|
I see you are not a HDD manufacturer. 
|
|
|
|
|
I can never remember which MB is which.
It's a good thing it's not money; I'd get ripped off something awful.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Never heard of Foxit, but just downloaded free version (FoxitReader94) and the download is 74Mb... though it does seem to do a lot more than just display PDFs... good find, thank you!
|
|
|
|
|
I still use version 3.1: 9MB on disk and 8MB in memory.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm using the "portable" version (which goes for many apps), and Foxit contains a "facebook" plugin of 4 Mb after install. It runs happily without it.
See \App\Foxit Reader\plugins.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
As per one of my messages above: The realization that FoxIt comes with a Facebook plugin is when I decided FoxIt needed to go.
I realize it can be disabled (and you have to keep disabling after every update). But when the maker of a PDF reader decides that there has to be a component to integrate (in some fashion - any fashion) with Facebook - we can't possibly be on the same page.
Myself, I use Sumatra PDF. It's kinda ugly, but that's a non-issue.
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: It's kinda ugly
By ugly you mean classic don't you?
I use Sumatra PDF as well.
|
|
|
|
|
I happen to think "classic" (in the Windows Classic sense) looks nice enough.
By ugly, I'm thinking about Sumatra going the extra mile using an ugly color scheme. Or may I'm just remembering its installer--I seem to remember some gaudy bright yellow thing. But once it gets going, there's really not much to look at other than the actual content after a PDF is loaded. So it's not something that's permanently in your face.
|
|
|
|
|
 It's still the same gaudy bright yellow thing. I kinda like it though. 
|
|
|
|
|
Everybody else has worse faults to forgive.
Sumatra rarely gets updated, and it could be bug-infested for all I know, but given that it has nothing that'll even try to make it talk to the outside world, there's a ton of types of exploits it's not even susceptible to. So...that's a win in my book.
|
|
|
|
|
Whereas this[^] is a 4kB executable. All live ray tracing.
|
|
|
|
|
The trouble comes in when you need to start handling user interactions. 4kB lovely looking world. Then couple MB to handle all that under surface material. Through in a human, oh man. Couple MB to make sure human does not go through wall. At which point to realise the human will try to go through the wall regardless, so a few MB defining what areas okay to walk around. Oh NO, now he needs food. Okay a few MB for digestion and which things okay to eat, some actually needs eating (water), other stuff wont kill them and some stuff just to make them sick and laugh at their pain.
|
|
|
|
|
Just use chrome/edge. No need for those additional software
"It is easy to decipher extraterrestrial signals after deciphering Javascript and VB6 themselves.", ISanti[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: 156 million bytes.
It includes the Adobe OS (AOS), which you need so you can read PDFs, of course.
Next time you open a PDF file hit CTRL-C and type "shell AOS" and you'll get a command prompt.
No, I'm not serious.
|
|
|
|
|
For the installer or the installed size?
I do repack and deployments. Acrobat Reader is one that I have to do about once a year and every year the installer gets bigger and bigger. It seems the installer increases in size 4 or 5 times faster than the code it's installing.
|
|
|
|
|
And if you look at the settings, when you use it to import something to compile a pdf, you'll see that the default compatibility option is acrobat 4 -- so they've been bloating and bloating the thing for years, but it still produces files identical to the ones made in version 4.
Something that always bugged me was that it's a huge shell around postscript, designed for working with documents, but there is no File-->New option. It can't even create one of its own files!
I gave up on it -- sick of paying a couple of hundred for each update -- when it exceeded 80 MB (version 6).
And I blame adobe for the fact that we're stuck with the comparatively lame XML, now, rather than postscript. Adobe acted like they owned postscript, so it fell out of use -- and then someone had a Great! New! Idea! called XML, which is like a stripped-down version of postscript, with its teeth pulled.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: My head asplode.
So, then, Adobe "got some 'splainin' to do"?
The best way to improve Windows is run it on a Mac.
The best way to bring a Mac to its knees is to run Windows on it.
~ my brother Jeff
|
|
|
|
|
MacSpudster wrote: So, then, Adobe "got some 'splainin' to do"?
That's splain as the nose on your face!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
About fifteen years ago, I was working in a company where Free and Open Source Software was holy, Foxit representet the True Freedom from Commercialism, the one any Free person should use. (It is sort of suprising how some communities directe and limit the freedom of free people, claiming to support that same freedom of choice!)
At that time, Foxit had just terrible font rendering, especiall at small sizes. I had to keep Foxit available in case someone looked over my shoulder, but when nobody watched me, I used Acrobat Reader, which had far better font rendering.
Over the years since then, I have tried new versions of Foxit. Again and again, I concluded, by watching the same document side by side in Foxit and Reader, that they still haven't learned. I gave up Foxit a few years ago, didn't care to try it anymore. Just a waste of time.
Maybe it has improved. Maybe it today can compete with Reader on font rendering in general, and in particular in small sizes. I am not going to waste more time on it.
Isn't just every program today in the range of a couple hundred MB, or a couple GB? What is your worry? Can't you afford the disk space? Does it load too slowly? Won't it fit in your RAM space?
Adobe Reader never gave me any worries in those directions. It presents the documents for me, in a high quality rendering, causing no problems. So I do not search for any poor man's substitute, even though it is cheaper in terms of disk/memory footprint.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Open your PDF in Firefox or Edge...
|
|
|
|
|
Heh, that's why I switch to Sumatra PDF. 99.9% of the time I just want a simple PDF reader.
|
|
|
|
|
I have Adobe 'Acrobat Reader DC' in folder 'Adobe'
which has a file size of 315MB. I don't put anything
else in that folder (maybe older version of the Reader?)
73
|
|
|
|
|
The other 152 MB is used for bitcoin mining.
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then".
― Blaise Pascal
|
|
|
|
|
Inner platform effect. Adobe turned it's reader into a friggin' platform. It has support for JavaScript, ActionScrpt, some 3D stuff and whatnot. You can smuggle rather arbitrary data inside portable "documents".
All those features increase code size. And to control all those features, Adobe didn't want to create a safe mode where everything except the document parts is disabled, no, they've added a broker system which again increases the size.
I also think that it's ridiculous. They went for complexity for the sake of it and to deal with the consequences, more complexity isn't the best answer.
I think Adobe could reduce the complexity, but they don't want to.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
