PDF reader

[bobster]

I have used Adobe Reader to read PDF files for many years through it's many
different versions. It has always irritated me that it took so long to load
it, and open a file in it, that I have sometimes avoided reading things
because they were in PDF format and I didn't want the hassle of using Adobe
Reader. It took forever to down load a multi-page file, and scrolling
through the pages was laggy and jerky. I always attributed this to the fact
that I was using Windows 98se and an old PII 300MHz processor. But today,
on this forum, someone (sorry, can't remember who) mentioned that they used
a free FoxIt PDF reader and that it was smaller and much faster than Adobe.
Being a suspicious type, my first reaction was ,"yeah, I bet -- heard that
story before", but I decided to give it a try.

It downloaded smoothly. I tried it on a 62 page IRS forms file and to my
amazement, it downloaded in several seconds. When I scrolled through the
pages, it worked smoothly with little or no lag.

Now I'm a skeptic so I will reserve judgement until I have used it for a few
months but I gotta tell you, my first reaction is why did I suffer through
all those years of frustration with adobe reader when something like FoxIt
was available. And I'll also say that this is the first item of any kind
with the name Fox in it (like in Rupert Murdoch) that I would spend a second
using, listening to, or watching.

 

[Bill in Co.]

I think Fox It Reader works pretty well for most things, but I have not done
enough tests to really compare it to Adobe Acrobat Reader, except to say
that it loads much faster, as you have noted!

For the few cases where you might need the extra features or rendering
capability of Adobe Acrobat (as reported by some), you might look at "PDF
Speed Up", and/or a couple of other freebie speed-up utilities for Adobe
Acrobat Reader, which can really help load up Adobe Acrobat much faster.
They work by disabling some of the (generally unneeded) plugins (for
example) when Adobe Acrobat loads, and that makes a significant difference.

bobster wrote:
> I have used Adobe Reader to read PDF files for many years through it's
many
> different versions. It has always irritated me that it took so long to
load
> it, and open a file in it, that I have sometimes avoided reading things
> because they were in PDF format and I didn't want the hassle of using
Adobe
> Reader. It took forever to down load a multi-page file, and scrolling
> through the pages was laggy and jerky. I always attributed this to the
fact
> that I was using Windows 98se and an old PII 300MHz processor. But today,
> on this forum, someone (sorry, can't remember who) mentioned that they
used
> a free FoxIt PDF reader and that it was smaller and much faster than
Adobe.
> Being a suspicious type, my first reaction was ,"yeah, I bet -- heard
that
> story before", but I decided to give it a try.
>
> It downloaded smoothly. I tried it on a 62 page IRS forms file and to my
> amazement, it downloaded in several seconds. When I scrolled through the
> pages, it worked smoothly with little or no lag.
>
> Now I'm a skeptic so I will reserve judgement until I have used it for a
few
> months but I gotta tell you, my first reaction is why did I suffer through
> all those years of frustration with adobe reader when something like FoxIt
> was available. And I'll also say that this is the first item of any kind
> with the name Fox in it (like in Rupert Murdoch) that I would spend a
second
> using, listening to, or watching.

 

[thanatoid]

"bobster" <fauxie@bogus.net> wrote in
news:O6t0IivCIHA.4360@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:

> I have used Adobe Reader to read PDF files for many years
> through it's many different versions. It has always
> irritated me that it took so long to load it, and open a
> file in it, that I have sometimes avoided reading things
> because they were in PDF format and I didn't want the
> hassle of using Adobe Reader. It took forever to down load
> a multi-page file, and scrolling through the pages was
> laggy and jerky. I always attributed this to the fact that
> I was using Windows 98se and an old PII 300MHz processor.
> But today, on this forum, someone (sorry, can't remember
> who) mentioned that they used a free FoxIt PDF reader and
> that it was smaller and much faster than Adobe. Being a
> suspicious type, my first reaction was ,"yeah, I bet --
> heard that story before", but I decided to give it a try.
>
> It downloaded smoothly. I tried it on a 62 page IRS forms
> file and to my amazement, it downloaded in several seconds.
> When I scrolled through the pages, it worked smoothly
> with little or no lag.
>
> Now I'm a skeptic so I will reserve judgement until I have
> used it for a few months but I gotta tell you, my first
> reaction is why did I suffer through all those years of
> frustration with adobe reader when something like FoxIt was
> available. And I'll also say that this is the first item
> of any kind with the name Fox in it (like in Rupert
> Murdoch) that I would spend a second using, listening to,
> or watching.
>
>

I went through a similar experience with my 166MHz Pentium I and
64 MB of memory - AR worked fine, I actually did not have the
problems you describe - but it was just a stupid illogical
design with keyboard shortcuts that make no sense. And WHY is it
so huge? (Although the PDF format itself is probably the
greatest Adobe invention ever.)

Anyway, I think I just chanced upon Fox, I think I MAY have
thought Adobe had the "rights" to the reader software and no one
else could make it. I can be really stupid sometimes.

Anyway, blah blah.

The reason I'm posting is that depending on the version of FoxIt
you're using you may experience problems viewing certain things
or printing them unless you have the file gdiplus.dll ver.
5.1.3102.1360 (or higher, I would imagine) in your win\system
directory.

 

[Roger Fink]

bobster wrote:
> I have used Adobe Reader to read PDF files for many years through
> it's many different versions. It has always irritated me that it
> took so long to load it, and open a file in it, that I have sometimes
> avoided reading things because they were in PDF format and I didn't
> want the hassle of using Adobe Reader. It took forever to down load
> a multi-page file, and scrolling through the pages was laggy and
> jerky. I always attributed this to the fact that I was using Windows
> 98se and an old PII 300MHz processor. But today, on this forum,
> someone (sorry, can't remember who) mentioned that they used a free
> FoxIt PDF reader and that it was smaller and much faster than Adobe.
> Being a suspicious type, my first reaction was ,"yeah, I bet --
> heard that story before", but I decided to give it a try.
>
> It downloaded smoothly. I tried it on a 62 page IRS forms file and
> to my amazement, it downloaded in several seconds. When I scrolled
> through the pages, it worked smoothly with little or no lag.
>
> Now I'm a skeptic so I will reserve judgement until I have used it
> for a few months but I gotta tell you, my first reaction is why did I
> suffer through all those years of frustration with adobe reader when
> something like FoxIt was available. And I'll also say that this is
> the first item of any kind with the name Fox in it (like in Rupert
> Murdoch) that I would spend a second using, listening to, or watching.

I haven't used AR for years. I miss it not a whit.

The one problem I had in 98 is that after opening a few PDF files without
closing any of them in between, the screen would freeze. With a different
white box, and a different video card, running on W2K, I have experienced no
problems at all.

There are a few free applications hiding in plain sight on the net that
really bump things up a notch. IMO this is one of them (others: Media Player
Classic, Avast, Deep Burner/Deep Ripper).

 

[MEB]

"bobster" <fauxie@bogus.net> wrote in message
news:O6t0IivCIHA.4360@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
| I have used Adobe Reader to read PDF files for many years through it's
many
| different versions. It has always irritated me that it took so long to
load
| it, and open a file in it, that I have sometimes avoided reading things
| because they were in PDF format and I didn't want the hassle of using
Adobe
| Reader. It took forever to down load a multi-page file, and scrolling
| through the pages was laggy and jerky. I always attributed this to the
fact
| that I was using Windows 98se and an old PII 300MHz processor. But today,
| on this forum, someone (sorry, can't remember who) mentioned that they
used
| a free FoxIt PDF reader and that it was smaller and much faster than
Adobe.
| Being a suspicious type, my first reaction was ,"yeah, I bet -- heard
that
| story before", but I decided to give it a try.
|
| It downloaded smoothly. I tried it on a 62 page IRS forms file and to my
| amazement, it downloaded in several seconds. When I scrolled through the
| pages, it worked smoothly with little or no lag.
|
| Now I'm a skeptic so I will reserve judgement until I have used it for a
few
| months but I gotta tell you, my first reaction is why did I suffer through
| all those years of frustration with adobe reader when something like FoxIt
| was available. And I'll also say that this is the first item of any kind
| with the name Fox in it (like in Rupert Murdoch) that I would spend a
second
| using, listening to, or watching.
|

I'm rather surprised that you may not have known about this reader, as it
has been discussed in detail several times in this group. Like other
*standard* applications which are also thought of needed / required, such as
Office or Word, there have always been alternatives which generally provide
the same or similar functions without all the bloat. Of course, to expect
fully *clone* functioning is these "alternative" applications is just not a
reality.

Adobe Reader can be *sped-up* with add-ons or by limiting the hooks/loading
extensions at load time. One must remember that the Reader is built and
defaulted to support the myriad of potential functions in Adobe's products
that create PDFs. Most of those functions are never used or rarely used.

Foxit has its place just as the other alternatives do. But never expect
them to supply the full functionality of the actual application(s) they are
designed to mimic. If they did, they would likely be as bloated as the
original.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
________

 

[Bob Harris]

I have used Foxit Reader for about two years under XP, and it is much faster
than Acrobat Reader on large documents.

Note that Acrobat Reader seems to refuse to load more than a small portion
of a document into RAM, even if there is plenty of RAM available. Try
loading a large PDF and watch RAM usage and pagefile usage, such as via
windows task manager. Thus, it has to page in from disk every time you go
up or down more than a few pages. I have tried some large documents on some
XP machines with 256Meg, 512 Meg, and 1Gig of RAM. Acobat Reader
performance was equally poor on all three machines for a large PDF.

In contrast, Foxit will load the whole document into RAM, if there is enough
RAM, and then accessing parts of it are much faster. Foxit was faster
the\an Acrobat Reader even on the 256 Meg RAM machine, and far faster on the
1Gig RAM machine.

While I agree with other replies that Acrobat Reader has more potential
options/capabilities, simple reading of a PDF should be better than it is.
It is almost like Adobe hardwire some limit back in the days of Windows 95
(maybe Windos 3.1) and forgot to update it for use on more modern PCs.

"bobster" <fauxie@bogus.net> wrote in message
news:O6t0IivCIHA.4360@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>I have used Adobe Reader to read PDF files for many years through it's many
> different versions. It has always irritated me that it took so long to
> load
> it, and open a file in it, that I have sometimes avoided reading things
> because they were in PDF format and I didn't want the hassle of using
> Adobe
> Reader. It took forever to down load a multi-page file, and scrolling
> through the pages was laggy and jerky. I always attributed this to the
> fact
> that I was using Windows 98se and an old PII 300MHz processor. But today,
> on this forum, someone (sorry, can't remember who) mentioned that they
> used
> a free FoxIt PDF reader and that it was smaller and much faster than
> Adobe.
> Being a suspicious type, my first reaction was ,"yeah, I bet -- heard
> that
> story before", but I decided to give it a try.
>
> It downloaded smoothly. I tried it on a 62 page IRS forms file and to my
> amazement, it downloaded in several seconds. When I scrolled through the
> pages, it worked smoothly with little or no lag.
>
> Now I'm a skeptic so I will reserve judgement until I have used it for a
> few
> months but I gotta tell you, my first reaction is why did I suffer through
> all those years of frustration with adobe reader when something like FoxIt
> was available. And I'll also say that this is the first item of any kind
> with the name Fox in it (like in Rupert Murdoch) that I would spend a
> second
> using, listening to, or watching.
>

 

[PCR]

bobster wrote:
| I have used Adobe Reader to read PDF files for many years through
| it's many different versions. It has always irritated me that it
| took so long to load it, and open a file in it, that I have sometimes
| avoided reading things because they were in PDF format and I didn't
| want the hassle of using Adobe Reader. It took forever to down load
| a multi-page file, and scrolling through the pages was laggy and
| jerky. I always attributed this to the fact that I was using Windows
| 98se and an old PII 300MHz processor. But today, on this forum,
| someone (sorry, can't remember who) mentioned that they used a free
| FoxIt PDF reader and that it was smaller and much faster than Adobe.
| Being a suspicious type, my first reaction was ,"yeah, I bet --
| heard that story before", but I decided to give it a try.
|
| It downloaded smoothly. I tried it on a 62 page IRS forms file and
| to my amazement, it downloaded in several seconds. When I scrolled
| through the pages, it worked smoothly with little or no lag.
|
| Now I'm a skeptic so I will reserve judgement until I have used it
| for a few months but I gotta tell you, my first reaction is why did I
| suffer through all those years of frustration with adobe reader when
| something like FoxIt was available. And I'll also say that this is
| the first item of any kind with the name Fox in it (like in Rupert
| Murdoch) that I would spend a second using, listening to, or watching.

It sounds like you found a good solution to it, with possible caveats
others may have said. As some also said, there may be ways to speed up
AR, so that the following would not be necessary. But, when I run into a
slow loader, I have found Chauvin's trick to work well...

DON'T click the .pdf-- R-Clk it, instead, & save the document. It comes
in quick. Then, click the saved document-- & it opens immediately into
AR!

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net

 

[thanatoid]

"PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in
news:eH4jjy4CIHA.748@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl:

<SNIP>

> It sounds like you found a good solution to it, with
> possible caveats others may have said. As some also said,
> there may be ways to speed up AR, so that the following
> would not be necessary. But, when I run into a slow loader,
> I have found Chauvin's trick to work well...
>
> DON'T click the .pdf-- R-Clk it, instead, & save the
> document. It comes in quick. Then, click the saved
> document-- & it opens immediately into AR!

You call that a "trick" ????!!!

NEVER open ANY files ONLINE, DL them first, virus-scan them,
then open the application they "apply to" and use file-open to
open the file. Sheesh. (Yes, just clicking on the file will work
equally well if your associations are set up right, but SOME
programs tend to mess with that to a considerable extent.)

 

[Franc Zabkar]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 21:44:07 -0700, "bobster" <fauxie@bogus.net> put
finger to keyboard and composed:

>I have used Adobe Reader to read PDF files for many years through it's many
>different versions. It has always irritated me that it took so long to load

You can dramatically reduce the startup time by disabling unnecessary
plugins:

http://www.softpedia.com/get/Office-tools/PDF/Adobe-Reader-SpeedUp.shtml

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

 

[PCR]

thanatoid wrote:
| "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in
| news:eH4jjy4CIHA.748@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl:
|
| <SNIP>
|
|> It sounds like you found a good solution to it, with
|> possible caveats others may have said. As some also said,
|> there may be ways to speed up AR, so that the following
|> would not be necessary. But, when I run into a slow loader,
|> I have found Chauvin's trick to work well...
|>
|> DON'T click the .pdf-- R-Clk it, instead, & save the
|> document. It comes in quick. Then, click the saved
|> document-- & it opens immediately into AR!
|
| You call that a "trick" ????!!!

It IS a way to fool that particular IE gremlin that sometimes will delay
the download of a large .pdf document into an IE window! Otherwise, you
must take your chances that it is asleep! And Chauvin had a toe spit in
his eye-- before he found all that out!

When a .pdf is clicked at a site, it is IE that will take the download.
Short documents usually are quick. If you are lucky-- it appears long
ones will begin to display after one page has completed its download. As
you page down, further pages are displayed. But, if they haven't been
downloaded yet, you must wait. If you are unlucky-- looks like IE wants
to wait for the full download, before displaying even one page!

It's far, far quicker in that circumstance to take the download
separately than to let IE do it. Clicking it after the download bypasses
IE.

Actually-- it sounds like Bob Harris may have it right. Whether the
document is being read by IE or by AR, it is loaded only a page or so at
a time. It's just that the hard drive is lots, lots quicker than what IE
must go through getting it off the site.

| NEVER open ANY files ONLINE, DL them first, virus-scan them,
| then open the application they "apply to" and use file-open to
| open the file. Sheesh.

I can't argue with that. However, my avast! actually DOES scan a .pdf
when clicked at a site before it is read into IE. For instance, I can
see an avast! pop-up window showing...

"Scanning
http://cs.mipt.ru/docs/comp/eng/os/win32/win95_sys_progr_secr/main.pdf
"
.... each time I page down that .pdf document in an IE Window!

| (Yes, just clicking on the file will work
| equally well if your associations are set up right, but SOME
| programs tend to mess with that to a considerable extent.)

What are you saying, exactly? If the associations are played with, why
would it be less deadly to click the .pdf offline?

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net

 

[thanatoid]

"PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in
news:uUebiCFDIHA.5024@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:

> thanatoid wrote:

<SNIP>

>|> DON'T click the .pdf-- R-Clk it, instead, & save the
>|> document. It comes in quick. Then, click the saved
>|> document-- & it opens immediately into AR!
>|
>| You call that a "trick" ????!!!
>
> It IS a way to fool that particular IE gremlin that
> sometimes will delay the download of a large .pdf document
> into an IE window! Otherwise, you must take your chances
> that it is asleep! And Chauvin had a toe spit in his eye--
> before he found all that out!

Well, sorry to be blunt, but anyone that uses IE/OE for anything
except chm files and/or clicks on exes, pdf's, zips, etc, online
is just asking for it.

> When a .pdf is clicked at a site, it is IE that will take
> the download. Short documents usually are quick. If you are
> lucky-- it appears long ones will begin to display after
> one page has completed its download. As you page down,
> further pages are displayed. But, if they haven't been
> downloaded yet, you must wait. If you are unlucky-- looks
> like IE wants to wait for the full download, before
> displaying even one page!

I always considered "in-browser-pdf-display-plugins" just
another "let's make it easier for the clueless" and added bloat
and more chances of things going wrong. The whole idea of a PDF
is to GET it, and then do whatever with it at your leisure -
IMO.

> It's far, far quicker in that circumstance to take the
> download separately than to let IE do it. Clicking it after
> the download bypasses IE.

Which IMO shouldn't ever be used for ANYTHING except reading chm
help files, preferably while offline.

<SNIP>

>| NEVER open ANY files ONLINE, DL them first, virus-scan
>| them, then open the application they "apply to" and use
>| file-open to open the file. Sheesh.
>
> I can't argue with that. However, my avast! actually DOES
> scan a .pdf when clicked at a site before it is read into
> IE. For instance, I can see an avast! pop-up window
> showing...

If you follow basic safety rules (LIKE never using IE/OE) there
is absolutely no need to have a virus scanner running all the
time online... They tend to slow things down a lot. When I DL
something, I scan *that* after I go off-line. *NEVER* a problem.

<SNIP>

>| (Yes, just clicking on the file will work
>| equally well if your associations are set up right, but
>| SOME programs tend to mess with that to a considerable
>| extent.)
>
> What are you saying, exactly? If the associations are
> played with, why would it be less deadly to click the .pdf
> offline?
>

No, I would never click on ANYTHING online, I was talking in
general, like IIRC IE will makes itself the default browser
every time you use it even if you have 3 others installed, some
image editors will take ALL image extensions and appropriate
them etc. Annoying as hell.

 

[PCR]

thanatoid wrote:
| "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in
| news:uUebiCFDIHA.5024@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:
|
|> thanatoid wrote:
|
| <SNIP>
|
|>|> DON'T click the .pdf-- R-Clk it, instead, & save the
|>|> document. It comes in quick. Then, click the saved
|>|> document-- & it opens immediately into AR!
|>|
|>| You call that a "trick" ????!!!
|>
|> It IS a way to fool that particular IE gremlin that
|> sometimes will delay the download of a large .pdf document
|> into an IE window! Otherwise, you must take your chances
|> that it is asleep! And Chauvin had a toe spit in his eye--
|> before he found all that out!
|
| Well, sorry to be blunt, but anyone that uses IE/OE for anything
| except chm files and/or clicks on exes, pdf's, zips, etc, online
| is just asking for it.

Could be. But you're asking for it, too, if you click them after taking
the download-- IF you forget to scan it or the virus scanner just
doesn't have the right definition for the particular virus inside. As I
said, avast! appears to do its scan whether or not I click these things
at a site or after the download.

But, I guess, it is nevertheless best to do as I think you did say...
download it, & have the virus scanner scan it before ever actually
clicking it.

|> When a .pdf is clicked at a site, it is IE that will take
|> the download. Short documents usually are quick. If you are
|> lucky-- it appears long ones will begin to display after
|> one page has completed its download. As you page down,
|> further pages are displayed. But, if they haven't been
|> downloaded yet, you must wait. If you are unlucky-- looks
|> like IE wants to wait for the full download, before
|> displaying even one page!
|
| I always considered "in-browser-pdf-display-plugins" just
| another "let's make it easier for the clueless" and added bloat
| and more chances of things going wrong. The whole idea of a PDF
| is to GET it, and then do whatever with it at your leisure -
| IMO.

I can't disagree with that.

|> It's far, far quicker in that circumstance to take the
|> download separately than to let IE do it. Clicking it after
|> the download bypasses IE.
|
| Which IMO shouldn't ever be used for ANYTHING except reading chm
| help files, preferably while offline.

I understand. But I do use it. And you'll never get everyone to switch.

| <SNIP>
|
|>| NEVER open ANY files ONLINE, DL them first, virus-scan
|>| them, then open the application they "apply to" and use
|>| file-open to open the file. Sheesh.
|>
|> I can't argue with that. However, my avast! actually DOES
|> scan a .pdf when clicked at a site before it is read into
|> IE. For instance, I can see an avast! pop-up window
|> showing...
|
| If you follow basic safety rules (LIKE never using IE/OE) there
| is absolutely no need to have a virus scanner running all the
| time online... They tend to slow things down a lot. When I DL
| something, I scan *that* after I go off-line. *NEVER* a problem.

Some sites are slow & some are quick-- even with avast! doing its scan &
with the pop-up boxes! I tend to think avast! isn't involved in slowing
them perceptibly. I am Dial-Up. Someone running avast! with DSL would
know for sure.

| <SNIP>
|
|>| (Yes, just clicking on the file will work
|>| equally well if your associations are set up right, but
|>| SOME programs tend to mess with that to a considerable
|>| extent.)
|>
|> What are you saying, exactly? If the associations are
|> played with, why would it be less deadly to click the .pdf
|> offline?
|>
|
| No, I would never click on ANYTHING online, I was talking in
| general, like IIRC IE will makes itself the default browser
| every time you use it even if you have 3 others installed, some
| image editors will take ALL image extensions and appropriate
| them etc. Annoying as hell.

OK. I understand.

 

[Buffalo]

thanatoid wrote:
[snip]
> No, I would never click on ANYTHING online, I was talking in
> general, like IIRC IE will makes itself the default browser
> every time you use it even if you have 3 others installed, some
> image editors will take ALL image extensions and appropriate
> them etc. Annoying as hell.

I use IE and FireFox and I make FF the default browser and IE never
complains about wanting to be the default browser when I use it.
I think it might have asked the first time, but then I chose to have it
never ask again.
(Unlike your above statement)

 

[thanatoid]

"Buffalo" <Eric@nada.com.invalid> wrote in
news:MsmdnSJqe6UTrY3anZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@comcast.com:

> thanatoid wrote:
> [snip]
>> No, I would never click on ANYTHING online, I was talking
>> in general, like IIRC IE will makes itself the default
>> browser every time you use it even if you have 3 others
>> installed, some image editors will take ALL image
>> extensions and appropriate them etc. Annoying as hell.
>
> I use IE and FireFox and I make FF the default browser and
> IE never complains about wanting to be the default browser
> when I use it. I think it might have asked the first time,
> but then I chose to have it never ask again.
> (Unlike your above statement)

My above statement never asked you anything either.

Still, please come over and kill me now.

Actually, I said IIRC. Look it up.
But you are still welcome to kill me.