Fed Up With Adobe Acrobat?

[nostrel]

the bloated and slow horror of AA??

then try this fast pdf reader

http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/rd_intro.php

[Khun Jean]

This whole pdf format should be boycotted.

It is 'old school' and has nothing to do with web design.

Only correct use should be forms that have to be printed and faxed or mailed. But that is also from years past.

[astral]

Reading the web site the "free" reader actually costs $39.

[cnxpat]

I have been using Foxit PDF reader for years, and I like it. I use it to read PDF files (surprise!), without the huge overhead of Adobe Acrobat and it works great!

The reader is still free, if you want add-on's you can purchase Propack, Converter and Editor (http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/rd_intro.php)

I recommend it as well

[Lannig]

Reading the web site the "free" reader actually costs $39.

Although the web site tends to hide it well, it seems that only "advanced" features are non-free. The basic PDF reading function is free:

Foxit Reader 2.0 itself is free. As to add-ons, the critical add-ons are free while advanced add-ons are non-free. For example, you can use the following functions for free:

* View or print PDF document

* Fill out PDF forms and save them

* View PDF as text

* Critical add-ons, such as UI language package, JPEG2000/JBIG decoder, CJK package, GDI+ for early Windows version, etc

The followings are several examples of non-free, advanced add-ons:

* Pro Pack is not free. It unlocks functions to save annotation, save a PDF document as a text file, copy text from text viewer. Actually without Pro Pack, you are still able to annotate a PDF document and print it out. However when you save the annotated document, it will be stamped with an evaluation mark on the top-right corner of the annotated pages. If you purchase a Pro Pack add-on, then there will be no evaluation mark.

* Foxit Converter, which allows you to convert non-PDF file into PDF file, is non-free.

* Foxit Editor, which allows you to modify content of a PDF file, is non-free.

I've been using Foxit for quite a while for free, never got any expiration warning or whatever.

As for boycotting PDF, I don't quite see the point. What would you like instead? Microsoft's proprietary CHM format? .DOC? Open Office format? (very nice, but OO is even heavier than Acrobat Reader...)

PDF has been around for years as a multiplatform, portable document format. I don't quite get the point about this having 'nothing to do with web design' either - can you explain?

Although I do agree Adobe's program has grown beyond any reasonable size limits, there are alternative programs. Foxit is one of those, many other open-source.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PDF_software for more.

--Lannig

[Crushdepth]

Acrobat 6 was bloated, dog slow and awful, but Acrobat 7 is pretty fast and solid IMHO.

I agree that opening a PDF in line through a web browser is a miserable experience that no webmaster should inflict on their visitors. However, when it comes to distributing publications with complex layout (for viewing outside of a browser!) PDF downloads rule

[Plus]

I got rid of Acrobat when it started endlessly updating and upgrading and loading itself on a start up and reminding me about uninstalled updates and generally took over the computer. I don't remember what version it was.

Foxit for me.

[Tywais]

I agree that opening a PDF in line through a web browser is a miserable experience that no webmaster should inflict on their visitors. However, when it comes to distributing publications with complex layout (for viewing outside of a browser!) PDF downloads rule

I know what you mean. Everytime I accidentally hit a pdf link I cringe, or my browser does. To make matters worse trying to cancel it is a pain.

[Crossy]

This whole pdf format should be boycotted.

It is 'old school' and has nothing to do with web design.

Only correct use should be forms that have to be printed and faxed or mailed. But that is also from years past.

Do you have a reliable, freely available replacement for the Acrobat .pdf format?

I agree it has no place in web design except maybe for reducing the size of a downloaded document intended for off-line reading (rather than using a Word format file).

[nikster]

Acrobat 6 was bloated, dog slow and awful, but Acrobat 7 is pretty fast and solid IMHO.

I agree that opening a PDF in line through a web browser is a miserable experience that no webmaster should inflict on their visitors. However, when it comes to distributing publications with complex layout (for viewing outside of a browser!) PDF downloads rule

Here is how to prevent it in Firefox. Note: If you use IE, don't. You are setting yourself up for trouble.

In Firefox:

- Go to Tools->Options

- Go to Downloads Tab

- Click on View/Edit Actions

- Type "PDF" in the search box

==> Change the default action for PDF to "Save to Disk"

No more annoying as hel_l Acrobat opening inside the browser. You could also disable the plugin, but I think Adobe automatically restores that (thanks guys) so it's not so good.

While you are at it, type "Acrobat" in the search box and make sure Acrobat doesn't get started for anything else. It's always better to save the document to disk and then open it from there.

Note: If your download actions window is all blank you need to either uninstall and reinstall firefox or delete all "Mozilla" directories from C:\Documents and Settings\(username)/Application Data.. this happened to me, it appears to be a bug in Mozilla. The download actions window should contain a long list of known mime types, not be empty.

[Khun Jean]

This whole pdf format should be boycotted.

It is 'old school' and has nothing to do with web design.

Only correct use should be forms that have to be printed and faxed or mailed. But that is also from years past.

Do you have a reliable, freely available replacement for the Acrobat .pdf format?

I agree it has no place in web design except maybe for reducing the size of a downloaded document intended for off-line reading (rather than using a Word format file).

In an electronic world the best format with the most support is HTML. Can be read with many operating systems and browsers freely available. It can be printed, saved, read on and offline.

So yes there is a reliable, freely available document describing format. It can even be dynamic, so it is even more versatile than a static pdf format.

The problem with Adobe is that they had to 'make' something to not loose all their business. So they made a format that can be read with special readers. First there was postscript. Also easy to transport and reasonable standard. But not good enough. So they made PDF.

This pdf format creates a problem, that is it makes designers lazy and makes them use old style techniques. When a designer makes a brochure in a DTP program he is working with fixed measurements, pixels per millimeter. Fixed paper sizes. Now when this information has to be put on a website they are totally lost. Suddenly there are no more fixed sizes. Some still do by setting a fixed width on big horror table tags, those are not only lazy but also bad designers. You have big screens, small screens, high resolutions, low resolutions, millions of colors, and only 2 colors. A real nightmare for a 'paper/print' designer. Now text and format has to be able to 'flow'.

Once a DTP design is made it probably also has to be put on the net. A customer does not want to pay a lot extra for another similar design. Exporting it to html will give a lot of rubbish, it is not in adobes interest to create good exports to html. Almost the same story as with Kodak. They thought digital cameras would never be popular. Adobe will loose when they don't switch to electronic open standards used by everyone. Instead they choose to push there own program.

If the designer would go for a not fixed size design from the start the problem would not be there.

It is not more difficult, it is just different. This design can be printed, saved, e-mailed, displayed on a small, and a big screen. It can be dynamic and interactive.

Designers that can do this will make big bucks. The 'old style' ones will die out as will PDF.

Another reason PDF will not survive is that pdf documents are not indexed and people will be unable to find the information it contains. Same for another format i really dislike, flash!

[nikster]

In an electronic world the best format with the most support is HTML. Can be read with many operating systems and browsers freely available. It can be printed, saved, read on and offline.

Nothing against HTML but PDF is for page layouts. Its a completely different application. PDF stands for "Portable Document Format" - and that's what it is for. It's not for web-pages.

PDF has a zillion more layouting options, embedded fonts (so documents look _the same_ no matter on what system) etc. It can't be compared. And I certainly find it pretty useful.

[Firefoxx]

PDF has it's place, and as long as it's used for the right purpose, it does it's job well. I have a ton of PDF files that I couldn't imagine as being done in HTML. HTML is very browser/system dependent (even though it shouldn't be) but PDF isn't (except for very small things).

As for Acrobat reader being bloated, yeah, it probably is, but not as bloated as a lot of other software. It still loads fairly fast, and does its job without fuss. I stopped reading PDF files in browser windows a *long* time ago, just as I stopped doing a *lot* of things in browser windows. As for its annoying tendencies, you have the option of turning them off or disabling them, just as with any other program. You just have to actually *read* the options and install dialog before pressing "OK" and set your own options.

[Tywais]

PDF has it's place, and as long as it's used for the right purpose, it does it's job well. I have a ton of PDF files that I couldn't imagine as being done in HTML. HTML is very browser/system dependent (even though it shouldn't be) but PDF isn't (except for very small things).

You said just what I wanted to say but more succinctly (elegantly ).

I also have thousands of pdf files for my data sheets, manuals, reports, etc and trying to manage a saved html file with it's associated subdirectories would be a nightmare. With pdf I have only one file I need to copy/move. Also if the html coder did not follow html standards or if browsers that don't follow html standards (listen up Microsoft) then you can have problems getting it to display correctly, not so with pdf. Even many web pages I will not save as html but print it as a pdf file for the same reasons mentioned above.

As for indexing, pdf can be indexed by the author if wanted.

[Crushdepth]

Here is how to prevent it in Firefox. Note: If you use IE, don't. You are setting yourself up for trouble.

In Firefox:

- Go to Tools->Options

- Go to Downloads Tab

- Click on View/Edit Actions

- Type "PDF" in the search box

==> Change the default action for PDF to "Save to Disk"

Cool, thanks! I look forward to never opening a PDF in a browser again!