|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Adobe Acrobat article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This is not a forum for general discussion about Adobe Acrobat. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Adobe Acrobat at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.|
|Threads older than 60 days may be archived by.|
Edit request on 25 October 2012
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
The article is incorrect. Adobe Acrobat and Reader XI (11) is not supported on Windows Vista, despite being supported on Windows XP, 2003 R2, 2008, 2008 R2, 7, and 8.  220.127.116.11 (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Propose use of Template:Version
January 2010 Google/China incident
Nothing about Adobe charging for Acrobat Reader
How come there is nothing in this article about Adobe's attempts to force Acrobat users to pay for the "free" software. With at least 2 releases (1 I believe in the 1990s, the 2nd in the early 2000s), Adobe who had hooked users into using their product against competing versions of "document readers", tried to charge users for various application uses of Acrobat Reader, such as printing or saving a document. If you wanted to save you could only do so, if you bought the product. It was the same for printing. However, Adobe (with a history of this kind of behavior since their inception) received a number of complaints, particularly from corporate IT users, and removed the limitations. But this should absolutely be included here as part of the Acrobat Reader history and should undoubtedly be included in Adobe's corporate history as well... Stevenmitchell (talk) 08:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hi. May I see your source please? Oh, and by the way, what is "Acrobat Reader"? We have "Acrobat" and we have "Reader", but that? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
What is the difference between Acrobat and Microsoft Word? Or is the difference between pdf and the Word document format? On Word it states it is a word processor, isn't Adobe Acrobat one too? What are the real differences that don't make Adobe Acrobat a word processor, because i don't see it mentioned anywhere in the article? --Alien4 (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Adobe Acrobat#See also lists "Creative Cloud Controversy"
I'm unsure why this is listed and why it links only to the Creative Cloud article. Details of actual controversy and criticism are here Adobe Systems#Source code and customer data breach and here Adobe Systems#Criticism of Creative Cloud. Would it not be better to link directly to one or both?
I don't see a compelling reason why stuff like the mobile readers are on this page. The desktop version of the Reader maybe belongs here as it shares some features with the Acrobat of the same generation, but I'm not entirely sold about that combination either. If I want to find out just what was added to Reader XI vs. Reader X, I can't seem to find it on this page. And something non-trivial was actually added/changed between these two versions. JMP EAX (talk) 12:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I see the same thing was proposed in 2011 and in 2012, and there was no opposition: Talk:Adobe_Acrobat/Archive 1#Splitting Acrobat and Reader. JMP EAX (talk) 12:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Adobe Reader is a monumentally historical program in terms of its reach. One would expect to be able to find it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 03:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- @JMP EAX: Hi. A consensus was never required because policy requirements were not met. According to WP:SIZERULE the article's readable prose size needs to be 40 kB to justify a split, but it is now 13 kB. On the other hand, individual subject do not have sufficient notability to allow a split. Overall, it can happen. Sorry.
- Best regards,
- Codename Lisa (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)