing 9.3.2 (Apr 13, 2010)

    There's no need to: The current version of Acrobat has performed admirably. It is the security bullsh*t that they need to fix up.
    
    And lest you think it's just adobe, foxit is also starting to have security vulns left and right. le sigh.
61. 
    YankDownUnder

    Reviewing 9.3.1 (Feb 18, 2010)

    For any of my clients that are serious about anything to do with PDF authoring/modification/usage, we've just chucked in the towel and moved to Apple OS/X or GNU/Linux. On a year to year average, the TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) of running a single Microsoft Windows (insert your version here) has become staggering - regardless of how Microsoft tries to market its OS's, it's becoming vastly expensive - from a software perspective and a support perspective. Working with PDF's under GNU/Linux is at least safe - from a security perspective - and if a workstation is setup properly, there are no issues with creation/modification/usage. Sorry, Adobe - it's a bigger picture that has to be considered - your products are merely a piece of a larger picture. End of story.
62. 
    mjm01010101

    Reviewing 9.3.1 (Feb 17, 2010)

    "There are many other worthy replacement programs."
    
    Sadly this just isn't reality. Quile Reader/pro may be riddled with security holes, they still offer the best PDF reading/creation experience for the vast, vast majority of businesses that work with PDF workflow on any serious level. I myself have tried foxit/sumatra/Nuance solutions and they all have large gaping holes in basic PDF functionality, rendering, printing, workflow. ALL of them. Some of them have an advantage in some areas (PDF Creator is better than Acrobat at OCR conversions,) but really anyone who works with PDF professionally will grumble and patch.
63. 
    johnusa

    Reviewing 9.3.1 (Feb 17, 2010)

    I have lost my trust in Adobe.
    Too many security holes, and too often.
    I am tired of updating Adobe softwares on my clients' PCs. It is just not worth it anymore. There are many other worthy replacement programs.
    Rest in Peace Adobe.
64. 
    thartist

    Reviewing 9.3 (Jan 13, 2010)

    a simple proposition: couldn't adobe itself release a Reader Lite?
65. 
    JWvanLohuizen

    Reviewing 9.1.2 (Jun 16, 2009)

    These guys are always claiming updates but many time after the download is complete and the install completed then the original version is still what appears. Also the update via the internal mechanism no longer works due to a website issue on their part.
    
    They have no real tech support if you don't paid for the $700 professional version. I guess since who has that kind of money. Well I hope they do anyway as I have not had the opportunity to pay that kind of money. It's ridiculous the greed over not making the typing tool for pdf's available to the public.
    
    I have even tried tech support to complain about their lack of intelligence on the part of the dreamweaver programmers and the tech support people had no idea what I was talking about so they refused to even send any request to those folks. I guess they figure if you don't have a 6 figure salary then you must surely be ignorant and not worth their time.
66. 
    Esquire

    Reviewing 9.1.2 (Jun 11, 2009)

    Again, this is an update to the current Adobe Reader and not a standalone version, so the title is misleading.
67. 
    po4ko

    Reviewing 9.1.2 (Jun 11, 2009)

    Vulnerabilities should be fixed and rolled out as soon as possbile without wait for any "Patch Tuesday". So what Adobe does, is showing that they care. Kudos!
    
    So, for the majority of people who already have latest updated Reader 9.1.1 it would be better to download whole thing again, and not just a small patch?
68. 
    johnusa

    Reviewing 9.1.2 (Jun 11, 2009)

    Adobe is in deep trouble.
    This is another major security update within 2 short weeks.
    Can't Adobe get it done properly anymore.
    This is also the second major update without a stand alone (full) version of Reader. You have to install the buggy full version first, then waste your time in updating this troubled software.
    I just wish Adobe will get its act together.
    Shame on Adobe.
69. 
    po4ko

    Reviewing 9.1.1 (May 27, 2009)

    johnusa, if you would look at the "Requirements" line (below screenshot), you would see that it does say, that Adobe Reader v9.1 is required.
70. 
    johnusa

    Reviewing 9.1.1 (May 26, 2009)

    This is NOT full version.
    This is ONLY update from 9.1 to 9.1.1
    You MUST have 9.1 already installed to make this update work.
    Yuck. What a waste.
71. 
    mjm01010101

    Reviewing 9.1.1 (May 26, 2009)

    startup is fine. Adobe fixed startup issues in version 8. No issues since.
72. 
    Esquire

    Reviewing 9.1.1 (May 26, 2009)

    This download is a security update for all languages of Adobe Reader 9; it is NOT a standalone full version of the application and requires a previous version of Read 9.x already installed on your system.
    
    For more information about the vulnerability, see http://www.adobe.com/sup...ulletins/apsb09-06.html
73. 
    Blaxima

    Reviewing 9.1.1 (May 26, 2009)

    This thing makes firefox's startups seem like greased lightning. I mean it really is painfully slow and I won't even bother getting into the bloat and crap this has running.
    
    The alternatives do suck but then along comes PDF-Xchange Viewer and all is well.
    
    http://www.docu-track.co...hange_Tools/pdfx_viewer
74. 
    emanresU deriseD

    Reviewing 9.1 (Mar 13, 2009)

    It is slow and bloated, and its update functionality sucks, and the scumbags load it with "Acrobat.com" and "Adobe AIR" crap, but no other PDF reader that I've found renders correctly and works with forms.
75. 
    extremely well

    Reviewing 9.1 (Mar 13, 2009)

    I don't particularly care about the fact it's bloated (this is an advanced "player") but I DO have a problem with the fact that this process, AcroRd32.exe, has a tendency to get stuck in memory. I'm sure you've all encountered it way too often, you try to open a PDF, no workie, cuz there's an existing instance of AcroRd32.exe floating in space doing nothing... I keep upgrading hoping for the problem to go away. So far, no luck (on many many machines)...
76. 
    ssb

    Reviewing 9.1 (Mar 12, 2009)

    Slow and bloated as always but there is no better alternative.
77. 
    sn0wflake

    Reviewing 9.1 (Mar 11, 2009)

    Stable, loads quickly, and integrates well with other applications. If I could rate with decimals I'd give this 3.5.
78. 
    Esquire

    Reviewing 9.1 (Mar 10, 2009)

    Keir, which version did you install? Mine says 9.1.0.
    
    It's still a bloatware w/ Std installer at 26MB.
79. 
    keir

    Reviewing 9.1 (Mar 10, 2009)

    Version number on Help/About not bumped.
80. 
    rseiler

    Reviewing 9.1 (Mar 10, 2009)

    What's New:
    http://kb.adobe.com/self...=kb408814&sliceId=2
81. 
    arossetti

    Reviewing 9.1 (Mar 10, 2009)

    Standard version includes Air and Acrobat.com. The "lite" version includes only the reader.
82. 
    Sorb

    Reviewing 9.1 (Mar 10, 2009)

    Wow look, it only took Adobe three weeks to fix the critical vulnerability :-/
    But why is now the standard version larger than the lite version!?
    ftp://ftp.adobe.com/pub/adobe/reader/win/9.x/9.1/enu/
    
    EDIT 1: Sorry I meant the standard version is now *smaller* than the lite version, it was the opposite with the previous release! Are Adobe trying to fool us into something?
    
    EDIT 2: What, the critical vulnerability hasn't been fixed yet!?
83. 
    mjm01010101

    Reviewing 9.1 (Mar 10, 2009)

    Continually has javascript security issies that leave your machine insecure.
    
    For a browser? I can kinda understand. A document viewer, however, should not have this type of hole over and over and over again.
84. 
    roj

    Reviewing 9.1 (Mar 10, 2009)

    Foxit Reader, also released today, gets the job done and does NOT require but a fraction of the useless garbage this thing inflicts on your machine. Put the two products in a VM and observe the differences. This is typical of what Big Software has become: bloated, inefficient and full of "features" that are largely irrelevant. Take a hint Adobe (and all the rest of you corporate marketing types): product differentiation does NOT mean a plethora of useless features and code bloat.
    
    THREE stars because it does get the job done.
    
    Get Foxit instead.
85. 
    DudeBoyz

    Reviewing 9.0 (Oct 8, 2008)

    It gets the job done, but I'm simply stunned at how large and resource intensive this application has become.
    
    I don't want all that fancy collaborative editing stuff in a reader. I don't want multimedia elements and don't want code and application execution to be features of a reader.
    
    All I want is a PASSIVE, read-only type of application. One that cannot interact with any other aspect of my operating environment.
    
    So something like Sumatra PDF tends to be more to my liking, and it's barely over 1 meg in size.
    
    However, if you need the advanced features included in the Adobe Reader, I would expect you would be glad that this version, no matter how large, is available.
    
    It would be nice if Adobe would release a much more basic, reader-only version, but I need to focus on rating the product that is presented here. I feel a rating of 3 is fair given the balance of features vs bloat.
    
    I am glad it is free, because I don't think I'd want to ever have to pay for it.
86. 
    rbailin

    Reviewing 9.0 (Jul 3, 2008)

    Note that this installer, AdbeRdr90_en_US.exe, includes Adobe Air and a beta version of acrobat.com, a web-based limited version of Adobe Acrobat that runs browser-less using Air.
    
    A smaller installer, AdbeRdr90_en_US_Std.exe without these two extra apps, is available from Adobe's FTP website at ftp://ftp.adobe.com/pub/adobe/reader/win/9.x/9.0/enu
    
    Both acrobat.com and Adobe Air can be removed using Add/Remove Programs on XP, or the equivalent on Vista.
87. 
    SelfMan

    Reviewing 9.0 (Jul 2, 2008)

    To "slim down" the size on the disk, just delete the setup files the installer puts in the "Setup Files" subfolder.
    No wonder that its so huge after installation.
88. 
    dssdbs

    Reviewing 9.0 (Jul 2, 2008)

    blah blah, if you aren't going to actually provide a "Review", then just don't post at all. Just putting that you prefer something else, is NOT a review.
    
    Been waiting for v9.0, glad it's finally out. Install was easy, works as advertised! For PDF Reading, nothing else compares!
89. 
    robmanic44

    Reviewing 9.0 (Jul 2, 2008)

    I'm not wild about it, but I'm going to install it. If you're to use the PDF format, it's not like you have many choices unless you want to shell out serious dollars.
90. 
    mjm01010101

    Reviewing 9.0 (Jul 2, 2008)

    LOL.
    - 35M installer to view a simple PDF. Since when has anyone wanted flash in their PDF's?
    - Size on disk for Vista32 was a hefty 245 Megs after Language pack installed.
    
    Seriously. 245 megs for just viewing a PDF.
    
    Doesn't anyone think Adobe has taken this PDF format a tad too far from it's original goal of WYSIWYG archival paper replacement?
91. 
    Joco

    Reviewing 9.0 (Jul 2, 2008)

    Hardware & time requirements: Quad core CPU, 16 GB RAM, 1 week vacation to finish installing and ... one more day to reformat the hard drive to make sure it will disappear for good.
92. 
    anonymouscowturd

    Reviewing 9.0 (Jul 2, 2008)

    Starts up marginally faster. But get this. Total install size. 198MB. Absolutely rediculous.
93. 
    b0mmel

    Reviewing 9.0 (Jul 2, 2008)

    Indeed noticeably faster than v8. Integration with Acrobat.com could turn out useful in the future.
94. 
    ranasrule

    Reviewing 9.0 (Jul 2, 2008)

    9.0 is nice and fast
95. 
    VoODoOChilD

    Reviewing 8.1.2 (May 4, 2008)

    It REPLICATED all the softwares from the folder it was placed in, into its installation directory .. hidden under \Program Files\Adobe\Reader 8.0\Setup Files\ (besides its own installation files, which is a norm for all apps). This is a new for me! Y in the world would it do this :|
96. 
    JQueen

    Reviewing 8.1.2 (Feb 7, 2008)

    Recently downloaded Adobe 8.1.2. It deleted all "previous versions" and did the install. Now I cannot open any PDF files stating "The license Agreement was not accepted." Tried downloading twice and have had the same results. Now I'm having difficulty finding an older version so I can still open files. Any suggestions would be nice.
97. 
    shodan816

    Reviewing 8.1.2 (Feb 6, 2008)

    I think we can all agree that it would be great IF Adobe offered a 'lite' version of this reader, or better yet, a version where you may pick and choose installation options. I don't like the humungous size either, since I view a PDF file once in a blue moon, but those who state it is the best reader make a valid point. Foxit's rendering quality (compared to Adobe) simply doesn't match up. If you are willing to sacrifice a bit of screen quality for smaller size, go Foxit. It's really that simple.
98. 
    netean

    Reviewing 8.1.2 (Feb 6, 2008)

    22Mb for a PDF reader...
    Is it just me, or that is just absurd?
    
    For what *most* people use pdf for: I'd got for something else, like foxit reader. By comparison it's tiny and works better than this (for what I use pdf for)
99. 
    Skyfrog

    Reviewing 8.1.2 (Feb 6, 2008)

    There is a serious bug in the Adobe Updater program that causes it to consume 100% of your CPU and there is no way to kill the process short of restarting. This has been around for some time now and they still haven't fixed it, totally unacceptable. Until they stop installing all of this online garbage with their programs, I will stop using their programs.
100. 
     frodo888

     Reviewing 8.1.2 (Feb 6, 2008)

     Yes it is true, Adobe Acrobat Reader is an inflexible bloated application. A feature monster. But its also the best PDF reader out there if you look on compatibility and enterprise supported functions (forms, signature and so on).
     
     There are solutions out there they are smaller and faster but have a reduced function set. Foxit's reader is one of them. If you really only want to view PDF files, you should give alternative readers a look. If you need all functionality of the full PDF standart your only choice will be Adobe's reader.
101. 
     dssdbs

     Reviewing 8.1.2 (Feb 6, 2008)

     Upgrade was quick and easy. Glad they provided a full 8.1.2 install instead of just an upgrade, easier to package up for deployment.
102. 
     roj

     Reviewing 8.1.2 (Feb 5, 2008)

     Fat, bloated and grotesque. Use Foxit.
     
     ONE star.
103. 
     methuselah

     Reviewing 8.1.2 (Feb 5, 2008)

     I have to agree with the suggestion of a free, and faster, alternative. I recently also started using the free foxit reader, and was amazed at how I no longer had a huge delay to start reading a .pdf file! (I haven't tried their paid .pdf writer.)
104. 
     Ian C.

     Reviewing 8.1.2 (Feb 5, 2008)

     Before version 8 I refused to install this garbage on my computer, but with version 8 came a significant improvement. It now seems to be nearly as light with resources as many of the freeware alternatives. It lacks many of the nice features that other freeware viewers have, but has a few critical features that the others don't, such as fillable forms and browser integration, which I needed for work.
105. 
     preinterpost

     Reviewing 8.1.2 (Feb 5, 2008)

     I don't find the resource utilization acceptable. Unfortunately one has to put up with the PDF format and this one ensures the greatest compatibility.
106. 
     Raimondas

     Reviewing 8.1.2 (Feb 5, 2008)

     Installation file is very big and it eats much RAM (even with empty document), but it is still good PDF reader.
107. 
     AntiochMedia

     Reviewing 8.1.2 (Feb 5, 2008)

     I have to give this a poor rating.
     
     I have a Core 2 Duo 2.4Ghz with 2GB of RAM.
     
     Flipping through some print quality brochures brought my computer to a grind - as did leaving this open in the background.
     
     I'm sorry, but come on Adobe. This program is an embarrassment. If your userbase complains and feels that this is a slow program, that should suggest that a lighter version with optional plugins and a smaller memory footprint might be essential in winning the war over new formats from Microsoft and the move towards flash based brochures online rather than PDFs.
108. 
     mjm01010101

     Reviewing 8.1.2 (Feb 5, 2008)

     Changelog?
109. 
     horsecharles

     Reviewing 8.1.1 (Oct 23, 2007)

     I agree with most reviewers below... a huge waste of system resources when running in the background...
110. 
     V.A

     Reviewing 8.1.1 (Oct 23, 2007)

     I have version 8.1.0 on my machine.
     When I perform a check for updates, I am told that there are NO UPDATES AVAILABLE.
     
     Hence a low rating of only 1 - I couldn't get any lower !
111. 
     And|

     Reviewing 8.1.1 (Oct 23, 2007)

     Neutral. Too be nice.
     
     Why does a piece of software that displays .pdf files need to be a 22mb download?
     
     Foxit reader has shown it only needs to be 1mb something.
     
     What has gone wrong?
112. 
     ABOU

     Reviewing 8.1.1 (Oct 23, 2007)

     Resource consuming, ugly, slow....
     What are they waiting for AT LEAST optimizing a little this degraded software !
     
     It's incredible so many person use this tool...
113. 
     mjm01010101

     Reviewing 8.1.1 (Oct 22, 2007)

     Better than 6 and 7.
     Foxit can't render or print accurately. I need accuracy in displaying and printing PDF's before all else.
     Still not compatible with the USPTO efiling system, so we can't migrate to version 8 yet for filing online.
114. 
     rseiler

     Reviewing 8.1.1 (Oct 22, 2007)

     What's New in 8.11:
     http://www.adobe.com/go/kb402673
115. 
     AlexisJiron

     Reviewing 8.1.1 (Oct 22, 2007)

     Slow as allways at rendering although of high quality.
     For a better alternative than this and Foxit PDF Reader try PDF-XChange Viewer. Not as light as Foxit but excelent rendering.
116. 
     tasty

     Reviewing 8.1.1 (Oct 22, 2007)

     Adobe Reader is recognized, albeit based primarily on marketing and not necessarily merit, as the standard for PDF viewing on the Windows platform. It has been in existence for over a decade and has gone through significant evolution. A review that critiques the actual product features and performance is hard to come by, as most one-star ratings are emotionally or immaturely influenced. Unfortunately, many five-star ratings exist only as their antithesis.
     
     Critically reviewing the current version 8.1.1, with no preconceived ideas about the company or product history, it is hard to deny that Adobe Reader is a mature and very useful application.
     
     Even with previous versions considered, the application speed and memory footprint has been improved consistently throughout version 8's lifespan, but naturally some of the cumbersome features still exist from version 7. All things considered, Adobe Reader is a well designed application that performs fairly effectively despite its size, and with each revision, continues to improve upon the efficiency goals of version 8.
117. 
     roj

     Reviewing 8.1.1 (Oct 22, 2007)

     Switched to Foxit Reader and ditched this slow, bloated crap. Why anyone would use this garbage is comnpletely beyond me - unless of course they were a n00b and didn't know better yet. That's understandable.
     
     ONE star for typical Adobe bloat.
118. 
     xproject51

     Reviewing 8.1.0 (Jun 20, 2007)

     Eventually, you'll need a PDF reader for viewing most documents in the internet. I chose Adobe since it is mostly compatible with all the PDFs scattered around. It is bloated, like who will even need those text to voice add-ons? But Adobe Reader is the best PDF reader.
119. 
     x3109

     Reviewing 8.1.0 (Jun 8, 2007)

     Large program that's almost as ugly as zridling's mother...MUWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
120. 
     Dsfargeg

     Reviewing 8.1.0 (Jun 6, 2007)

     What a disgusting bloated junk.
     To post something positive about this crapola, you must've been bought out by Adobe.
121. 
     mjm01010101

     Reviewing 8.1.0 (Jun 6, 2007)

     lol.
     Try foxit.
     OMG foxit.
     Foxit rox.
     About *all* foxit* is good for is simple display of PDF's, but the majority of the world needs more than that.
     
     I did try foxit.
     And then after about the tenth time I'd printed a PDF and saw massive corruption on the printout, or foxit was updated and I got ads annoying me, I dumped it.
     
     I'll take the reliable adobe reader over Foxit any day.
     8.x is simply better than any other reader made to date.
     Preloader? fine: we work with PDF's all day, the program is gonna end up in our cache anyway.
     reliable printing support? yes. Finally, Acrobat 8 professional has validation for the integrity of PDF's, so eventually we'll no longer have crashing issues like we do with v.7.
     
     People that work with PDF, at least for printing, use Acrobat. People that work with PDF's with integrated fonts, international languages, forms, workflow, use acrobat. Sorry little foxit.
122. 
     coprodog

     Reviewing 8.1.0 (Jun 6, 2007)

     This piece of software is a memory-resource hog. I tried a mini test against Foxit and amazed of how much slower it is in all aspects. Probably has better quality rendering but this cannot justify so bad performance. Just try this: Open a pdf version of a magazine full of fancy colored photos and just press down to scroll pages, while observing memory utilization of adobe reader. Do it again with the same pdf with Foxit.
     
     That would be enough to change your favorite pdf reader.
123. 
     Cris3

     Reviewing 8.1.0 (Jun 6, 2007)

     Our computers have hundred of gigabytes free space, dual core processor speed and 2 gigabytes of ram yet some people are worried about bloat from this software? If you want bloat, install Nero 7 for just burning a standard data disk. Maybe it's just time to invest in some upgraded hardware.
     
     Adobe Reader has always been free and many programs require you have it. It is a staple much like having Shockwave and Flash players before Adobe acquired them from Macromedia.
124. 
     bobad

     Reviewing 8.1.0 (Jun 6, 2007)

     I suppose it works, but why so bloated and slow? I would guess that 95% of users need it just to view their PDF files, and occasionally print one. Why all the bells and whistles, causing the major bloat? I highly recommend using FoxIt for your PDF reading and printing needs. It takes the minimalist approach, and is much lighter, simpler, and quicker.
125. 
     raveren

     Reviewing 8.1.0 (Jun 6, 2007)

     Much better and faster than foxit in my experience.
126. 
     kise

     Reviewing 8.1.0 (Jun 6, 2007)

     Big Bad and Bloated but still does the job.
     Still the best compatible PDF reader.
     
     Foxit PDF Reader is light, fast and better but lacks of showing/printning some binary data correct.
     
     Try Foxit instread if you don't use complex PDF:s.
127. 
     rseiler

     Reviewing 8.1.0 (Jun 6, 2007)

     What's new in Adobe Reader 8.1.0
     
     New operating system support:
     Windows Vista 32-bit edition
     Windows Vista 64-bit edition
     
     New features:
     Improved forms performance.
     Acrobat 8 3D support: Precise CAD data (PRC), Product Manufacturing Information (PMI).
     Integrated FedEx Kinko's Print Online: Send any PDF directly to FedEx Kinko's Print Online for printing.
128. 
     nvic

     Reviewing 8.1.0 (Jun 5, 2007)

     Adobe Bloatware - You can use something like Foxit.
     
     Foxit is much smaller, in fact only 1 MB or so *unzipped*
     
     Adobe's *compressed* installer is almost 23 MB!
     
     Sometimes, i wish they still called it Acrobat reader, because I could then call it "Adobe Acrobloat Reader"...
129. 
     zridling

     Reviewing 8.1.0 (Jun 5, 2007)

     Holy moly, this beast is fatter than Jenna Bush's beer gut and three chins. Adobe just took the gun and kneecapped itself (again).
130. 
     tatool

     Reviewing 8.1.0 (Jun 5, 2007)

     Too big & too slow.
131. 
     pjb

     Reviewing 8.1.0 (Jun 5, 2007)

     Works well. Does what it is intended to do.
     Nice to see 8.1 correctly installs on Vista PC's where UAC is disabled (8.0 had a work around http://www.adobe.com/cfu...ase/index.cfm?id=333643)
132. 
     bigmama

     Reviewing 8.1.0 (Jun 5, 2007)

     foxit reader is 1 mb
     and sumatra pdf reader less than 1 mb
     
     adobe is big in size, tools are hiden. i'd like the tools by default in the main bar without adding them myself
     
     maybe v7 was better
     
     changelog?
133. 
     foobah

     Reviewing 8.1.0 (Jun 5, 2007)

     I'm amazed people still use this (where they are not forced too) and even more amazed that Adobe still produce this - bloatware defined.
134. 
     DudeBoyz

     Reviewing 8.1.0 (Jun 5, 2007)

     Am I the only one that finds this version incredibly show, especially compared to 7.0.7?
     
     Whatever they are using for screen rendering seems to really bog down the display. I open the EDIT PREFERENCES menu and you can actually see it draw the dialog and remove the menu from the screen. ATI Catalyst 7.1 and did not have any problems with 7.0.7 in terms of the display speed.
     
     I'm going to have to go back to 7.0.7 and try testing the next release of 8.x after it comes out.
135. 
     h377r1d3r

     Reviewing 8.0.0 (Jun 4, 2007)

     resource hog, deserves -5
136. 
     bigmama

     Reviewing 8.0.0 (May 23, 2007)

     although you can add icons
     the problem is that should be there by default
     
     why too heavy???????????
137. 
     raveren

     Reviewing 8.0.0 (Apr 25, 2007)

     It's a welcome breeze from foxit, it's even faster! Superior in ways than the latter! 5/5
138. 
     butthead

     Reviewing 8.0.0 (Apr 16, 2007)

     Nice visually and makes text easy to read, but with 8.0 i experience crashes all the time. Too bad
139. 
     brunok

     Reviewing 8.0.0 (Apr 2, 2007)

     Still a little slow, but it's the best PDF reader out there. It's really comfortable to read documents in it, and the search and bookmarks features works very well.
140. 
     Umapathy

     Reviewing 8.0.0 (Jan 22, 2007)

     It's really have a nice and cool interface. UNICODE support for Indian languages including my mother tongue Tamil works only one way i.e you can convert an original UNICODE document to acrobat and not vice versa. This needed to be resolved by Adobe. Is there a way Adobe acrobat can be integrated with windows XP please let me know?
141. 
     milleron

     Reviewing 8.0.0 (Dec 19, 2006)

     Installing Reader 8.0 caused IE 6 to crash almost immediately after launching. It brought up a message box stating that Acrobat Reader 8 had encountered an error and therefore had to close. I thought it might be incompatible with IE 6, so I bit the bullet and upgraded to 8 -- same thing if less consistently. I uninstalled Reader 8.0 and reverted to version 7. All is well again. The plugins once again work in both IE 7 and Firefox 2.0. I've Googled this phenomenon, but I can't find anyone else reporting the problem.
142. 
     VelvetElvis

     Reviewing 8.0.0 (Dec 13, 2006)

     Cleaner interface, more screen real estate, and dang, it actually seems faster than 7.x
     I used MSConfig and removed "Adobe Reader Synchronizer" from startup. Doesn't seem to be required in my case, and boot times are long enough.
143. 
     S_K

     Reviewing 8.0.0 (Dec 11, 2006)

     Using dde or even scrolling in the document or closing a document causes the reader to crash. I will revert to the old version.
144. 
     Zoroaster

     Reviewing 8.0.0 (Dec 10, 2006)

     Using Firefox 2, I already had this problem with Adobe Reader 7.x and I still have it with Adobe Reader 8, only (of course) when Adobe Reader is set to be integrated in the browsers (as a plug-in for Firefox), that is :
     Under certain circumstances, when an applet is running in Firefox, Firefox will suddenly crash (I've had a xpsp2res.dll problem mentioned).
     Best alternative I've found is to simply uncheck Adobe Reader's browser integration. With Firefox this has but advantages: you can choose to open the PDF immediately or to save it. Much better than having it opened in the browser automatically.
     Otherwise, Adobe Reader is as fat, but much more nicely dressed up...
145. 
     The MAZZTer

     Reviewing 8.0.0 (Dec 7, 2006)

     I can no longer view PDF files in Firefox. Attempting to do so makes Firefox freeze for a couple of minutes, and then when it eventually responds again, nothing has loaded. It DOES launch a blank Reader window, which in turn pops up a useless error page popup.
     
     At least 7 works.
146. 
     halc

     Reviewing 8.0.0 (Dec 7, 2006)

     2 stars, because:
     
     1) It has too many features that 99% people don't need, causing slowdowns and being a huge security risk (ever count the number of PDF/Reader exploits in the history of this program throughout all versions?)
     
     2) It's a closed format, hence it's not easy to make a free (or even for-paid) alternative that works 100% reliably with all PDFs (believe me, I've tried).
     
     3) Uses the braindead Adobe downloader/update/installer
     
     4) Ties itself to all browsers without asking (have to manually disable the very clunky ActiveX component that is prone to crashing browserss)
     
     5) Talks back to Adobe (yes there's a consent part in that overly lengthy license that nobody reads and which is legally only valid in USA, not in Europe, btw)
     
     6) Slow
     
     7) Memory hog
     
     Then again, it does what most must have these days: fairly reliably open, view and print PDF files.
     
     For that: 2 stars.
     
     I really wish they came out with a light version that just did View/Print and none of the other things.
147. 
     cricri_pingouin

     Reviewing 8.0.0 (Dec 7, 2006)

     Works well. And yes, it is fast to load for any subsequent document... i.e. once AcroRd32Info.exe is loaded in memory (using 16MB for me).
     Apart from hogging memory and HDD (108MB occupied), it works quite well, hence the 3.
148. 
     eyv

     Reviewing 8.0.0 (Dec 6, 2006)

     File size issues aside, this release is surprisingly slick. First startup time is slow, but all others after are fast. Interface is slick and clean. I like it!
149. 
     dono1216

     Reviewing 8.0.0 (Dec 6, 2006)

     reason adobe reader needs to be so dam big is bcuz it needs to deal with extraneous PDF features that nobody ever uses.
     
     GSView all the way! :)
150. 
     raymundka

     Reviewing 8.0.0 (Dec 6, 2006)

     I got the impression this software is sick! Somitimes just nothing happens when I click on a button. I get kind of insecure if someting went wrong with my PC, but then I realize it's the
     application that doesn't react the way it should...
151. 
     clawso1

     Reviewing 8.0.0 (Dec 6, 2006)

     "Anyone have the link for version 7.08?"
     
     Go here: http://tinyurl.com/3fx2
152. 
     icythat

     Reviewing 8.0.0 (Dec 6, 2006)

     I think Adobe Reader 8 is in many regards improved. First of all, it has a cleaner and better organized interface. An secondly, it starts much faster (without preloading at system startup!) even within firefox 2.0. Foxit is a nice program, but it lacks unfortunately in reliability.
153. 
     tickleonthetum

     Reviewing 8.0.0 (Dec 6, 2006)

     This is the worst version yet! Very slow unless you let it preload into memory on startup, and hog a load of RAM. Also the size of this is ridiculous!!
154. 
     spiked

     Reviewing 8.0.0 (Dec 6, 2006)

     20 megs is just the download. If you want to install this beast, kiss another 114 megs goodbye. You can get 38 megs back if you delete the Setup cache from Program Files\Adobe\Reader 8.0\Setup Files\{AC76BA86-7AD7-1033-7B44-A80000000002} but that still leaves 76 megs.
     
     To those who think 8.0 is fast, try removing "Adobe Reader Speed Launch" from your Startup folder, then reboot and see how fast the Reader is. Speed Launch is just a sneaky way to say Preloader. Every single time you log on to Windows, it will preload the majority of Reader into virtual memory and keep it there as long as you stay logged on, even if you never actually use Reader during that time, and even if you use Reader then exit from it. Basically, you LOSE that memory forever. Speed Launch has been around for a while, but it becomes more of a hog in 8.0. It is also joined in 8.0 by another Startup waste: "Adobe Reader Synchronizer." Unlike Speed Launch, the Synchronizer only runs at logon and does not continue to chew up memory later, but if you've already got a bunch of startup-time bloat, it's going to get worse with Reader 8.0.
     
     I was willing to stick up for Reader 7.0 vs. Foxit, but 8.0 is too ridiculous.
155. 
     Canuckistani

     Reviewing 8.0.0 (Dec 6, 2006)

     I kind of wonder what is going on with the folks who are claiming this version is "slower". I installed it this morning on my mom's 1.3 Ghz Celeron SIS integrated chipset office workstation, certainly no powerhouse, and the performance seems to be perfectly adequate. **shrugs** It does what it says it does, it's free and works fine. Good enough for me.
156. 
     herbert7890

     Reviewing 8.0.0 (Dec 6, 2006)

     this says it should work on vista, and it doesnt even install, way to go adobe........... now i need to find version 7.08 beta again, thats the only one that worked on vista, anyone has the link for that version?
157. 
     ghammer

     Reviewing 8.0.0 (Dec 6, 2006)

     Does not install in Vista Business.
     Kinda obvious fault for a release I'd think.
158. 
     taxis

     Reviewing 8.0.0 (Dec 6, 2006)

     The great advantage of Adobe Reader is that it works with all PDFs; Foxit Reader's support is sufficient for most, but not all documents. For users of old hardware, it would be nice if the code and memory footprint could be smaller; but otherwise the application works great.
159. 
     dizzy_davidh

     Reviewing 8.0.0 (Dec 6, 2006)

     I hope Adobe is going to carry on patching v7 as there is currently a security floor with no fix and in large coorporate environments who need other languages than English it appears they will have to wait an entire year until versions they can use are available.
     
     When releasing Adobe Reader\Writer products Adobe always screws up as they always;
     
     1. release the writer before the reader so if you want to use any 'new version' only features, you can't as no one will have a reader to work with them;
     
     2. don't release international versions for sometimes months (12 in the case with v8) meaning not all can use the new version at the same time (creates issues for multinationals and their clients);
     
     3. doesn't even bother to release font packs for Asian, CE etc at the same time as the EnglishUS versions so that those who could get away with it could instal that version along with the font packs for suedo mulitlanguage support.
     
     Like so many firms their interest lies in the US and everyone else is an afterthought.
     
     I'm English (UK) in case you wondered.
     
     I also rate the product as a 1 not because of my little anti-Adobe rant above but rather that this version is yet another case of an app that offers little over the previous version and seems to work even slower than than the previous version as well.
160. 
     gnosh

     Reviewing 8.0.0 (Dec 6, 2006)

     Agreed that the install size is too big for a simple PDF file reader. Still, as software goes, version 8 improves a lot over the 7.0.x versions, and it IS meant to be more than a simple PDF file reader, unlike Foxit (which I also use on some of my machines).
     
     I also appreciate the fact that version 8 no longer creates a new "Adobe" folder in My Documents everytime I use it as before, which was very annoying. Hope to see more "slimming down" in the future.
161. 
     ahjefri

     Reviewing 8.0.0 (Dec 6, 2006)

     can Adobe make another lite version, this one is very blotted.., I am using FoxIt reader. It cover most of what I need and very fast ,,,,
162. 
     DudeBoyz

     Reviewing 8.0.0 (Dec 6, 2006)

     20 meg for just a reader?
     
     Look, we need a Reader LITE and a Reader PLUS or something. Many of us don't need markup features, all we want is a quick, easy way to view Acrobat files. Minimal capabilities - just zooming, font smoothing, a few other things and that's it.
     
     Yes, it is nice that it is free, but to have a version that is protected from script running, does not include multimedia playback, and just focuses on reading while not allowing access to any other system files or components (to protect users from malicious code) would be great.
     
     As it is now, a one-stop shop = unnecessary bloat.
163. 
     InSuboRdiNaTioN

     Reviewing 8.0.0 (Dec 5, 2006)

     While this new version is a slight improvement over the previous, it is still rather disappointing. A 117 meg install size is a bit bloated for those of us who simply want to view PDF files. Foxit reader does it in 2 megs. Also, the fact that it tries to improve on long load times by simply adding to your windows startup time is deceiving. But, until Foxit has better browser integration, Adobe it is.
     
     Skyfrog- drumcat is referencing the fact that Adobe stays loaded in memory after you close it. Acrod23info.exe hogs 20 megs. However, on preliminary inspection it looks like version 8 has fixed that issue and unloads it after 20 seconds. +1 star for that.
164. 
     virtorio

     Reviewing 8.0.0 (Dec 5, 2006)

     Defiantly the best version of Acrobat Reader released to date. It is much faster than previous versions and sports a great new UI.
165. 
     Skyfrog

     Reviewing 8.0.0 (Dec 5, 2006)

     drumcat, sorry but that's a load of rubbish. First there is no issue with the program not closing. Are you clicking the right close button? There is one for the open document and one for the program itself. Second it does not use that much memory unless you have a large document open. Mine is using only 32MB right now. Even 55MB is a pitance today, most people have at least 1GB and some even have twice that.
     
     Getting back to the program though, I really can't find anything wrong with it. The interface is clean and refined, the startup time is very fast. There is no malware so don't listen to BS FUD spreaders.
166. 
     Banquo

     Reviewing 8.0.0 (Dec 5, 2006)

     People should really try something before spouting nonsense based on previous versions or heresay. I do agree that Adobe Reader 7 was junk but we are talking about version 8 now. I must say I am very impressed. The interface is perfect. I think it's as lean as you could possibly make it. I am using the Windows classic theme but I've heard it looks very nice on Vista also. Even the Yahoo spam is gone. It loads much faster than version 7, though you can still delete unneeded plugins and improve performance further. Looks like Adobe has finally turned things around.
167. 
     drumcat

     Reviewing 8.0.0 (Dec 5, 2006)

     When it runs 55MB, and doesn't close when you close your document, it's annoying. Very few programs attempt to stay open like this in a stealthy way and don't get called malware. Lame.
168. 
     mjm01010101

     Reviewing 8.0.0 (Dec 5, 2006)

     How odd. Why the download manager link?
169. 
     castiglione

     Reviewing 8.0.0 (Dec 5, 2006)

     This product is great. Haven't really worked anything on it yet. But the UI and other stuff is great.
170. 
     stevetures

     Reviewing 8.0.0 (Dec 5, 2006)

     Tested on Windows Vista Beta 2, with ie7 and FF 2.0. Zeon 2.4 1gb of ram.
     
     The netopsystems installer took approx. 70 seconds to unzip (using 90,000+ k of RAM). Afterwards, the installer asked 2 questions and installed.
     
     It does seem to load a little faster now (approx 2 - 10 seconds depending on whether the DLLs are still loaded in memory).
     
     The browser plugin keeps the sidebar clutter down, and the selection / page tools seem to work well enough in ie7 and ff 2.0.
     
     I give it a 4 because they still haven't figured out that there's plenty of software out there (apple 10.4, http://sourceforge.net/projects/pdfcreator/ etc) that creates basic PDFs. Just reading PDF files isn't enough to evangelize PDF, they should bundle the printer to create PDFs. They should spend their money on the people who need to create cool fillable PDFs and what not.
171. 
     molumen

     Reviewing 8.0.0 (Dec 5, 2006)

     With every new version upcoming, AcroReader is more and more bloated, slower, bigger and needs more system resources. I remember passing from version 5 to 6, then to 7 and everytime it was a disapointment. I installed version 8 on a new computer (with fresh XP SP2 install) here at the office, and found it to be even slower than AcroReader 7...
     After bad experiences with version 7 (I still don't understand why the upgrading is soooo slow and buggy) I'm back to version 5, and quite happy with it.
172. 
     pjb

     Reviewing 8.0.0 (Dec 5, 2006)

     Faster than Version 7.
     Slightly less cluttered interface.
173. 
     mjm01010101

     Reviewing 8.0.0 (Dec 5, 2006)

     God when will they get rid of the netopsystems crap installer?
174. 
     Banquo

     Reviewing 7.0.8 (Sep 23, 2006)

     Works fine overall, a bit heavy though and I don't like the Yahoo spam in my toolbar.
175. 
     alanpalmer

     Reviewing 7.0.8 (Jun 6, 2006)

     What a stupid system of updating from within the program! I hadn't bothered for a while so I still had 7.0.4. I had to download the individual updates to 7.0.5, 7.0.7, and 7.0.8. (Whatever happened to 7.0.6?) After installing (very slowly) the update to 7.0.5 the installer called for a reboot. 7.0.7 installer started OK but hung with a message saying 33 seconds to go. After about 3 minutes I clicked Cancel. The installer changed to "Cancelling... 33 seconds to go" and just sat there again. I had to use Task Manager to kill it. Presumably even if the updates had installed correctly I'd have had to reboot twice more.
     
     I give up!
     
     EDIT (2 days lter) I downloaded the latest build of Opera today, and during installation it gave me a couple of cryptic error messages about AR failing to install. So I downloaded the full install of AR and it appeared to install with no problems. I was able to read pdfs in the reader, but not in Opera, I found. So I re-ran the Opera installer, with absolutely no difference.
     
     Watch this space!
176. 
     taxis

     Reviewing 7.0.8 (Jun 1, 2006)

     Viewer with excellent functionality (not surprising, as it is their proprietary format). I would prefer it, if the installation were not so very slow and the code size smaller, but it is the best free PDF viewer by far. (Foxit is small and fast, good for many simple documents, but it has no complete PDF support)
177. 
     mikeyx11

     Reviewing 7.0.8 (Jun 1, 2006)

     Yes, Adobe Reader is really bloated, but atleast it works. If it takes ages to load, you can always use Adobe Reader SpeedUp, works great for me. I've never used FoxIt, but I hear it has some problems rendering certain stuff so I'd rather use Adobe Reader with disabled un-necessary plug-ins.
178. 
     zridling

     Reviewing 7.0.8 (May 31, 2006)

     20M for a "reader." Whoa nelly. Much of the bloat comes from feature integration with the full Acrobat product, such as form features. But while Adobe is the worst offender of bloat, FoxIt still has longstanding font and color rendering problems it refuses or is too lazy to fix.
179. 
     matt2971

     Reviewing 7.0.8 (May 31, 2006)

     Surely one of the most overly-bloated pieces of software in existance. I switched to Foxit a while back and havn't had any problems with it.
     
     If software companies insist on making software more bloated with each release in order to keep their marketing departments happy, why not at least release "lite" versions of their software - to please computer users who actually know what their doing - and therefore don't listen to the marketing anyway.
180. 
     dejavu

     Reviewing 7.0.8 (May 31, 2006)

     Yes is a fat software, but some of my PDF files load strange in the excellent and light Foxit. So the use of Adobe Reader for me is obrigatory!
181. 
     mjm01010101

     Reviewing 7.0.8 (May 31, 2006)

     Where is the readme/notes?!?!?!
     
     Still didn't address our printing issues.
     
     As other's have mentioned, foxit just can't render/print reliably. It's a useful stand-by for acrobat however.
182. 
     NorsemanSU

     Reviewing 7.0.8 (May 31, 2006)

     Someone's obviously not done their homework. While Adobe Reader 6.0 took ages to start, version 7.0.x takes only a second or two to start. Havn't tried the 7.0.8 update, still waiting for my them to release it on other languages.
183. 
     mjm01010101

     Reviewing 7.0.7 (Feb 10, 2006)

     Still have major issues printing to HP laserjet 4xxx series printers, and konica copier/printers, ever since 7.0.5. This has essentially ceased my company's ability to use this product.
184. 
     zridling

     Reviewing 7.0.7 (Feb 9, 2006)

     Adobe is now the industry leader in bloatware, and if you don't pay for the full Acrobat Pro, then they're going to load this gorilla with every piece of junk lying around. I don't recommend FoxIt because its font rendering is still deeply flawed. But Reader has simply become intolerable.
185. 
     twosheds

     Reviewing 7.0.7 (Feb 9, 2006)

     Fewer stars every release. Now IMPOSSIBLY bloated, and seriously needs a stripped-down-to-the bone 'lite' version for Internet use. Long since went over to Foxit (once I learned how to remove Foxit's Adobe-like banner ad, and no it's not disallowed by the software), only problem is Foxit won't act as a PDF plugin.
186. 
     sQin

     Reviewing 7.0.7 (Feb 9, 2006)

     few years ago it was fast and not bloated
187. 
     drumcat

     Reviewing 7.0.7 (Feb 9, 2006)

     Foxit might not be 100% of the features, but it's 10x faster and 20x smaller. Why wouldn't you use Foxit? Adobe reader has to be ultra-compatible, and that means ultra bloat for the most part. People working for Adobe use Foxit. What's that tell ya? 2 * for always working, albeit at a crawl.
188. 
     imanino

     Reviewing 7.0.5 (Dec 26, 2005)

     Admittedly, the penultimate in PDF functionality. That being said, when they give an award for unncessary software coding bloat, this is the test model. If you just need a reader..stay away and be very afraid..this will eat up disk space, memory, and processor cycles as a thirsty man in the desert. Think about it, is there any other piece of software as popular as this that has actually generated an entire line of plug-in software to purge it of the excess and speed it up? The amazing thing is that Adobe is still probably wondering why the water is running out of their bathtub..without a clue. I rarely use PDF and I can think of 3 such programs off the top of my head. They're shouldn't have to be any...
189. 
     subodh

     Reviewing 7.0.5 (Dec 21, 2005)

     foxit has a problem that search capabilities are dumb.. so adobe obviously
190. 
     httpd.confused

     Reviewing 7.0.5 (Oct 16, 2005)

     Some things do irritate me about the interface of this PDF viewer (yes, it is a PDF viewer--I have no idea what reviewers below are talking about by implying it isn't).
     
     If you install it, watch out for the "Adobe Reader Speed Launch" shortcut it puts in the "All Users" Startup group, if you don't like that sort of thing.
     
     To get rid of that stupid little toolbar ad, open a registry editor and add a DWORD value named bShowAds under the key HKCU\Software\Adobe\Acrobat Reader\7.0\AdsInReader. Leave the value set to 0, obviously.
     
     Still, it's very fast, and the security settings are very welcome (imbedded JavaScript can be disabled, resource access can be denied or allowed on a per-site basis, and so on).
     
     The find feature is very good, unlike the crappy, almost-useless one in Foxit Reader.
     
     And the Yahoo! Toolbar is OPTIONAL. You can download Adobe Reader without it. Duh.
191. 
     Kramy

     Reviewing 7.0.5 (Oct 14, 2005)

     I need a PDF viewer, not this.
     
     joeshmoe7, the Foxit Reader download is around 1mb, which would put it at 19x smaller.
     
     >> It might be nice if Adobe modularized their reader so that people with low-end needs can download less but I guess they feel that pdf can't really be a "universal" exchange format unless you can count on other people having full-featured viewing capability.
     
     That doesn't really make sense. They'd be better off to modularize it, than let others use PDF readers that don't support some capabilities. At least that way they could have a popup saying "Download this component to view this video correctly..." or something like that.
     
     >> At least it's still completely free of charge and free of spyware.
     
     Is it? I wasn't aware of that, since it keeps trying to connect out of my computer every 5 seconds to random IP's.
192. 
     zappah

     Reviewing 7.0.5 (Oct 14, 2005)

     Downloade and installed Adobes reader only to get an unwanted Yahooo toolbar. It also wanted to install another unwanted program. The reader works fine just hate the unwanted garbage being forced on the user.
193. 
     benZin

     Reviewing 7.0.5 (Oct 14, 2005)

     Bad, just prefer Foxit PDF viewer, free and fast!
194. 
     Paradise-FH-

     Reviewing 7.0.5 (Oct 14, 2005)

     The Adobe Acrobat 7.0.5 Professional Update will update Adobe® Acrobat® 7.0.0 - 7.0.3 Professional. This update provides new browser support for FireFox 1.0 and Mozilla 1.7. It also provides added support for Hebrew, Arabic, Thai and Vietnamese. The update also addresses known issues with forms and provides improved security. Adobe recommends all Acrobat users install this update.
195. 
     spiked

     Reviewing 7.0.5 (Oct 14, 2005)

     If you go to the Support Downloads section of the Adobe web site, you can get the 9MB updater instead of the 19MB full install. That's still large but it will update any of the 4 previous 7.0x versions, in any of 4 languages, so that's part of the reason. Foxit is handy for quick viewing of simple docs like the manuals for computer products, but it really can't compare to Adobe for overall maturity and stability if your work involves more advanced pdf usage (e.g. real property records, print media, barcoded shipment manifests, etc.). It might be nice if Adobe modularized their reader so that people with low-end needs can download less but I guess they feel that pdf can't really be a "universal" exchange format unless you can count on other people having full-featured viewing capability. At least it's still completely free of charge and free of spyware.
196. 
     Zulithe

     Reviewing 7.0.5 (Oct 14, 2005)

     Yes, this is the new FULL version of 7.0.5 and includes all previous updates (7.0.1, 7.0.2, etc.) Some claim it is getting more bloated, but still it is a huge improvement over version 6. A must-have for us ebook readers out there. :)
197. 
     Fuzzy John

     Reviewing 7.0.5 (Oct 13, 2005)

     zridling, from what I can tell the 7.0.5 update includes the 7.0.1, 7.0.2 and 7.0.3 updates. Adobe must have finally got the message.
198. 
     mjm01010101

     Reviewing 7.0.5 (Oct 13, 2005)

     Banquo how are you doing searches for within documents? version 5 doesn't have a very good search/find feature.
     
     Version 7 also has much better compression ratios for PDF's.
     
     As for my review, 4 revisions of a viewer is a tad much, 5 is downright silly. This version took about 20 minutes to install for professional, and about 5 minutes for reader. Why?
199. 
     joeshmoe7

     Reviewing 7.0.5 (Oct 13, 2005)

     19mb just to be able to read PDF files, blah i use Foxit Reader Free its 8 times smaller and works fine.
200. 
     zridling

     Reviewing 7.0.5 (Oct 13, 2005)

     I love Adobe Reader, but having to manually update every .0x version consecutively is THE dumbest thing I've ever seen. The sooner people just abandon Adobe, the better off we'll all be.
     
     [edit: Thanks Fuzzy John above for the correction!]
201. 
     Banquo

     Reviewing 7.0.5 (Oct 13, 2005)

     I still use 5.05 myself, the new versions are just too slow and clunky. I also don't like the stupid Yahoo stuff they added. By the way why is there a Firefox logo in the screenshot. Trying to leech some popularity off of it? That's pretty low.
202. 
     utomo

     Reviewing 7.0.3 (Aug 18, 2005)

     Yes we need full version download wher we can install it without need to install the update many times like now.
203. 
     ZenWarrior

     Reviewing 7.0.3 (Aug 17, 2005)

     Indeed, some real nincompoops approved that onerous install/upgrade process. Jeesh. Until I find it absolutely necessary, I'll stay with v6.x of Adobe Reader. However, I don't even use that at all. Much lighter and faster is **Foxit PDF Reader**. It gets at least a "4" from me.
204. 
     mor

     Reviewing 7.0.3 (Aug 17, 2005)

     Here is Adobe's information for this update:
     http://www.adobe.com/sup...s/detail.jsp?ftpID=2986
205. 
     ArabianNight

     Reviewing 7.0.3 (Aug 16, 2005)

     I give it a 5 for advertizing firefox :D.
206. 
     GoodThings2Life

     Reviewing 7.0.3 (Aug 16, 2005)

     Good grief, I agree with the sentiment about downloading a comprehensive patch 7.0-->7.0.3 or a whole new 7.0.3 installer... why must they insist on single release "patches".
     
     And even as an administrator, I can't do an administrative Windows Installer package update by hand to integrate my own comprehensive install.
     
     All in all though, Acrobat 7.0 is a huge improvement over 5.x and 6.x.
207. 
     sn0wflake

     Reviewing 7.0.3 (Aug 16, 2005)

     Good enough program but can't understand why there isn't a single file download to the latest version. As of now I have to install the 7.0.0 edition, upgrade to 7.0.2 and then upgrade to 7.0.3 which is very tiresome and takes up some unnecessary MB on my harddisk.
208. 
     deadmonkey

     Reviewing 7.0.3 (Aug 16, 2005)

     Nice advert for Firefox ;)
     
     Adobe Reader 7 is better than 6 however it is still too heavy to just open PDF files! I would love to see them release a light version (that doesn't need installing!) that has the very basic features just to open a PDF without all the fancy extras.
     
     Misses out on a 5 because it is too big for just viewing files.
209. 
     arossetti

     Reviewing 7.0.3 (Aug 16, 2005)

     Darn huge app for what it needs to do. Irritating that you can't download a full version with all updates; you must first download and install 7.0, then the 7.01 update, then the 7.02 update, then the 7.03 update. What a horrible joke.
210. 
     Banquo

     Reviewing 7.0.3 (Aug 16, 2005)

     It has certainly improved over the horrible 6.x releases. Still a bit slow on loading, but quite stable. Oh, and to the previous poster why would you review a program solely on the fact that there is no dedicated 64-bit version available?
211. 
     Zulithe

     Reviewing 7.0.3 (Aug 16, 2005)

     Great program, good update, but the download linked above is just the update, NOT the full install. Get the full install from adobe.com first
212. 
     bourgeoisdude

     Reviewing 7.0.3 (Aug 16, 2005)

     Still no Adobe Acrobat Reader compatible with XP 64-bit edition...
213. 
     mjm01010101

     Reviewing 7.0.3 (Aug 16, 2005)

     Security update. get it asap.
214. 
     zee7

     Reviewing 7.0.2 (Jun 17, 2005)

     For now, .pdfs are a necessary evil. Adobe Acrobat Reader is bloated, slow (unless you know how to tweak it), and a resource hog. You also have to constantly worry about security vulnerabilities. Who needs that? Try Foxit .pdf Reader instead. It's fast, free, and gets the job done 99% of the time. And for that 1% chance when it doesn't, just use Adobe Acrobat Reader on an old computer you don't care about.
215. 
     mjm01010101

     Reviewing 7.0.2 (Jun 16, 2005)

     Guaranteed to work with probably the widest range of PDF's out there. This version seems to have fixed the ability to open very old pdf versions. Very cool. The snapshot tools are very much needed and a welcome change
216. 
     microFawad

     Reviewing 7.0.2 (Jun 16, 2005)

     it slows down my pc too much. i want to find some other reader
217. 
     Pantagruel

     Reviewing 7.0.2 (Jun 16, 2005)

     Actually, Foxit PDF Reader doesnt display correctly some pdf files. Use this
     
     http://fileforum.betanew...er_SpeedUp/1069854583/1
     
     to disable some plug-ins, and acrobat reader will load faster than Foxit reader. Very good.
218. 
     Ulmo

     Reviewing 7.0.2 (Jun 16, 2005)

     That's true, it's really faster than ever.
     
     But my default PDF Reader is still Foxit :
     http://foxitsoftware.com/pdf/rd_intro.php
     
     It's the Fastest, smallest...and Free too
219. 
     zridling

     Reviewing 7.0.2 (Jun 16, 2005)

     Wait, it's free, so shouldn't everyone here give it a 5-rating just for that? No, rather because it's the best reader out there.
220. 
     Paul Lush

     Reviewing 7.0.2 (Jun 16, 2005)

     BLOAT! its horrible to have to uninstall and you will want to. Find another reader
221. 
     chinch

     Reviewing 7.0.2 (Jun 16, 2005)

     i agree.. the 6 series were slow as hell and i dreaded having to ever read PDF files.. the 7 series is so much faster to load and so much nicer to use. if you're still using an older version, time to upgrade and save yourself the headache.
222. 
     Caleb

     Reviewing 7.0.2 (Jun 16, 2005)

     rrtn does not know what he's talking about. The 6 series were slow as hell, the 7 series kick the hell out of them both in startup times and in rendering speed.
223. 
     xrayspex

     Reviewing 7.0.2 (Jun 16, 2005)

     Does what its supposed to extremely well
224. 
     SG1969

     Reviewing 7.0.2 (Jun 16, 2005)

     i don't use this much, but for what i do it works well. never crashed, could load a bit faster though... almost takes as long as photoshop.
     hehe nice screenshot. firefox rules
225. 
     Nehemoth

     Reviewing 7.0.2 (Jun 16, 2005)

     Nice.
     But why they;re don't also release a complete version of the 7.02 version.
     I like the option of just an update but also i really like the option of the complete actualized version too...
226. 
     Christopher Reeve

     Reviewing 7.0.1 (May 3, 2005)

     The upgraded version has a very nice features, those features are much useful.
227. 
     freeafrog

     Reviewing 7.0.1 (May 1, 2005)

     Is this freeware or adware? The update via the 6.0 product requires the Yahoo toolbar. Cannot be deleted from download. Does this include that product also?
228. 
     k3of4

     Reviewing 7.0.1 (Apr 12, 2005)

     Note that the download link is to the update patch, not the full installation of 7.0, which you would have to do first.
229. 
     Jackrussel

     Reviewing 7.0.1 (Apr 4, 2005)

     I generally dont like proprietory software, but i guess i cant do without this one. It just makes lief so much easier!
230. 
     Clarastephen

     Reviewing 7.0.1 (Apr 1, 2005)

     There is no second choice for the pdf format.
231. 
     Ziad270

     Reviewing 7.0.1 (Mar 17, 2005)

     Nice speed improvement in the 7.0.
     7.0.1 fixed the bug in Hyperlink from Word to PDF (was my only pb with 7.0)
     
     Screenshot : it's the "Energy Bliss" theme. A version of Royale (For Windows Media Center 2005) for Tablet PC.
     
     http://download.microsof...gyBlueTheme-x86-ENU.exe
     
     You can install it on Windows XP (but need few modification of the installer .ini)
232. 
     Mike162005

     Reviewing 7.0.1 (Mar 16, 2005)

     "Is the screenshot taken on a longhorn windows?"
     
     I don't believe so. You can look at what Longhorn will look at on ths website:
     
     http://www.winsupersite....se/longhorn_4051_01.asp
233. 
     zee7

     Reviewing 7.0.1 (Mar 16, 2005)

     FoxIt is so much faster, less bloated, and free.
     
     http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/rd_intro.php
234. 
     taxis

     Reviewing 7.0.1 (Mar 15, 2005)

     The installation procedure is horribly slow and memory hungry - I wonder why Adobe doesn't use a standard installer.
     
     The application itself provides a good way to access PDF documents. Generally, I prefer smaller programs, so I switched to FoxIt for a while. When the 7th version appeared, I went back to Acrobat Reader, because the environment is just more comfortable.
235. 
     zridling

     Reviewing 7.0.1 (Mar 15, 2005)

     I'm no Adobe fan because they consistently mistreat their customers, but this is the best Reader yet by any measure.
236. 
     Jonus

     Reviewing 7.0.1 (Mar 15, 2005)

     Is the screenshot taken on a longhorn windows?
237. 
     guti

     Reviewing 7.0.1 (Mar 15, 2005)

     Evey new version is more bloated...
     I prefer Foxit PDF Reader, which is several times faster.
     http://www.foxitsoftware.com
238. 
     mjm01010101

     Reviewing 7.0.1 (Mar 15, 2005)

     "Addresses issues associated with viewing PDF files that contain 3D content generated in 3D CAD or modeling programs"
     
     Yes.... I was wondering wtf we were seeing from our space planners/architects.
239. 
     Mike162005

     Reviewing 7.0 (Jan 8, 2005)

     Faster then 6.0! That's all that needs to be said!
     
     Gets a 5!
240. 
     mmebane

     Reviewing 7.0 (Jan 7, 2005)

     Whoa, this is several orders of magnitude faster than 6. Awesome.
241. 
     Inray

     Reviewing 7.0 (Jan 3, 2005)

     Thanks God, it's fast !!!
     Compared with version 6 i can easily rate it with thousands of stars. BTW the loader link installed in startup folder isn't necessary at'all. Even without it it loads in less than a second.
     My only wish is a separate download without all useless crap, like plugins, advanced find, certificate, jscript and the rest stuff. It could be easily be less than 5-6MB without all these "features".
242. 
     funky303

     Reviewing 7.0 (Dec 24, 2004)

     the smallest availlable download size of the reader is 13,3 mb if you don't install the yahoo bar and elements 2.0 and those extra useless plugins.
     
     reader 7 adds a loader in your startup folder, which preloads the reader in your swap file/page file so it starts considerably faster than 6.xx, without eating your ram.
     
     and FINALLY i can open pdf links directly from iexplorer & firefox without crashing those apps & freezing the system.
     
     big plus to that compared to 6.xx (which deserves a 0 rating)
243. 
     ashwin2912

     Reviewing 7.0 (Dec 22, 2004)

     hmm...surprisingly improved startup over v6...wait a minute...WHAT THE....did you see the installed program size.....92.5 MB. There needs to be some customization during installation. Everybody doesnt need all the plugins provided.
244. 
     dimab

     Reviewing 7.0 (Dec 22, 2004)

     Much Much better.
     Start up time is less than 2 seconds (after initial run)!
245. 
     Brian49

     Reviewing 7.0 (Dec 22, 2004)

     This program has certainly grown absurdly bloated. Version 4 (5.2Mb) does everything I want a pdf reader to do, at lightning speed.
246. 
     feather

     Reviewing 7.0 (Dec 22, 2004)

     Huge download size. Starts up much quicker tough. But still can't have facing pages in fullscreen, and that sucks.
247. 
     Binary Fission

     Reviewing 7.0 (Dec 22, 2004)

     It certainly looks a lot faster than 6.
     
     The full screen view is nice. (I don't know if v6 had that or not.)
     
     It would be nice if they added the ability to add your own bookmarks.
248. 
     MR_DEVIL

     Reviewing 7.0 (Dec 22, 2004)

     Great!it loads very fast, much faster than 6. Give it a try.
249. 
     Mark Gillespie

     Reviewing 7.0 (Dec 22, 2004)

     HTML May indeed by cross platform, PDF has many advantages. It can embed graphics can HTML? It can embed fonts, can HTML? because of these featues (and others) PDF's are guarenteed to look the same regardless of platform or viewer, and will always print the same.
     
     As for Acrobat 7, it's an improvement on previous releases, and is indeed somewhat faster..
250. 
     ssb

     Reviewing 7.0 (Dec 22, 2004)

     Still bloated and full of useless "features" but thanks God, Adobe fixed speed issues and now opens in a second.
251. 
     ghammer

     Reviewing 7.0 (Dec 22, 2004)

     Neutral review. I guess if you have those who insist on using PDF format, it works better than other efforts.
     
     HTML is at least as cross-platform, requires nothing special for viewing, and can have all the formating and graphics of a PDF.
     
     Why do people still insist on using PDF?
252. 
     OTACORB

     Reviewing 7.0 (Dec 22, 2004)

     I find that version 7.0 is much, much faster to open for viewing my PDF documents. The previous version was down right slow, so I am glad they fixed this on the new version.
     
     If you haven't done so, I recommend you upgrade to this version ASAP, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. Don't forget to uninstall the previous versions. I had to uninstall 6.03 6.02 and finally 6.01. I then rebooted before installing 7.0
253. 
     jogygeorge

     Reviewing 7.0 (Dec 21, 2004)

     Outrageous! almost 19.5MB to just read pdf files! I'd rather not bother looking at them!
254. 
     donpacman

     Reviewing 7.0 (Dec 21, 2004)

     Still down with the BLOAT but we have no choice?
255. 
     TTeckster

     Reviewing 7.0 (Dec 21, 2004)

     In my opinion the fastest version yet! No problems installing (XP SP2). I also disabled the quick launch startup item. Still super fast!
256. 
     rotjong

     Reviewing 7.0 (Dec 21, 2004)

     I uninstalled the 6.03 update, 6.02 updates, and the 6.01 full install and then had to reboot. Then I ran the 7.0 full install. I had zero difficulties. I can't say if I have really noticed any differences yet but I can't say anything bad.
257. 
     Llama_tamer

     Reviewing 7.0 (Dec 21, 2004)

     With no previous versions of Adobe installed on this system the installer worked perfectly. Don't know how it would behave with previous installations, but there were no problems here. Adobe is working to make things easier for Windows users.
258. 
     zridling

     Reviewing 7.0 (Dec 21, 2004)

     Could Adobe make its installation process ANY more complex? It's tragicomic at best. Yet, finally, this is the PDF reader that users have always wanted. Works like a charm, and like the previous version, you extract most any DLL module you want to reduce functionality.
259. 
     CyberHobo

     Reviewing 7.0 (Dec 21, 2004)

     Much quicker on loading. Installed perfectly, and I am just thrilled about that. -CyberHobo out!
260. 
     arossetti

     Reviewing 7.0 (Dec 21, 2004)

     Actually, even with the Startup item disabled it still loads much faster than 6. No trick here...
261. 
     ogman

     Reviewing 7.0 (Dec 21, 2004)

     acrobat reader alternative? Sounds like a great idea. Too bad Adobe can't make it better than they do. Bloatware!
262. 
     roj

     Reviewing 7.0 (Dec 21, 2004)

     What we need is an Adobe Reader Alternative a la QuickTime Alternative and Real Alternative.
     
     Any takers?
263. 
     Banquo

     Reviewing 7.0 (Dec 21, 2004)

     It loads much faster, but the trick is it preloads a bunch of crap when Windows starts, so basically it is mostly already loaded. Not to mention for what is supposed to be simply a reader this program is getting ridiculously huge. No thanks, I'll stick with version 5.
264. 
     hariskar

     Reviewing 7.0 (Dec 21, 2004)

     Great release! It loads very quickly, much quicker than 6. Give it a try.
265. 
     clawso1

     Reviewing 7.0 (Dec 21, 2004)

     All I want to do is "View" those files that need to be viewed with Adobe, so I'll just stick with the 6.0 version myself!!! Don't need all of that extra bloat MB's!
266. 
     marcos_cu

     Reviewing 7.0 (Dec 21, 2004)

     It works great while speed has really improved since Acrobat 6 but it sure is bloated. A ~20mb download and an installed size of ~98mb. Come on !
     
     Back to good old 4.05
267. 
     mjm01010101

     Reviewing 7.0 (Dec 21, 2004)

     Startup speeds are great, they are under half a second on my test machines. This is what 6 should have been.
     
     Gonna hold off on rolling this out for a month as this version will invariably have security issues down the road.
268. 
     ogman

     Reviewing 7.0 (Dec 21, 2004)

     Still a slow-to-open pig, especially when used with firefox.
269. 
     JEdwardP

     Reviewing 7.0 (Dec 21, 2004)

     I agree that the yahoo web search button is annoying, but it at least can easily and quickly be removed. And I also agree that 7.0 is much faster than 6.0.x.
     
     I'm more annoyed by the fast-start thing that automatically gets installed in the Windows startup group, but that too is removable.
     
     All in all, this is a worthwhile upgrade from the previous version.
270. 
     Brian49

     Reviewing 7.0 (Dec 21, 2004)

     I agree about the bloat. Version 4 does everything I want a pdf reader to do, at lightning speed.
271. 
     arossetti

     Reviewing 7.0 (Dec 21, 2004)

     Well, the FEAD Optomizer is rather annoying, but you only have to go through that once. So far, AR7 is MUCH faster than 6. A nice improvement. No more need for AcorbatReader Speed Up. There is another annoying thing though: a Search the Web with Yahoo toolbar button. Given the performance enhancements, I can live with it though.
272. 
     jafo818

     Reviewing 7.0 (Dec 21, 2004)

     This version is must faster than 6.0. Opening up any PDF takes 1 second! No waiting for plugins to initialize...
273. 
     Pipewrench

     Reviewing 7.0 (Dec 21, 2004)

     Waste of an install.
     
     It's bloat city with this installation. Why can't Adobe just go back to the way things were in version 4 or 5? That was good enough. No need for this dumb "FEAD OPtizer" thing and all this extra garbage plugin crap. I hate PDF's anyway. No need to use them at all ever. I also recommend going to www.oldversion.com to grab version 5.0. Either that or just download XPDF here: ftp://ftp.foolabs.com/pub/xpdf/xpdf-3.00pl2-win32.zip
     
     :)
274. 
     pjb

     Reviewing 7.0 Beta (Sep 20, 2004)

     For what the programme is designed for it works well. The installation went without any problems, and I have found that this Beta (on the system I use) starts up faster than V6 (even with out the quick starter loading up upon start up). Admitadly it is bloated, but hopefully they will produce a lite version in the final release.
275. 
     ghammer

     Reviewing 7.0 Beta (Sep 17, 2004)

     Installs too much trash on my system. Yeah, I know, list it. Nope, don't want to. The thing is a pig. Why do you think there are 'speed ups' that disable many of the unneeded parts?
     But really, who needs PDF in the HTML age? What exactly can I do with PDF that I can't get from HTML? And everyone has an HTML reader!
     
     Death to PDFs!
276. 
     horsecharles

     Reviewing 7.0 Beta (Sep 16, 2004)

     Well, yesterday's dead download link has been sorted out, but now-- after the download completes, it will not install: issuing both a Fead Optimizer & Explorer kernel error. This occurs whether saving to disk or opening from location, with a variety of browsers, in spite of a clearing all temp, TIF, cache folders system-wide(including the Adobe Reader located in Windows Cache, that speeds up loading.
     
     I pretty much agree with most previous reviewers:
     
     version 4 should suffice for almost everyone. More than 9 out of 10 users will never have a use for all the subsequent bloat & hogging of system resources that's been gradually piled on.
     What's next now? I wouldn't be surprised to see a flashing Adobe logo, little animated talking pink hippos reading audio excerpts of best-selling E-Books(of course, individually tailored to each reader based on past Adobe viewing history), dancing fonts, blinking text-- maybe even mimic Real Networks & WMP: automatically search for on the web & retrieve licenses for our content, update our contents' titles / header info, copy-protect the content, provide detailed feedback & usage statistics to make our experience even more enjoyable... Even better, an un-installable Control Center in Systray: suggesting offers from Adobe's favorite partners, would be so wonderful...
     
     I have no choice but to also work with .pdf but i see absolutely no necessity for this format : any of the various .DOC iterations with some agreed common standards such as a font compatible with proper spacing, like Courier New-- ditto for some commonly-agreed layout templates & rules, etc. would be so much faster......
     Pdb format(PalmBook) would also work wonderfully...
277. 
     utomo

     Reviewing 7.0 Beta (Sep 14, 2004)

     Adobe need to improve;
     1. Speed of the startup which considered as slow.
     2. Option to install: Full, standard and minimum install.
     3. easy of use, example we want to copy paste many pages with images which is not so easy now.
     and others
278. 
     Remko

     Reviewing 7.0 Beta (Sep 14, 2004)

     I use Brava! reader, must faster as Adobe.
     This thing is to slow for me.
279. 
     Agashka

     Reviewing 7.0 Beta (Sep 14, 2004)

     hum , where can i take a simple reader? , i just need to open , copy things , and make seach , and i would like a simple one
280. 
     Brian49

     Reviewing 7.0 Beta (Sep 14, 2004)

     I agree with Kartun. I've just gone back to v.4. It does everything I want and opens lightning fast. Less than 6Mb on my hard drive instead of 45Mb!
281. 
     Inray

     Reviewing 7.0 Beta (Sep 14, 2004)

     Even worst than v6. Never understood why Adobe got a pdf reader and made it a useless suite of nothing.
282. 
     yuting

     Reviewing 7.0 Beta (Sep 14, 2004)

     It's a READER for god's sake... The latest versions take forever to load. Besides the user interface has never been adequately designed, making navigation through documents a pain.
283. 
     Kartun_355

     Reviewing 6.0.2 (Jun 8, 2004)

     I guess that Adobe choose wrong direction about their PDF software. At home I using Acrobat Reader 4.0 and it could open 99% of web documents. What ever I should expect from software ??? Nothing, so their plugins are ussless, and it make "Acrobat reader speedup" very popular now.
     
     I hope that Adobe will make "light" version of Acrobat Reader that will include only executable and MUST-HAVE plugs ...
284. 
     payskin

     Reviewing 6.0.2 (Jun 8, 2004)

     This is an update to 6.01 according to Adobe, and you can update your reader from the program itself. You should have 6.01 installed for this to work.
     
     Filename: Acro-Reader_6.0.2_Update.exe
     Filesize: 4,14 MB
     
     Anyway, I cannot agree more with Fr3dy, version 6 is bloated, installs stuff without my approval and I hate that. But it's still the most comfortable way to read PDF files, isn't it?
285. 
     ips

     Reviewing 6.0.2 (Jun 8, 2004)

     Here's what's new in 6.0.2:
     
     The Adobe® Reader® 6.0.2 update addresses multiple known issues in Adobe Reader 6.0, including support for forms that use Adobe's XML forms architecture, creation of barcode-enabled forms, and a security update. For more information, see the technical document describing the 6.0.2 update in the Support Knowledgebase.
286. 
     Fr3dY

     Reviewing 6.0.2 (Jun 8, 2004)

     Yes, Adobe Reader is bloated since version 5.x , but you can get Adobe SpeedUp, a freeware tool which disables reader's plugins in order to make it 'lite'. Get it from http://fileforum.betanews.com/detail/1069854583/1
     Works great.
287. 

     Reviewing 6.0.1 (Feb 21, 2004)

     slow, invading and resource consuming software
288. 
     Alex T.

     Reviewing 6.0.1 (Dec 18, 2003)

     Anyone know if its ok to install overtop 6.0?
289. 
     wolseleydude

     Reviewing 6.0.1 (Dec 18, 2003)

     I have to say, I'm very impressed. Style XP gets a 5 from me as well.
290. 
     kbyron

     Reviewing 6.0.1 (Dec 18, 2003)

     Nothing riles me more than a very large (15 Mb) piece of software that requires Microsoft's Internet Explorer of any version. I keep IE off my system because I don't like it.
     
     I did know that they insisted on IE being on my system until I tried to install it after a very long download of about 45 minutes. Needless to say, I was completely irritated and tossed the installation file off my system.
     
     So Adobe, that obviously assumes that everyone has IE5+, insists that we have it or the installation will be aborted until we do have IE. No thank you! I will be perfectly happy with an older version of Acrobat Reader.
     
     What really bothers me about them is that Adobe will not explain why they demand IE on our systems when previous versions of Reader did not require IE.
     
     This incarnation, like the previous one, deserves a negative aleph-null--minus infinity for those of you who live in Rio Linda.
291. 
     guti

     Reviewing 6.0.1 (Dec 18, 2003)

     Very bloated.
     Very slow loading.
     Very resource hungry running.
292. 
     Safaa_Pro

     Reviewing 6.0.1 (Dec 18, 2003)

     I agree, the program is very slow, viewer or reader should be faster in it's job....anyway, do u have an alternative for Adobe Arobat to read pdf files?
293. 
     FDisk80

     Reviewing 6.0.1 (Dec 18, 2003)

     To speed up, do this:
     Open "X:\Program Files\Adobe\Acrobat 6.0\Reader" folder. Or if you have Pro, it's probably in the "X:\Program Files\Adobe\Acrobat 6.0\Acrobat" folder.
     
     Find the "plug_ins" folder and rename it "plug_ins_disabled".
     Create a new folder named "plug_ins".
     Copy the following files from "plug_ins_disabled" to "plug_ins"
     
     EWH32.api, printme.api, and search.api
     
     EnJoY!
294. 
     Sith Warrior

     Reviewing 6.0.1 (Dec 18, 2003)

     the 6.0.1 version is mutch more faster then the 6.0.0 but 5.x is still faster.
295. 
     yokozuna

     Reviewing 6.0.1 (Dec 18, 2003)

     So slooooooooow! (Athlon 2.0, 384 RAM, W2K, WD Caviar JB)
296. 
     InVy

     Reviewing 6.0.1 (Dec 18, 2003)

     Typical crap. Like everyone has said, gone well down hill.
     
     Unfortunately version 5.05 was bugged to hell, and this did at least fix those few bugs I had....
     
     My tip: Remove everything in plugins dir apart from: EWH32.api and Search.api
     
     Loads much much quicker afterwards
297. 
     FailedCRC

     Reviewing 6.0 (Nov 9, 2003)

     looks like i'll be sticking to 5.1. 6.0 takes an absurd amount of time to load in comparison and doesn't have a single feature worth the extra download weight.
298. 
     scodan

     Reviewing 6.0 (Nov 8, 2003)

     I just noticed the comment from Aires, questioning why people complain about free software. The reason should be obvious: Unlike most free applications, which you can choose to use or not use, Adobe Reader is *COMPULSORY* because you have PDF files crammed down your throat everywhere you go on the web. Duh.
299. 
     oomingmak

     Reviewing 6.0 (Jun 6, 2003)

     Aries said: "... For those of you b****ing about the bloat, get a hold of Acrobat Elements which is a cut down slim version of Acrobat. And seeing as how this software is FREE anyway, why are you all b****ing at all??"
     
     Well maybe we are "b****ing" because in order to use 'Elements' you have to purchase using volume licensing with a MINIMUM of 1,000 seats per order. I don't know about you, but 1,000 seats seems a little like overkill to me (seeing as I only need one copy).
     
     See: http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobatel/main.html
300. 
     k3of4

     Reviewing 6.0 (May 28, 2003)

     I made this version bearable by installing just the basic package, and manually removing the "printme" plug-in API and all its shortcuts on the start menu. I personally liked the program better as a PDF viewer than an everything-viewer, but that's each's own.
     
     One note, if you have Reader 5.0 installed, you may want to remove it first if you install to the default directories. Installing 6.0 will leave it there and removing it afterward will bust your 6.0 install. Then you can re-install 6 or run Detect and Repair from one of the menus. Easier to just uninstall 5.0 first.
301. 
     teeezur

     Reviewing 6.0 (May 27, 2003)

     For those wanting to go back...pick your flavor...
     
     http://www.adobe.com/pro.../acrobat/alternate.html
302. 
     zulugrid

     Reviewing 6.0 (May 27, 2003)

     Yeah, it takes a bit longer to install.. Big deal, my computer is much faster than it was a couple years ago when 5.0 came out. Yeah, it takes a bit longer to load.. Again, big deal, my computer is faster than it used to be.. Yeah, the filesize is big.. Who cares? You only have to download it once.. I'm happy with the product. Once a PDF is loaded, I've noticed that going between pages is a ton faster. It includes several features that I like, for example a "back" button (and a "previous page" button). I don't recall this being in the old version, but if it wasn't, it obviously wasn't in a good location if I didn't notice it. Overall, I say its worth the download unless you are running some POS Pentium 100MHz computer that you bought at a Goodwill thrift store..
303. 
     avdven

     Reviewing 6.0 (May 27, 2003)

     You all realize that if you don't want the full (bloated) version, there's a smaller version available from the Adobe Web site. I think this is definately an improvement (especially the ability to view more types of embedded content). But, as I said, if you want something smaller, just get the standard version directory from Adobe.
304. 
     kbyron

     Reviewing 6.0 (May 27, 2003)

     This is indeed the worst version. It wouldn't even install since Adobe now requires me to have Microsoft's Internet Explorer 6 on my machine before going beyond a certain point in the installation. After taking about an hour to download Reader 6.0 I consider that a complete insult.
     
     Not all of us like IE6. It doesn't work well on my system. So for Adobe to insist on me using an inferior browser is just plain stupid.
     
     I am going to try to find Reader 5.1 again. If Adobe doesn't have it in their archives, I can no longer read PDF files. Thanks a bunch, Adobe turkeys.
305. 
     forresterinc

     Reviewing 6.0 (May 27, 2003)

     Ewwww... Double the size AND half the speed AND completely bloated AND I didn't like it anyway -- Blech
     
     If you want an alternative that doesn't suck quite so much (not that hard admittedly), you might want to try GSview (http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~ghost/). It requires you to install Ghostscript (same page) but is excellent. May not have all the features like layer-viewing but it's free, and a nice alternative.
     
     I submitted the same review with a 'less than' sign below so it cut the text (d'oh). Not that it matters - this program sucks big time...
306. 
     nevers

     Reviewing 6.0 (May 27, 2003)

     This program is now a disgrace. Shame to Adobe !
307. 
     errderr

     Reviewing 6.0 (May 27, 2003)

     I agree about the install time. I ended up going for some coffee while the thing finished installing. No major problems yet, but hopefully it won't bork my computer.
     
     I've not tried the Windows version, but apparently xPDF is available for it here: http://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net/packages/xpdf.htm I've only used the UNIX version, which works very well and is not nearly as portly.
308. 
     tee+

     Reviewing 6.0 (May 27, 2003)

     I feel that I need Adobe LITE now !
309. 
     bsf

     Reviewing 6.0 (May 27, 2003)

     I agree that it's gone worse and worse,
     but it's still one of the most useable tools out there on the web.
     when you install a new comp in windows with IE,
     you install shockwave and acrobat.
     
     about the installation time... I didn't feel much different because back then I was on a slower connection, and now I'm on a faster connection.
     about the speed of the software, same thing, we're on faster comps now, a lil heavier won't hurt in my opinion.
310. 
     Banquo

     Reviewing 6.0 (May 27, 2003)

     Completely ridiculous, how much more bloat can they add. I just want a simple pdf viewer, not this gargantuan piece of tripe. I wouldn't be surprised if they add a web browser and a CD Player to it next. Maybe it could even play DVD's and do my taxes. The install took forever, and it takes too long for the program to launch. Seems quite buggy on top of all that. Pathetic.
311. 
     netean

     Reviewing 6.0 (May 27, 2003)

     oh dear oh dear oh dear.. as if Acrobar 5.x wasn't crap enough, they now release this pile of wank. Why does it need to be so increadibly huge? Why does it need to contain a myriad of "extra" features that for the most part are completely useless... why does it not include some basic funcationality that it's been missing since version 1 (bookmarks?) why is the universally recognised search icon still completley different (binoculars? why ?)
     Adobe DO know how to make good products (photoshop illustrator, livemotion for example) This definately ISN'T one of those it's complete and utter bollocks of the highest order... Adobe what the hell are you doing?
312. 
     coch

     Reviewing 6.0 (May 27, 2003)

     Agree, extremely long install process. Twice the size than 5.1 (15 megs vs 8 megs).
     Worse, requires IE in order to install. Even a registry hack to make the computer believe IE is installed didn't work, while this hack almost never fails.
313. 
     jkamenetz

     Reviewing 6.0 (May 27, 2003)

     I paid attention to previous posting.With me the software
     worked pretty well . I have a XP home system.
314. 
     zildy

     Reviewing 6.0 (May 27, 2003)

     What in the hell is "Recomposing"? And why is it taking 15 minutes to finish? (slower machine, admittedly, but still, WAY too long)
     
     Whatever happend to just extracting files and running? Lower rating due to insanely long installation process.
315. 
     felix

     Reviewing 5.1 (Oct 23, 2002)

     what's the difference between "with Search and Accessibility" and the smaller one?
316. 
     Joco

     Reviewing 5.1 (Oct 22, 2002)

     IMHO, not worth upgrading. After install: think to disable auto update and WebBuy. Loading speed similar than 5.05
     Email function is aimed to novice, barely open default email program and add the current PDF as attachement. Digital Signature: not interested. No Bookmark (I mean BM set by user like in a good text editor). Amazing, a big program of 8.6 MB, using its own file format, after many years of existence still lack such a basic feature. The "Commenting" toolbar is installed but is disable. What's for? In 95% of case the text is black and white. Not PDF fault but PDF authors is not very fancy. Sometime, Cut & Pastes text doesn't work.
     
     Overall, PDF has been largely overpowered by HtmlHelp (MSDN libray and MS Press books). Want to see the difference: compare the quality of the manual of Oracle books in PDF format and SQL Server in HtmlHelp. The SQL Server book is much more readable and the search & index feature is just incredible.
317. 
     Kennywins

     Reviewing 5.1 (Oct 22, 2002)

     Sucks. Way too huge for a program that's simply a file viewer. Does anyone know of an alternative to this OTHER THAN previous versions of Acrobat Reader?
318. 
     bingo2

     Reviewing 5.1 (Oct 22, 2002)

     Acrobat Reader was once great, but is now nothing but bloatware. The latest bloat includes support for file attachments. What in the world are these idiots at Adobe thinking? Haven't they learned from Microsoft's mistakes? Apparently not. Apparently they like to repeat mistakes. Why, oh why, won't companies realize that it is just too easy for viruses and trojans to spread via attachments.
     
     There is absolutely no good reason a pdf file needs to include an attachment file -- at least none that offsets the risk. I'm sticking with my current version, and I will never upgrade to a newer version of Acrobat unless Adobe starts acting intelligently. I'm also going to convert all my PDF files to HTML - that way I may not even need Adobe Acrobat Reader in the future.
319. 
     akstrachan

     Reviewing 5.1 (Oct 22, 2002)

     This is not Acrobat 5.1 (AcroReader51_ENU.exe) at 8.6MB but their download manager (AdbeDnldmgr_ENU.exe). When I run that, it downloads the real thing, then deletes itself. Very strange.
     Neither seems to be available from Adobe directly.
     Acrobat 5 is significantly better behaved than 4.
320. 
     kempokaraterulz

     Reviewing 5.1 (Oct 21, 2002)

     it gets bigger and slower with every release
321. 
     powaking

     Reviewing 5.0 (Apr 20, 2001)

     Not able to install on Win2k. Keep getting an error regarding SVG viewer file not being able to move. Uninstalled 4.05, removed keys in registry, rebooted. Same thing.
322. 
     d93mjo

     Reviewing 5.0 (Apr 19, 2001)

     Got the same problem. So I uninstalled 4.05 and removed keys from registers containing the word acrobat. Installed again on Win2000. OK
323. 
     teeezur

     Reviewing 5.0 (Apr 17, 2001)

     Is this new version compatible with Win 2K? Got it to install and work fine in Win 95 & 98 but comes up with an error when run on a 2000 computer.
324. 
     Fusion

     Reviewing 4.05 (Nov 20, 1999)

     Very simple and straightforward... You need to read a PDF file format (a most useful universal format), get this. Works from your hard drive or from the web, has a fast search utility, and doesn't suck up resources. Covers everything a file reader should.

Discuss Adobe Reader for Windows

1. May 8, 2013 - 7:25 PM
   dubstepmaker3000

   great stuff