[Release] Adobe Reader 9.1 Corporate/Lite using Shark007's method + fixes
Posted 19 March 2009 - 10:33 AM
Download is here (Rapidshare): http://rapidshare.com/files/211107631/Adbe...E_lite.exe.html
Mirror (MegaUpload): http://www.megaupload.com/?d=NXMGKUOO
Mirror (uploaded.to): http://uploaded.to/?id=v00sax
Mirror (FileFactory): http://www.filefactory.com/file/af6g8hb/n/..._de_DE_lite_exe
In my humble opinion this version works even better than sereby's effort at creating a (lite) German version, but obviously is a bit bigger because of more plugins..
Oh, and as this is my first post here: I don't guarantee, that this version works for you or anyone else. If you don't take precaution, you might suffer diarrhea, hair loss, loss of girlfriend or loss of sanity.. at least, my virus scanner didn't detect anything
Posted 19 March 2009 - 10:33 AM
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".
Thanks RogerDB for the hints.
I performed some tests with "process explorer" and "Adobe Reader 9.1 full" and I found AcroRd32Info.exe is loaded just when you go in the "PDF" tab under the properties of pdf files.
When you close the file, AcroRd32Info is unloaded correctly.
IMHO, this is normal behaviour and I have no problems accepting it.
I really don't like processes that stay in memory when you are not using them, but if a process is loaded only when I use it, I don't see anything wrong
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.
3D PDF files are just an example.
There are also other files with problems (like the forms reported by cybpsych in previous post).
The problem is not the single file, but the reliability.
We cannot be sure there are no other particular files with problems (just because we need to wait someone reports them) and this is, for me, a more than valid reason to not install lite version of Adobe Reader
I really prefer to sacrifice the lightness of a program if I have in exchange the sureness it will not give me issues opening all files I can find surfing the web.
That doesn't mean I don't appreciate the work under its creation, it's just a different point of view
This post has been edited by puntoMX: 24 March 2009 - 11:53 AM
Posted 19 March 2009 - 10:10 PM
In my opinion, software development begins to suffer once it loses focus. Once there is a trend to try to add more functions to satisfy "everyone", development starts down the road of bloatware.
I think, as it is, the "Lite" version package is excellent in terms of what it aims to do - to cut out the bloatware of the original Adobe Acrobat Reader, while still maintaining excellent capabilities that are useful to most end users. Its my sincere hope that the spirit of the "Lite" version stay true to this singular purpose.
I also have to wonder if creating another version for corporate deployment is the best use of XhmikosR's time. This is in light of the fact that Adobe already provides a tool for IT professionals to customize the full version for corporate deployment, the Adobe Customization Wizard 9 that can be found here: http://www.adobe.com....jsp?ftpID=3993
There are just so many considerations from enterprise to enterprise with regards to policies. I can list just a few variations:
- Are internet updates allowed?
- Does the enterprise allow participation in the Adobe product improvement program?
- Does the enterprise allow access to Acrobat.com for PDF uploads, etc.?
- For security reasons, are PDFs allowed to be viewed in the browser?
And many more permutations.
Its likely that these customizations are better provided for by each enterprise IT department.
In summary, the "Lite" version serves excellently end-users that do not share such enterprise level needs.
Posted 20 March 2009 - 07:18 AM
Anyway, I've created a batch file to call Resource Hacker and automate the SFX exe creation, but I'm not able to change the version info via the script. I saved a version info as .rc file, from an exe I've created, but it doesn't work with the script. I'm getting an error like invalid resource file, or I don't get any errors but the version info is not added.
[FILENAMES] Exe=ARtemp_Lite.exe SaveAs=AdbeRdr_Lite-NEW.exe [COMMANDS] -delete ICONGROUP,101,0 -delete VERSIONINFO,1,0 -add ar9installer.ico, ICONGROUP,101,0 -add 1.rc, VERSIONINFO,1,0
I renamed the extension to .res but again it doesn't work. I would really appreciate it, if someone has any solution for this.
Released v.01 of Adobe Reader Corporate. I haven't removed any features or plugins of AR, only some unneeded stuff, which have no impact on the features of AR, and did some tweaks. I want to hear other people's opinion.
This post has been edited by XhmikosR: 20 March 2009 - 11:16 AM
Posted 20 March 2009 - 07:38 PM
Posted 20 March 2009 - 07:55 PM
all were tested individually, ran, fired up with PDFs (normal and Forms) ... seems to be running well at my side ...
p/s: XhmikosR, one thing that I need to inform you: Removal of the "PrintMe Internet Printing" folder. You need to do this TWICE: After saving the MSI, you'll need to remove it again as it somehows shown in InstallShield (if my memory serves me correct, it doesn't get created on actual installation)...
Posted 20 March 2009 - 09:06 PM
Yes, but since it doesn't install, I don't think I should bother.