Someone reviewed v on Jul 5, 2022

Pros: 555

Cons: 555

Bottom Line: 555

theidealword reviewed v9.4.0.31 on Aug 15, 2011

This is a very good software. And I use it frequently.

olivi78 reviewed v9.4.0.31 on Mar 1, 2011

I prefer PDF-XChange. For my opinion it's the best.

sweathog reviewed v9.4.0.31 on Jan 30, 2011

@Hilbert. This is not a software version published by Adobe. If you had taken the time to read the publisher information right above your post you would have seen that this version is made by XhmikosR. It's amazing how many people seem confused over the benefits of this version of Adobe Reader Lite and just give a knee jerk reaction that it’s a waste of time, when in fact they are massively wasting their time installing the official version. Read GetCool's review or Second Shadow's further down if you don't "get" it. XhmikosR had done Windows users a massive public service taking all the crap out of Adobe's "official" Reader installer, Unfortunately Adobe shut him down so they can continue to peddle the crappy bloated version, unfettered.

Hilbert reviewed v9.4.0.31 on Oct 11, 2010

I tried yesterday to download Adobe Acrobat Lite. NO LUCK, the links just go round in circles. Same again today.

If I’ve to spend more than 500ms trying to find a workable link then forget it, I’ve much better things to do.

Adobe’s idea of sending users on an extended ‘treasure’ hunt just for a copy Adobe Reader has to be some kind of sick joke. As it is, the Adobe Reader is already the pits—has been so for years. (Even when one has the Reader it’s about as boring as trying to figure out some obscure setting in that other bottom-of-the-barrel-dirge—the Gimp.)

I’ve moved on already.

gozzak reviewed v9.3.0.30 on Mar 3, 2010

GetCool - you are 100% on the mark. I DESPISE Adobe reader and Flash Player with a passion. They are bloated, inneficiant, flakey software. But they are absolutely vital. I`ve tried the Acrobat alternatives, but they just arent as good.

Same issue with Sun Java and iTunes. ITunes wrecks a PCs performance and installed malware like Bonjur, and Sun Java is the most bloated software ever written (I think it`s up to 80MB+ now). Fortunatley WinAMP can now do most of what iTunes does without wrecking a PC. No alternative to Java.

I also noticed there is a new verion of Adobe Reader - 9.3.1 that has major security updates ??? If no one posts a "Lite" version, I will install it over the top of Lite 9.3.0.30 soon

GetCool reviewed v9.3.0.30 on Mar 2, 2010

@emanresU deriseD: It doesn't matter what I deploy or where. This repackaged executable is in violation of Adobe's EULA; that I agree with. But the fact of the matter is it is hosted here, on this page, and I am reviewing the application and its uses. Submitting a review implies I have downloaded this application and used it. Exactly how I used it is moot, because *any* way that I use it is in violation of Adobe's EULA.

The truth is that as much as I hate to admit, Adobe Reader is the definitive PDF reader. Personally, on Windows, I use Sumatra. But I do XML/XSLT publishing for a living and I create a lot of PDFs. Adobe Reader *has* to be my main testing application, because all of the customers I distribute my PDFs to are going to be opening them with Adobe. And they don't always look 100% the same from application to application. It's like web design and having to test pages in IE. A necessary evil.

I hate Adobe Reader with a passion, but this software is far from useless. Nowhere did I condemn the use of alternative PDF readers, or say that this program was any better. It is not. But this repackaged executable significantly removes the headache-inducing bullcrap that normally comes with the "legal" version of this application.

Adobe Reader is *necessary* in the professional world (due to ignorance... but necessary nonetheless). This repackaged executable simply makes using it a little less painful.

P.S. Also, the concept of a "review" in general is to state your opinion. So, telling me I'm on a "soap box" is inane. I already know I'm on a soap box... that's the point. And you should know that you are too, given that you spend an awful lot of time criticizing users' comments rather than writing actual reviews of software (yeah, I clicked on your name).

I'm sure that all of the readers of the Adobe Reader Lite page on fileforum eagerly await your next witty retort.

Duracell reviewed v9.3.0.30 on Jan 30, 2010

This looks extremely useful to me. I assume that the features that are disabled or turn off can be turned on individually if I need them via Readers own UI, but could you please confirm?

It also seems that the download is only hosted on rapidshare. I've been trying to download it for a long time, but can't get through (don't have an account). Is rapidshare the only place to download this from?

emanresU deriseD reviewed v9.3.0.30 on Jan 19, 2010

GetCool is defending Adobe Reader Lite (and calling the packager a "developer", no less), insinuating that he deploys it widely. That's funny, since Adobe Reader Lite is illegal, quite literally, since it violates the Adobe license and copyrights. You deploy illegal software? And you're on a soapbox?

nugro reviewed v9.3.0.30 on Jan 19, 2010

Fast and smooth, but I have one problem :

Can somebody help me how to get continuous page on full screen mode?

Thanks...

Second Shadow reviewed v9.3.0.30 on Jan 18, 2010

Great! Thanks for yet another Lite version

ZenoLabs reviewed v9.3.0.30 on Jan 18, 2010

23 MB file for a "lite" viewer? Are you kidding? Why should I use this one when I can have a 4 MB portable freeware like PDF-XCHANGE VIEWER that works perfectly?

GetCool reviewed v9.2.0.30 on Nov 24, 2009

@smarterthanyou: It's not about the program being "blazing fast". If you read the description of this app up above, it makes no claims about performance. All it says is "bloat-free".

As to your analogy, I have made "lite" versions of Windows XP in the past using nLite. Did it perform better than the default install? Not really. But that wasn't why I did it. I did it to remove all the extraneous features that I didn't want or need; i.e., the "bloat". It dropped my install size down from several GB to about 500 MB. Yeah, you might respond to that by saying 'well disk space is cheap", but time is not cheap. When you do a lot of imaging of your operating system partitions, it saves a *ton* of time when you have a 500-MB install vs. a several-GB install.

That is what I see as the point here. This version removes all the auto-update crap, which to me is the greatest feature. I don't want to connect to the web and download Adobe's plugins, updates, spyware, etc. I don't want to have to click "Yes" or "No" or "Cancel" to popups. Yeah, you can disable auto-updates from the official version, but this comes pre-configures my way out of the box. And when you couple that with a silent installer, it works wonders for mass-deployment.

TIME is the factor here. Not performance. If you don't do workstation IT and deploy hundreds of machines at a time, then you probably have no idea how valuable applications like this (and nLite/vLite) can be. Don't just go around attacking developers for no good reason.

Banquo reviewed v9.2.0.30 on Nov 21, 2009

Great software, much faster than 8 and this helps even more. (Oh and smarterthanyou is an idiot)

CyberDoc999 reviewed v9.2.0.30 on Oct 14, 2009

this is very nice !
smarterthanyou is dumber-than-dumb ....

Vexii reviewed v9.2.0.30 on Oct 14, 2009

Very nice. Thanks for another lite version.

smarterthanyou reviewed v9.2.0.30 on Oct 14, 2009

What a waste of time. Sounds like somebody has way too much time on their hands. This is about as pointless as wasting time creating a lite version of Windows XP or Windows 7, both of which are already blazing fast, like the original version of Adobe Acrobat Reader is. Seriously, if your computer can't run the full Adobe Reader 9.1 software at a decent speed then stop being such a cheapskate and buy a new computer. You can't have fast performance from any software if your WinXP machine only has 256MB or less of RAM.

raveren reviewed v9.2.0.30 on Oct 13, 2009

Displays pdf much more elegantly and is more user friendly than foxit.

Vimes reviewed v9.1.0.29 on May 28, 2009

Nicely done and much appreciated. Thanks for sharing.

Somnambulator reviewed v9.1.0.29 on May 28, 2009

Adobe has a "Lite" version on its public FTP (no AIR/Acrobat.com)... "AdbeRdr910_en_US.exe"
this is somewhat unnecessary. the other features like disabled update checking are nice, though you can make your own customized Reader installs using Adobe's own Adobe Customization Wizard which adds an mst file and custom setup.ini to the install files and lets you change everything down to removing individual files and registry entries that the installer creates.

niknetpc reviewed v9.1.0.29 on May 28, 2009

Real Adobe Reader 9 not bloated, latest version is light and running fast, I have no problem with it, no slowdowns.Whats is the reason use this one?

borisf98 reviewed v9.1.0.29 on May 28, 2009

Lite? Foxit Reader is 3MB and has many more feature and no crashes.

thartist reviewed v9.1.0.29 on May 27, 2009

Aegis69, pay attention some time...

it's not from Adobe...

it's an unofficial "liter" version. Adobe Reader ain't lite anyway.

dracodos reviewed v9.1.0.29 on May 27, 2009

Installs fine, no issues to report.

fubo: neither should the quicktime and real alternatives but betanews still posts them anyway *shrug*

Second shadow: Although i certainly hate that many companies are trying to slip these toolbars under our noses lately, those 3 features aren't exactly major needs for the general user anyhow 9they are available in the pro pack). If you want to categorize Foxit, spyware is probably a more appropriate term (but then your not FORCED to install the toolbar to use FoxIt). FoxIt is just doing what many companies nowadays are doing: offering a general free version that most users will be happy to use, and then a more feature rich version for a fee for those users needs are more than just basic.

fubo reviewed v9.1.0.29 on May 27, 2009

This version should not be here. Adobe asked authors to remove it from official site...

Aegis69 reviewed v9.1.0.29 on May 27, 2009

Ya, 22 megs is 'lite'? Nice one adobe, I haven't laughed that hard since last week.

Oh and its not entirely stable, prone to crashing especially in the browser??? Great!

Foxit for me, no PDFs at all would be better.

copenhaus reviewed v9.1.0.29 on May 27, 2009

please...for FoxIT, if you simply download and extract the ZIP file (http://www.foxitsoftware...pdf/reader/download.php), run the executable once, you are golden...no need to be crippled by ask.com installer...

Second Shadow reviewed v9.1.0.26 on Mar 20, 2009

To Paul Skinner below:

Paul, calm down, at least some of us already know that Adobe already offers a version without Acrobat.com or AIR.
But look at the size of that "official" Adobe installer (25.5 MB) compared with the size of this "lite" installer (21.1 MB). Clearly there's something else removed in this version. And if you care to click the "Home page" link, you'll quickly discover what that something is. For convenience, I'll list it here:

* Removed autorun and desktop shortcuts
* Start menu shortcut converted to non-advertised
* Removed several features and plugins that the average user has no need for
* Removed Beyond Adobe and Lic. Agreement popups
* Removed all (auto)update® features
* Removed AcroRd32Info.exe with no errors in the event log
* Form filling allowed
* Disabled the dialog asking to help make Adobe Reader better and "Create PDF using Acrobat.com" from the toolbar (v9.1)
* Removed more unneeded stuff (v9.1)
* Some cosmetic changes (v9.1)

So, this is as "lite" as you can make Adobe Reader.

And to poster Dhry, above, let me mention that, as of version 3, the formerly very good freeware Foxit Reader has officially become CRIPPLEWARE. Don't take my word for it, please check th following links:
- Freeware Foxit pdf Reader too will now install Ask toolbar ... else get crippled ! (http://www.winvistaclub.com/s27.html)
- Beware Foxit Reader Includes AskToolbar! (http://securitygarden.bl...ncludes-asktoolbar.html)

So, please understand that some of us don't particularly appreciate these business practices by Foxit.

bobad reviewed v9.1.0.26 on Mar 20, 2009

There are portable, no install Freeware alternatives available that are better, but this is worth considering.

5 stars for the improvement, 1 star for the orignal product.

ron_marz reviewed v9.1.0.26 on Mar 19, 2009

Works as promised -- a vast improvement ov3er the bloated original.

Paul Skinner reviewed v9.1.0.19 on Mar 17, 2009

Why don't you people realise that Adobe already offer a version without Acrobat.com or AIR?

Just remove the _Std from the end of the download URL for Adobe Reader + Air and other crap.
In this case: http://ardownload.adobe....nu/AdbeRdr910_en_US.exe
instead of
http://ardownload.adobe....dbeRdr910_en_US_Std.exe
This edition is pointless.

Somnambulator reviewed v9.1.0.17 on Mar 16, 2009

excellent. bug free like the real 9.1 but without all the slop. no acrobat.com or AIR which is just annoying.

most people dont realize the things PDFs can do that the ultra fast viewers don't support...

Zoroaster reviewed v9.1.0.17 on Mar 16, 2009

Full version with Speed Launcher loads as fast as Lite version without, and has no disabled features. I have a 1.6MhZ Duron chip and Adobe loads in less than a second. What's all the fuss about this Lite version or Foxit, besides a 200MB disk occupation, and so what?!
PDF's mommy is Adobe, Iike families.

Skyfrog reviewed v9.1.0.17 on Mar 16, 2009

Everyone whines about 20MB which is insignificant today, then compares it to Foxit. Well look at everything this can do and supports and compare to Foxit. There's a reason it's so small people. As for the Lite version, there's really no reason at all to be stripping out features unless your computer was made in the 1980s.

The Seeker 11 reviewed v9.1.0.17 on Mar 16, 2009

The AdbeRdr910_en_US exe is only 25.5 MB, don't see much point using this.

coover reviewed v9.1.0.17 on Mar 16, 2009

Very interesting ... I just uninstalled Adobe Reader 9.1 which, according to the "Programs and Features" section of my Control Panel, used 203 MB of space on my hard drive. After installing Adobe Reader Lite, "Programs and Features" indicated that it was using 64.4 MB of space. That is considerable savings of space and the "Lite" version is a very good description.

However, for reference, I also have Sumatra PDF installed on the same computer. It is, obviously, not of the quality of Adobe, but it only uses 1.19 MB (vs. 203 MB for the regular Adobe Reader and 64.4 MB for the Adobe Lite).

I would give Adobe Lite a 5 for performance, but it is obvious that it is still much too large for what it does ... thus an overall grade of 4.

improvelence reviewed v9.0 Revision 2 on Sep 9, 2008

Daddy_Spank....this is not from adobe, that is clearly written in the description. As with many of your other posts...you really ought to READ before posting.

Daddy_Spank reviewed v9.0 Revision 2 on Sep 9, 2008

I am glad that adobe realizes it needs to rethink its bloated programs, but 20MB for adobe reader isnt really gonna cut it when foxit reader is 2MB and offers basically the same functions, starts 10 times faster etc etc. So adobe, reduce the "Lite" version by 90% and then start calling it Lite.

Mystenes reviewed v9.0 Revision 2 on Sep 7, 2008

i prefer sumatrapdf

ultra light :)

Joco reviewed v9.0 Revision 2 on Sep 7, 2008

I am scared by all the bloatness of Adobe's Acobat product line. I was curious about the "Light" and gave it a try. I was prepared to dump it at the slightest disappointment as Adobe desserves (this is just me, I hate this company). I have to admit that AR 9.0 Light does a good job. Fonts appearance is more crisp, the toolbar is uncluttered and customizable, the sidebar is efficient and easy to use, the GUI looks nicer and more convenient. All of this makes it better than PDF XViewer I was using. The memory footprint is more than XViewer although not too much. Strangely enough, there is no nag screen and no advertisement (the little color box in the top right of the menu). Then I made the unthinkable of switching to Acrobat 9. May be it is that good thanks to the "Light" made to the original? There must be something, I can't believe that the Adobe's designers could become that smart.

I give it 4 stars because it doesn't have the tabbed interface that exist in leaders PDF products such as PDF Xviewer or Foxit Reader.

Have no clue as why it needs 20 MB to read a PDF. May be Adobe's should send their developers to take some training course to learn more efficient programming language?

Zero-Point reviewed v9.0 Revision 2 on Sep 5, 2008

Bigd***:

Relative to the official Adobe Reader's installer of 33.5MB? Perhaps.

Review what zapatero stated. ...Or not review is the irony.

Funny that BN hides "Bigd***" but not the user.

BigDick reviewed v9.0 Revision 2 on Sep 5, 2008

Good gratious, this pal calls a 20MB big PDF viewer "Light" .... LOL.

zapatero reviewed v9.0 Revision 2 on Sep 5, 2008

These reviews are not useful at all. The program should be evaluated as a lite Adobe Reader, not compared with other readers. Besides, nobody quantifies how much "liter" it is compared to the "original", nor it any functionality is lost. I don´t try it because I abandoned the Adobe Reader for PDF-XViewer some months ago.

coover reviewed v9.0 Revision 2 on Sep 5, 2008

Excellent

portezbie reviewed v9.0 Revision 2 on Sep 5, 2008

Tried STDU just now, it seems pretty good but foxit still uses have the memory. Stick with foxit.

anonymous_user reviewed v9.0 Revision 2 on Sep 5, 2008

@Undesired Username - Sumatra PDF is only .99 MB. Beat that!

Anyways if you need to use Adobe Reader (for compatibility or something) then this Lite version is very good.

mjm01010101 reviewed v9.0 Revision 2 on Sep 5, 2008

Truly obvious Trademark violations. They'll get sued by Adobe soon.

radiomaffia reviewed v9.0 Revised on Jul 18, 2008

Acrobatic Reader from Adobe installed with Reader Speedup in Turbo setting! (http://software.bootbloc.../?id=adobereaderspeedup)
That does the job!
Note.Sometimes Reader Speedup missing the file MSCOMCTL.OCX (http://www.ascentive.com...ml?dllname=MSCOMCTL.OCX)

Undesired Username reviewed v9.0 Revised on Jul 15, 2008

I love how he calls it "bloat-free". Hardly. I also love how people refer to him as an "author", when all he does it take an Adobe Reader install, delete a bunch of files, and repackage it. I guess he's an installer author. Marvelous.

Everyone always mentions Foxit but another free, lesser-known alternative which is even faster (and has a better search feature) is STDU Viewer, stdutility.com. If you obsess about size, the STDU Viewer's EXE is only 1.1 MB in size. Beat that.

preinterpost reviewed v9.0 Revised on Jul 15, 2008

Uninstalled Reader 8.1.2 @ 86MB
Installed Reader 9 Lite @ 54MB

Still ridiculous but not the authors fault.

pjb reviewed v9.0 Revised on Jul 15, 2008

Great programme for those that like/require Adobe Reader.

Personally I use Foxit but it currently has a flaw with watermarked documents, hence Adobe is currently superior. Foxit have fixed the watermark issue, and it will be included in their next update.

As for this programme we are reviewing here (*hint ailef) - gets a five star. Cuts down drastically from the 30MB+ installed from Adobe. Installs and works without any problems.

To the author of this software 'Thank you' and 'Well done'.

ailef reviewed v9.0 Revised on Jul 15, 2008

acrobat reader lite is anyway too big, i see the file is 16 MB.
people should take a look at foxit reader, it's a .pdf reader without installer.
it's small(a 6MB exe),fast, exactly the same as acrobat reader.
if u want the version without installer, download the .zip version.
if u test it, i bet u'll never use again acrobat reader.

sorry for the bad note, i'm not judging the work of the person but the program adobe reader as there's an alternative that is way better.

STDU Viewer comes with an installer, sumatraPDF doesnt and is even smaller.

coover reviewed v9.0 Revised on Jul 14, 2008

Defcon,

The information on Shark007 is in the readme.txt which is part of his VistaCodecs Package.

This is excellent software and if you run Adobe Reader, well worth using.

Defcon79 reviewed v9.0 on Jul 3, 2008

Coover, thanks for the info about the author. I did not find anything about him on his website (http://shark007.net/), how did you find that out?

anonymous_user reviewed v9.0 on Jul 3, 2008

An excellent repack of Adobe Reader by Shark007. Plus I must say that this version 9 is very speedy compared to previous ones.

alo23 reviewed v9.0 on Jul 3, 2008

Another shining example of Shark007's repackaging skills. Some other software packages are published at shark.msfn.org

coover reviewed v9.0 on Jul 3, 2008

It's no mistake. This software is new for Shark. I'm giving it a 5 as I use his Vista Codec Pack and know that he writes excellent software. If you go to his website, you will find that writing software is not only a hobby ... it is his existence. He is presently recovering from heart disease, lives in the far north of Canada, and has no other viable way to earn a living other than ask for your donations for his excellent software. Perhaps, someday, when he has gained some fame as a software writer, he may change this and other software to shareware. But until then, this is it for him.

I respect Shark. I respect his software.

Joco reviewed v9.0 on Jul 3, 2008

On the Author's site, there is no mention of "Adobe Reader Lite". It only mentions "Vista Codec Package". Is it an error in the link?

EDIT: Thanks for the background info about the author. This review is only about the "Adobe Reader Lite 9". It is actually Acrobat Reader from Adobe repackaged in a Lite version? And what exactly "Lite" has removed from the standard Acrobat Reader?

No tabbed interface ?!? This is an extremely convenient feature, why Adobe didn't implement it? Speed and RAM consumption is acceptable. The GUI is cleaner and simpler than PDF-XChange Viewer I am using.

EDIT #2: Final rating, bumped from 2 to 5. Just made a side by side comparison between Adobe Reader 9 and PDF-XChange Viewer 2.0.38.1. Adobe display is crisper. PDF XChange text display look more blurr even when I set a higher resolution (120 dpi). Also like better Adobe Reader 9 GUI (simpler toolbar, easy to customize, nicer icons). Only miss tabbed interface. I hope there will be no hidden crap in the Adobe Reader.