Talk:Adobe Acrobat/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1

Info added

Added info on the just released Acrobat 3D Blade 19:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

PDF Writer

As someone who used to support Acrobat 5 I can tell you for a fact that PDFWriter did exist on the Mac it was however an optional component (as it was on Windows). Acrobat 6 was the first version to not have the PDF Writer anymore on Mac/Windows --Skuld-Chan 04:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC) .

With respect, I must disagree. That isn't at all how I remember it. But, in the style of Wikipedia, what is really needed is for one of us to find a source to back up our assertions. Notinasnaid 07:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I've found one, and reinstated the text. Perhaps you were seeing PDFWriter left over from a previous installation of Acrobat 4.0. Notinasnaid 07:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section

I've deleted the section Criticism, which ran like this:

Adobe Reader has been criticized in blogs and user reviews on websites such as CNET. Some users feel that it is "bloatware" which takes up an excessive amount of system resources. Many users also dislike that it tries to install the Yahoo! Toolbar and other third party software even if the user does not want it to. It does this both at instalation and when automatically updating. A good example of this criticism can be found in the CNET editor's review of the rival Foxit Reader - "To put it gently, Acrobat Reader is a real pain in the hindquarters. It's monstrously large, slow to load, and includes many features that most users will hardly ever need." [1] Less resource draining alternatives to Acrobat are available, such as Foxit Reader and eXPert PDF Reader, both of which are free. [2] [3]

The reason is not to deny that these criticms exist (though "user reviews" and "blogs" are not especially reliable as sources). The reason to remove it is that the actual link given [4] doesn't support the assertion. The review says many things but includes a few lines after the quoted portion "Unfortunately, Foxit PDF Reader has one considerable flaw: it hogs a huge amount of system memory. In our tests, it took up 210MB, compared to 21MB for Acrobat with the same documents". So, I don't think anyone could describe Foxit Reader as "less resource draining" on the basis of that source, memory being a crucial resource (and people generally have less of it than other things like hard disks). I looked into rewriting it but I couldn't really do that in a way that left the meaning intact. I think the whole section has to go, for now, and be rewritten from a more neutral perspective. The writing should also make it clear that this is not a general criticm of the Acrobat family, just the Adobe Reader, if that is the case. Notinasnaid 15:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Its the same idea with explorer and firefox explorer.exe runs less then firefox.exe but i still prefer firefox regardless foxit is a smaller download and a faster startup and on my computer i notice little to no difference runing foxit is more then internet explorer yet less then firefox by like 30,000k Atomic1fire 07:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

"There is currently no official option to stop Reader 8 from Phoning home. Furthermore, the "Updates" Preference in Reader 8 has been moved from "Edit | Preferences" to a much less obvious location." This may seem less obvious to some, this is an opinion, lots of update options appear in the help menu in other programs, i.e. firefox 3b5-- (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There are a few sections in criticism that seem sub-par:

Many have also noted poor behavior in the Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox Acrobat plug-ins. The plug-ins do not support full asynchronous loading, thus causing browsers to appear to "lock up" until the document has been fully downloaded. To make matters worse, they apparently also fail to terminate when a document is closed, thereby leaving behind various CPU-intensive application threads that all but cripple the operating system until the next reboot.[11]
Adobe has also refused to support past versions (version prior to version 8 - their latest) under Windows Vista. Anyone purchasing a new computer must either sacrifice using Adobe PDF tools, step back to Windows XP, or pay an upgrade fee to version 8 to be able to continue using Adobe products.

The first, while generally true in my experience, doesn't have an appropriate citation. The reference is a page about acrord32.exe explaining it's not malware. Only two comments actually bring up the point and comments on a page like this don't seem like good sources for citation. I suggest the citation be changed to something more appropriate. The second, well, it sounds just like someone had a bone to pick because they had to upgrade for full Vista support. It has no citation that this is a significant criticism or, honestly, that it's not something you have to deal with in terms of dozens upon dozens of applications out there. I suggest it be removed unless it's re-written and there's a strong citation that singles out Acrobat on this. Blade 21:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It is common for companies to drop support for older versions. My other gripe is with the term "lock up". I would prefer to see Apple's description "becomes unresponsive". Connectionfailure 14:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Lacking citation and possibly incorrect:

In Adobe Reader 8, in-browser viewing feature is removed.

Please confirm or deny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrono13 (talkcontribs) 07:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


I changed the previous screenshot to one I took, the main two differences are that my screenshot was taken on a Mac, and is in .PNG as opposed to the previous which was a JPEG and had quality issues. BadCRC 21:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

That's really nice! However - you must remember to change the screenshot caption - to "Mac OS X" also... –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 03:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
whoops, I never thought about that, also realized there is an actual issue with the screenshot, the menubar is for Safari, not Adobe Acrobat. I'll try to make another screenshot today or tommorow. 15:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
that was me BadCRC 15:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate tone

The article was just tagged (by an anonymous IP, without comment here) using the tag which generates

Personally, I don't see much wrong with the tone. If I don't see any feedback in a few weeks, I'll treat this as a "hit and run" and take the tag off again. Anyone? Notinasnaid 17:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that there isn't much wrong with the tone in general right now. You can probably remove the tag. There were some vague statements before such as "It is mostly described in those two articles" which I removed. Anyways, there should definitely be some references added esp. for an article of this size. Parnell88 06:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Removed. Sources are an interesting question. How to refer to primary sources which are a pile of software boxes, and the software products themselves? Notinasnaid 09:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I have an issue with the line "Purists and pedants dislike these made-up names." Do we really need this? It could be said about many things, so "it goes without saying". Connectionfailure 00:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Controversy section

I dropped a lack of POV warning on this section. I think it's a stretch as worded (both the topic and the idea it's a 'controversy'). It'd be better served as part of a section on security issues with a less accusational tone, maybe. (And it's incorrect - Acrobat has supported JavaScript since version 6 at least.)Blade 00:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually 3.02, as the article already said! Notinasnaid 09:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


We all know its slow. Its a fact its slow. Almost everyone agrees its slow. Why cant we keep the criticisms section with a reference to the slowness of it? Its painfully true that many users require hackarounds to speed it up a bit and thats worth noting. The Javascript is even less well publicised, so it baffles me why you keep removing the speed issue.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

I think the issue is not that the article states that it is slow or that people workaround it. Rather, it's how the issue is being addressed in the included text. The statement is unsourced, consists of weasel words and comes off as someone who has a personal bone to pick (check out the page on NPOV, especially WP:NPOV#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements). It also adds two links that actually refer to the same freeware utility make it seem like advertising spam. We've hit the 3-edit-a-day limit, but I suggest it be reformulated with the guidelines above or it will probably be removed again. Blade 02:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
That covers it pretty well. Let's give an example in a different field.
Suppose you know that Ronald Fiction (a fictional politician) is an idiot. All your friends agree. Can you put "Ronald Fiction is an idiot" in an article. No: pure opinion. How about "Many people agree Ronald Fiction is an idiot". Still no, this time weasel words are trying to disguise that it's pure opinion. Ok, how about "A blog entry (link) says Ronald Fiction is an idiot". We now have a source, but it isn't acceptable by Wikipedia standards: anyone can have a blog and say anything.
But how about "Brian Angry, writing a column in the Metropolis Bugle on 2 February 2007 (link) described Ronald Fiction as an idiot." Now we are in better territory. There are still issues of balance. For example, suppose the article actually said "Ronald Fiction and his entire party are all idiots". Presenting this as about just the one man is not objective. Or suppose the article says "Ronald Fiction was an idiot when he voted for this bill, but mostly he's sensible"; again, selective quoting makes this look worse than it is. Equally, including a whole lot of bad quotes and no good ones is off balance. We should also consider who Brian Angry actually is. Is he an opposing politician, or a columnist who calls a different person an idiot each week? This is relevant to his criticism.
Equally, it would be no good to say "Ronald Fiction is an idiot, as Brian Angry, writing a column..." This clearly shows the editor's opinion: you should never be able to tell an editor's own opinion from what they write in Wikipedia.
Now, let's come back to this specific issue. You wrote, most recently "Many consider the software to be quite slow to load and use. Several work around solutions to speed the software up are available on the internet." and used as a source The problems here include
1. Weasel words, as noted.
2. You say "the software". What software? As the article explains, Acrobat is a huge family of products, but the source refers only to Adobe Reader. (To confuse things, some sources might not understand the difference either; frankly, this would damage their credibility).
3. The source itself and use of it
(a) it seems to be a blog
(b) he writes "basically I want to urinate on the entire PDF standard". Is this an objective source?
(c) he also writes "If you have Adobe Reader 6, upgrade to 7. It’s actually less bloated". This seems to be an acknowledgement that Adobe have addressed what he sees as a problem. You didn't acknowledge this in the Wikipedia lines you wrote.
I don't think it should be impossible to find a suitable source saying this, and make a suitable entry in the article. It has been said a bit over the years, I agree, though perhaps not as much as you think, and (from my perspective) rather less with recent releases. (Criticisms of old releases are not automatically disqualified, of course: Wikipedia is about the entire history of the product).
I hope this helps. Notinasnaid 09:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, another editor has added this text There have been a number of people who consider the software to be too slow to load and use that they have developed work around solutions to speed up the software.[5][6] . This is better, but it seems that "a number" may still be weasel words. Also, this fails to include the point, included in one of the sources, that Adobe themselves made it better. Comments? Notinasnaid 16:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok I changed the wording of that a bit, as it seemed a bit orkward...not much...And added a link to a quote from adobe claiming version 7 is 50% faster, and also a link to a 3rd party developer who claims there software is faster and better and advertises it as such with direct comparisons to adobe

Hope thats better —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 10:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Removed disk space information

I removed the following disk space information. From "Version 5": Removed "Uses ~12MB of disk space when installed (according to Windows XP's Add/Remove programs)." From "Version 8": "Uses ~150MB when installed (according to Windows XP's Add/Remove programs)" The reason for removing this is that it doesn't seem to relate to the article. As the article explains the family for Acrobat 5 included Acrobat, Acrobat Reader, Acrobat Elements, Acrobat Distiller Server. Acrobat 6 included Acrobat Professional, Acrobat Standard, Acrobat Elements, Adobe Reader, Acrobat 3D and many more. If the commentary is on one particular product in the family, it belongs (if anywhere) clearly tagged to the product. There is already enough confusion with users who think Acrobat is just a synonym for the free Acrobat Reader/Adobe Reader. This also gets into presuming that Windows is the only system out there - what about Macintosh, Linux and various Unix systems? Comments please. Notinasnaid 17:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Notinasnaid. Very valid point. In fact, Acrobat Reader 5.0 uses ~8MB disk space, whereas Acrobat Reader 5.1 uses ~12MB disk space, so it can vary significantly between versions, and it's also important that it's clear which product is being referred to. I think the point I was attempting to make was how Acrobat Reader has grown gradually and significantly during it's product lifetime so far, and interestingly with little indication of why given things such as the lack of documented feature differences between 5.0 and 5.1, for example. --Rebroad 19:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
As a matter of interest I can perhaps explain the size difference between 5.0 and 5.1. 5.1 was the first to support Reader Extensions, which is a method of allowing specially privileged PDF files to do things that otherwise only Acrobat can do (such as save a filled in form, do a signature, or execute extra JavaScript.) This meant that a lot of extra functions were moved into Acrobat Reader, even though they were not in general visible or accessible unless someone had one of these special PDF files (which were created by people like the IRS). (From memory, not sourced). Notinasnaid 21:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed section "Family members"

I removed the section "Family members". While shedding light on this complicated area is a good idea, there were so many errors that I felt the best solution for now was to remove it. It said:

Today, a standard issue of the so-called Adobe Acrobat Professional would include:
  • Adobe Acrobat Reader, to view files in "pdf" file type
  • Adobe Acrobat Distiller, which can convert certain files into "pdf", including "doc" documents and PostScript files
  • Adobe Acrobat Professional, which is an extension of the Reader, capable of accessing editing tools and the pdf creator "Distiller" which the Acrobat Reader cannot do
  • Adobe Acrobat Designer, also Adobe LiveCycle Designer, which can create forms with eg. pulldown menus using an "xml" file type.
The company released some additional products which are various combinations of the above, and also unrelated software mentioned in the list of Adobe Systems products.
  1. As the article says, the product is called Adobe Reader, not Acrobat Reader.
  2. Adobe Reader is not included with Adobe Acrobat Professional. Installing both is not recommended.
  3. Acrobat Distiller cannot convert "doc" documents (i.e. Microsoft Word documents) into PDF, nor anything else except PostScript files.
  4. Acrobat Designer creates PDF files with embedded XML; it does not create forms using an XML file type directly (and "xml" is not a nickname to be put in quotes).
  5. The entire list claims to define the contents of Acrobat Professonal, but the third item in the list also claims to define this, in terms of the other products. This item is almost accurate but does refer again to Acrobat Reader.
  6. I can find no evidence that Adobe LiveCycle Designer is officially called "Adobe Acrobat Designer", nor even that this wrong name is in common use.
  7. If you are talking about package components, the "Adobe PDF" printer driver is surely one of the most important.
  8. The package is called Adobe Acrobat Professional. That's its name, no need to say "so called".
  9. Use of the word "standard issue" invites confusion with "Adobe Acrobat Standard".
  10. "Today" should not be used in Wikipedia articles, rather "As of (date)".

Sorry, it just had to go! Notinasnaid 07:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


I am currently cleaning up this page... when I get the time... but I have already changed the section with the product history, I made the different sections bold for easier reading. Flash Man999 03:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest a drastic reduction in the version history details. in fact the version history section can be removed entirely. Wind.anil 06:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

PDF Catalog (search index): An Adobe Acrobat proprietary extension?

It's hard to find objective info on this PDF "Catalog" thing (the ".pdx" search index).... Anyone know if this is part of any type of PDF-related standard (eg, open specification?) or completely a proprietary closed-specification add-on to Acrobat? Can any PDF reader (eg, see "implementations") use the ".pdx" index file, and could any application generate the index (catalog) file? (NB: I also asked this on the PDF page; responses would perhaps better go on this topic (Talk:Adobe_Acrobat), since I get the feeling that "catalog" is an Adobe-specific feature.) Michael (talk|contrib) 01:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


Although Adobe Acrobat Distiller is mentioned in the history timeline, the article never actually discusses what it is or what it does. Worse, the WP entry for Adobe Acrobat Distiller redirects to this cursory over-view summary article. Please add more about Distiller to this article, and start a real article about it, if warranted.- 12:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"Adobe Distiller, formerly known as "Adobe Acrobat Distiller," is a software application that lets you create PDF files from other types of files. A common use for Adobe Distiller is creating PDF files from PostScript files. That is: if you have a PostScript file, you can use Adobe Distiller to create a PDF version of it... Besides letting you create a PDF file from a PostScript file, Adobe Distiller also lets you create a PDF file from within an application. For example, if you've installed Adobe Distiller on your computer, you can create a PDF file from within virtually any application by clicking File > Print and choosing Adobe PDF from the "Printer" list... Even when you create a PDF file from within an application (by using one of the two methods above), what actually happens behind the scenes is that a PostScript file gets created and then Adobe Distiller converts the PostScript file to PDF format."[7] - 12:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

See also "How to create PDF files with Adobe Acrobat Distiller" which has a very detailed walk-through.[8] - 12:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

adding links to product names and competitor sites


One of my clients is Adobe and am writing to ask about adding links to product names on the Adobe Acrobat Wiki, and also on competing sites in the "competitors" section. For example under the "Product Name" section I would like to link the product names to their respective adobe pages. Please let me know if links may be added. Thank you. RedbricksmediaSF (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

See WP:SPAM--Oneiros (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Vista upgrade?

Somehow the two sentences below need fixing because: (1) although [9] states "Acrobat 7.0 and earlier will not support Windows Vista", I find Reader V7.0.7 will run on my up to date Vista with only an ignorable warning about compatibility; (2) I am not sure that a consumer needs to pay anything to upgrade to version 8 just to use Reader (I haven't tried and don't wish to try, so I might be wrong).

"Adobe has also refused to support past versions (versions prior to version 8 - their latest) under Windows Vista.[15] Anyone switching to Windows Vista must either sacrifice using Adobe PDF tools, or pay an upgrade fee to version 8 to be able to continue using Adobe products."

-Wikianon (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

To the above sentence in the article I have added two clarifyme tags, each links to this Talk section.
The first is "what are Adobe PDF tools?" Are these Adobe programs that create PDF documents? Not including Adobe Reader?
The second is related: "not all Adobe products, Reader is still usable, which products are actualy disabled?" The text implies that a Vista user must pay a fee in order to use any Adobe products (not true), when I believe it should precisely indicate which products (PDF tools maybe?) become unusable. -Wikianon (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

In-browser viewing

I removed the sentence about in-browser viewing being disabled in Adobe Reader 8 since I myself use this feature. If someone can find a citation regarding this then please re-instate (justify, clarify or take appropriate action regarding) this sentence. --Hydraton31 (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I also just found in the 'Criticism' section on this talk page: Adobe Reader 8 Viewing PDFs in a web browser --Hydraton31 (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

a bit of a clean up

I've reworded the lead a little, and removed the following tag therefore;

I hope there's nothing too controversial in what I've done, but please do make a note here if you've got any thoughts etc...... Privatemusings (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Adobe Acrobat 9.0 comes out June 26, not June 2

I attempted to change the release date to June 26 per amazon But it didn't work.. can someone correct? (talk) 04:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Actually coming out July 14 now according to the same link... (talk) 04:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the article needs to be updated now after the latest version has been released. The icon picture needs to be changed now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Adobe launches new online operating system

Has anyone thought about writing the news of Adobe launching itself into the race of online operating systems with players like zoho, thinkfree, google, edeskonline etc., Acrobat's new online operating system link Kalivd (talk) 14:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Pls speak for yr self. Add it if you feel so. I agree that it should be added

Sanjiv swarup (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

9.x instability / crashing

Not personally sure if it's a vista-only issue or not. I'm personally running all of the latest updates for windows (windows update) and running adobe reader 9.x... Any case, I've been digging on various websites, blogs, etc. It seems that 9.x has uninstalled a perfectly functional 8.x webbrowser plugin for viewing PDF files. I have submitted a ticket with adobe [10] though can't seem to find a straight answer / workaround on the web (or usenet) anywhere at all. I'm unsure if this issue should be added to the adobe acrobat article or not. Any case, "ARG, my resume is in PDF format" ... just my $0.02. --Kuzetsa (talk) 02:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Confusion between Acrobat Reader and the rest of the product line

Text like the following confuses Acrobat Reader with Acrobat Exchange and the rest of the original product line:

Acrobat 1.0 for Macintosh was originally released 15 June 1993, later for DOS and Windows 3.1. This was not available in single copies and was not initially free. After a while the IRS purchased a right to distribute Reader 1.0, effectively making it seem free to those who obtained it that way

I believe that Acrobat Exchange 1.0 and Acrobat Distiller 1.0 were available in single copies. They were, of course, not free (as the similar versions of all later products have not been free). Acrobat Reader 1.0 was also not free (and was only available in multiple user license packs). Acrobat Reader has been freely-available since Acrobat 2.0.

The point is that this text blurs together different Acrobat products under the single name "Acrobat." This is confusing and needs clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it's quite unclear especially when talking about changes and features between versions. For example, "Improved Web Capture for capturing entire web pages or just some parts into PDF" would surely not apply to the reader product for acrobat 9.0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:PDF.png

The image Image:PDF.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

bundled crap

How do I installer Reader 9 and nothing but the Reader 9.

No Air, no, no itunes no nothing but what I came for: the ability to read PDF files?

CapnZapp (talk) 13:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a drag... Google "without air" to find the downloads -- they do exist, but are not easy to find... Then come back here and add the info, and add the links to the end of the article... - (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to Adobe Acrobat.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

Adobe ReaderAdobe Acrobat — The article covers the entire Acrobat line of products, not just Reader. — Flarn2006 (talk) 03:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support makes sense (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. The move, made today, was incorrect. •••Life of Riley (TC) 23:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support makes sense Yoninah (talk) 14:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Incompatibilities in Reader 9

Reader 9 doesn't support document rights in PDFs created with Acrobat 8. I discovered this while doing my taxes this year when I opened the forms from last year. Reader 9 won't allow saving data entered in forms that Reader 8 would. Fortunately Reader 9 leaves the data in the forms that was entered with Reader 8. When will Adobe fix this NASTY BUG? "Open standard"? Or do they mean "Open standard starting with what Adobe chooses to support with Reader 9"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Adobe Reader running within a browser.

Every time I try to load a PDF file in a browser, I get a pop up message that says Adobe Reader cannot run in a browser. My question is: Does Adobe write their software so it won't run in a browser, or is there something else wrong that is causing this? Thanks.-- (talk) 20:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MizaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 60 days.--Oneiros (talk) 16:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done--Oneiros (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Acrobat exploit data

New report by ScanSafe shows that 80% of all exploits the company monitored in 2009 were Acrobat exploits. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC).

Yeah I read that too. I'd figure for every book "Acrobat for Dummies", there's an underground manual geting written called "How to exploit Acrobat for/at Dummies". :>
It's actually surprising they have managed to stay on top for so long in their field hwne there's so many exploits. I think I'm going to get a secondary pdf reader program so I won't have to rely on Adobe's so much. Strausszek (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

However, that fact and the whole Security section has little to do with what Acrobat does. I'm in favor of either collapsing it down into a summary or deleting it entirely. It is not of interest to the majority of the audience who is researching Acrobat, as far as I can tell. Silverstarseven (talk) 16:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Missing details and list of indiscriminate items

This article suffers from two big issues:

First, it does not proceed to the main point: What exactly is Adobe Acrobat and what exactly it does? Yes, it has something to do with PDF format but exactly what? The article must have a dedicated section for this matter.

Second, it's Product History section is nothing but a list of indiscriminate items which no one loves to read. It is littered with items like "PDF version 1.1 (and prior) supported" which doesn't make any sense at all to readers who already don't know what PDF version 1.1 is. (Those who don't know have no way of knowing it and those who know don't read this article. Other indiscriminate statements include things like "On May 12, 2009, Adobe Reader 9.1.1 was released which addresses two critical security vulnerabilities" which is worthless because it does not add anything to reader's information: Software updates come and go everyday and computer users learn to get used to them.

Until these problems are resolved, this article may not become a Good Article. Fleet Command (talk) 13:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like no one is willing to object or add a comment. Per Wikipedia:Silence and consensus, I'm going ahead and deleting the list of indiscriminate items. I will add the features when I had time to learn them. Fleet Command (talk) 05:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
All right, I deleted those update notices and revised the section. There is still more to do, but that was for today. But at least now, Wikipedia is not update repository of Adobe Systems! These security updates always come anyway and most of are not important for normal users who have a personal firewall. Fleet Command (talk) 08:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Splitting Acrobat and Reader

Adobe has been treating Acrobat and Reader as separate software for some time now, I'm in favor of either creating a new article for Reader, or clearly splitting this article. --Nicholas Davidowicz (talk) 02:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Having them both covered by a single article is particularly bad for the latest stable release template. Over the past month, the version has changed every few days, switching between the latest version of Reader and the latest version of Acrobat. We at least need two templates for the latest version, if not two separate articles. -- Schapel (talk) 13:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

No 'fit to screen' option in Adobe Reader 10

Is there documentation that the 'fit to screen' icon was dropped in Adobe 10? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not dropped. Read help documentations. Fleet Command (talk) 17:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Adobe reader page

Shoudent we create a page for adobe reader and talk about it there or should we just move this page and leer have of the page about acrobat and half about adobe reader — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skype565 (talkcontribs) 17:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 August 2012

Your introduction should read something like this :-

As early as 1993 a program concept appeared to the world as a revolution in documentation exchange.

At that time, the current stature of online discourse, information exchange circumscribed on big company and many incapacities in documentation exchange due to persistant irritating file format differences.

Entre dan, Amber, the panacia for all secretarial ills, that's right Amber, not an ounce of a clown in the equation.

A standard file format specification that surpasses all others.

From that point on, the structural basis for pdf files became increasingly popular.

For the first time, people could freely send and read information, excempt from file format inconsistencies.

During the subsequent 10 years, Amber evolved into Adobe Acrobat Reader. Having its greatest usage, around about Adobe Acrobat version 3.0.

There appeared a clown in our midst!

All welcomed the format, many supported the format, vast quantities of archived materials were transferred to the form, here was a format, never to alter, accessible to all?

So why the colrophopia! What could be wrong.

Enter the ring, Macromedia, Flash, etc, and an Adobe acquistion of those companies, you have the recipe for the Adobe corporate disaster!

Around 2004 Adobe entered a period of serious problems, from which it has never actually recovered.

First they launched a secure document initiative, and completely missed the plot. Keys were issued for documents, paid for by customers, who then ungraded their hardware, only to find the information could not be read on their new system. The keys related to the hardware systems not the person, oh my god what legal goof up!

In the greater part, during that time, the pdf standard was left unaffected, but upon siezing Macromedia technology, exterior interests came in to play, and the very pdf form as we all knew and loved, became the victim of corporate sabotage. Around 2005, no longer could Adobe reader 3.0 open pdf's reader 4 was essential. Then 5, ,6, 7 8, 9 ,10.

All of this was said to be developmental improvement, but with every initiative support fell away, and no person has actual seen this develomental improvent.

Pdf began to fail at the very roots of its core structure, no longer could windows 3.1, 95 NT . . . based users, have equal access to information. At this point, pdf ceased to be, the portable document format of its original specification.

Legally, the acrobat file format, became unsuitable for the purpose is was designed, period.

I leave that there, as fact, Adobe, do not support a reader above 5 for Mac OS 9, and for Mac OS X don't support readers above 7. Windows and Linex users are not exempt from Adobe prejudice, they to have their levels of exclusion.

So my final word on this matter, is that if you are going to advocate using adobe pdf, comply to the original Adobe document standard, %PDF1.0, or just don't bother writing! PDF does not have open access by all, what you write, just won't get read.

Consider using and publishing using standard HTML 4.0, instead, most Word processors can cope with that, most people can read it.

Adobe just ain't there with this, the company software development initiative is a mess, and it has been the case since at least 2009 that Adobe have really lost the plot, top to bottom, nothing much has altered or occured with any alledged software development versions since.

What exatly do they do again? (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC) �

Not done:. See WP:NPOV RudolfRed (talk) 00:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Linux stable version

Can it be listed that the last stable version in Linux is 9.5.1 ( That information is not available in the "stable version" list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfredo.correa (talkcontribs) 21:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 October 2012 (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done: No request present. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 October 2012

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. [11] (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Propose use of Template:Version

This template is already used to display the release histories of Dreamweaver, Firefox, and other programs. Let's use it here as well. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2010 Google/China incident

I have no idea what this incident is about, but as the paragraph stands now it seems to have nothing to do with Acrobat. Remove or change? (talk) 05:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

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)