[cybpsych]

my suggestion is to keep the pack as is, but add optional tutorial to remove Form Filling and Stamps.

[¦•••SHERIFA•••¦]

Are there any instructions for integrating language in the custom install ? Or have to use this. For example I want to import in the package this ( BG interface for the software ).

Thanks.

[cybpsych]

SHERIFA. the tutorial is for you to manually make a Lite version from ANY localizations.

download the official BG package & follow the tutorial to trim the features down.

no point using EN as the base and add language-specific files onto it (not practical).

[cybpsych]

XhmikosR, on Mar 18 2009, 04:33 AM, said:

Here is a test build v.21. Download link at first post. I tested both IE and FF pdf integration, and everything was fine. Since no one mentioned anything about stamps, I removed them also, but it's not something final.
Remember to always uninstall the previous version first before install any new one.

An additional level of comfort: PDF integration in Opera 10 works fine (always been)

[cybpsych]

agree on the tutorial

[cybpsych]

hi XhmikosR, I just noticed a problem opening PDF Forms ...

PDF Form Source: http://www.goeforms....pdf_samples.php

MSFN Source: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?s=&...st&p=778405


From what I observed, the PDF Forms can't be opened by the v9.1 Lite (from build 21 and all the way back to build 6). Reader crashes upon opening these PDF Forms. The error msg points to acroform.api file.

Can you please confirm this error on your side? Maybe it's an isolated case, I'm not sure.

[cybpsych]

Feedback on build 23:- Works fine on certain PDF Forms but not all (based on the sample links)

"quote_form.pdf" & "po_form.pdf" - Open is ok. Editing is ok. Last entry is to digitally sign the form. Since i don't have any digital certificate installed, clicking this entry will crash the reader. Error points to digsig.api.

"fields_example_final.pdf" & "membership_cert.pdf", - Can't open file. Totally crashed the reader. Error points to acroform.api.

The rest of the forms are ok.

[cybpsych]

good work, XhmikosR! Will test this release once i'm back in the office

hope that the updated tutorial will be posted soon!

p/s: Dont forget to include additional steps (optional) to remove Form Filling features & files. Personally, I just want to make a bare essential package, i.e. Adobe Reader Extreme <-- Shark007 had this before for v8.x

[cybpsych]

build 26 works great and flawlessly

[provolino]

- About the installer size:

I agree with Shark007, we are in 2009 with 1TB hdd at less than 99$ and DSL connection at 10$/month
Most of people don't care about file sizes anymore so it's useless to care about saving 3MB.
For example I don't care if I have to download a file of 10MB or 100MB, it's the same for me (I can wait a few minutes more without problems)
So XhmikosR, there are no needs to worry about that


- About the lite installer:

As I said before, I really appreciate the work behind the repackings and I'm used to use lite versions of official installers (I use iTunes lite, Quicktime and Real alternatives, Nero lite, etc).
They are lighter than original package and work with no issues
But this is the main point, "with no issues"
If I use iTunes Lite, I'm sure I can do all the tasks I can perform with official iTunes and I can open all kinds of media files the program supports.
If I use Nero Lite, I'm sure I can burn all kinds of disks with no limitations compared to bloated full version.
And so on.
If I find a file that cannot be opened with lite version of a tool (and works fine with full), there's something wrong
This is what is happening with Adobe Reader Lite.

I'm a computer specialist and, in my personal experience, Adobe Reader Lite is not reliable enough.
I cannot risk to have a lot of customers calling me back for assistance because they are not able to open a 3D PDF file or fill a particular kind of form.

Lite versions are good and I love them, but we need to keep in mind the main target.
We can remove all extra and unnecessary features / plugins, but that has not to interfere with the ability of program to manage the files it has been created for.


P.S.
I checked several pcs with full Adobe Reader 9.1 installed and I didn't find any process in background when the application is closed
The only step I performed was removing the shortcut in startup folder

This post has been edited by provolino: 19 March 2009 - 09:55 AM

[RogerDB]

Hi again, everyone.

I just wanted to give my opinion on a few things that have been mentioned.

Firstly, with regards to the comment made by Shark007 about the availability of large hard disks. While this is true for most modern machines, the issue is really about how much space is to be used and is the use justified. As Shark007 pointed out, saving 3 MB might not be really something to worry about. Its better to spend time eliminating real space hogs. Like the setup folder in Adobe Acrobat Reader's case. Is it really justified to use 100 MB just to save a copy of the decompressed installer files? In my opinion, no. Adobe Acrobat Reader isn't some vital system component (vital being necessary to the booting up of the operating system). If there's a problem, I will simply reinstall it.

So although its noble for XhmikosR to try to reduce as much as possible, sometimes its also about finding the optimal solution.

Having said that, I still do like the idea of someone actually putting in the effort to "cut out the fat", instead of the increasingly prevalent attitude of "let's just put everything on the hard disk, I'm sure the end users won't mind buying more Hard Disks".

As for the second point made by Provolino and facing "no issues", I totally understand where you're coming from. Everyone wants reliability. But reliability is also just another metric for the measurement of how good a piece of software is. Speed, efficiency and many other metrics are also possible to determine the "goodness" of software. In the end though, there's no perfect software. The best we can hope for is one that measures up best against a set of metrics in accordance to our priorities.

So what am I really saying here? As I understand it, Provolino has expressed his opinion that Adobe Reader Lite is not reliable enough. And the reason he gave was very fair indeed. However, for the purposes of this project, we must determine whether the cited example, the functionality for 3D PDFs, is REALLY a priority metric for determining if Adobe Reader Lite is "good" or reliable enough.

I can only speak of my own opinion based on my own experiences and the experiences of others using Adobe Reader software. In my opinion, 3D PDF functionality is so specific and niche, that for me and everyone I have known, that if it were missing from Adobe Reader Lite, it would not be missed. To myself, the ability to see 3D in PDFs is completely unnecessary and I feel it is a wise decision indeed to be removed from the package.

As I mentioned in my previous post, perhaps a solution might be a separate package for 3D PDFs that can be "added on" to the base Adobe Reader Lite installation. I leave this to XhmikosR to decide. However, I would like to reiterate that I completely stand by the current decision by both XhmikosR and Shark007 before him that 3D PDFs are superflous.

Finally, just to point out to Provolino about background processes run by Adobe Acrobat Reader 9 (full versions). I believe the talk of a background process is with regards to "AcroRd32Info.exe".

You can easily see for yourself this behavior using either the Task Manager or the excellent piece of software, "Process Explorer" by Mark Russinovich (offered now under Microsoft's Windows Sysinternals).

Just navigate in Windows Explorer to any folder containing PDFs and click each PDF in turn (not double click). Just by browsing PDFs, this process is launched and consumes resources - RAM and CPU time. Again, it is my opinion that this process is wholly and entirely unnecessary and represents a terrible policy in software development. This policy being of course the sheer arrogance that "my software is so important, I should put in unneeded functionality and not give the end user any option to disable".


That's all I have to say for now. I'd like to clarify that I mean no disrespect to anyone (except perhaps the terribly hubris-filled management at Adobe). I would like to reiterate my support for the decisions made within this project so far by XhmikosR, and before him Shark007. XhmikosR, you have nothing but my complete admiration for putting in so much effort and coming up with so many test versions.

Kudos to you.

[RogerDB]

I agree with your preference to use Adobe Reader.

I have tried Foxit Reader. And the main reason I'm not using it is because it renders PDFs slightly differently (an in my opinion, a little bit worse).

Its still a good piece of software.

And I'm not expecting much more stuff to be removed. As it it, its looking good. So does it look likely that 9.1.0.26 will be your 'final' release?

Thanks again!