Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Donations


Everything posted by RogerDB

  1. Hi. Just to make a small note about the PDF tab in file properties... The integration of PDF information into the shell is via a DLL file called pdfshell.dll typically located in the folder C:\Program Files\Common Files\Adobe\Acrobat\ActiveX. When PDF files are selected in Windows Explorer, a hook to pdfshell.dll calls on AcroRd32Info.exe to load the PDF file in question, extract the required information, and then pass it back to the shell for display. The shell integration is also what allows for the PDF tab in the file properties. What everyone has surmised so far is correct. If AcroRd32Info.exe is disabled, then the PDF tab will contain no information. There's really nothing wrong with leaving the tab blank. However, for purists, who want to remove the tab in a very simple way, you can run the following command in the Command Prompt: regsvr32 "C:\Program Files\Common Files\Adobe\Acrobat\ActiveX\pdfshell.dll" /u Note: You have to replace the path shown above to the path applicable for your installation. For typical default installations, the path should be as shown above. Upon running the above command, a prompt should be displayed showing that the DLL has be successful unregistered. If the prompt shows an error, its most likely either the path is incorrect, or the DLL has not been registered, or has already been unregistered. Once you unregister the DLL, the PDF tab will no longer be shown. This is a pretty clean and simple way to remove the PDF tab. Please note that I'm no expert on these matters, but everything I've said above seems to work for me, and this is based on stuff I've Googled. Having said that, I'm pretty sure that unregistering the pdfshell.dll file has no negative effects. I've even tested uninstalling the Adobe Reader Lite package and it uninstalls cleanly. Reinstalling brings back the PDF tab until I've unregistered the DLL again. Finally, just want to note that I agree with XhmikosR that this "problem" really isn't a big issue. Everything works great as it is. If anyone wants the full features, there's always the official Reader. Otherwise, the PDF tab can be left alone or removed easily by unregistering the DLL (no need to play around with the registry, as the registration process does it all for you). Thanks everyone.
  2. The suggestion for a "Corporate Version" sounds like a splendid one. 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/support/downloads/detail.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. Thanks.
  3. 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 will be your 'final' release? Thanks again!
  4. 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.
  5. Hi. I would just like to add to the sentiments stated by Provolino, namely appreciation and gratitude to both XhmikosR and Shark007 for their work (both current and previous) on creating a Lite version of Adobe Acrobat Reader. Thanks again to both of you! I understand completely that Provolino might be wondering if the Lite version is still useful. I, however, completely believe that your repackaging work is still COMPLETELY valid. The main benefit of the Lite version would be the removal of the AcroRd32Info process. This alone is of immense benefit, since the process is a resource consumer and in most cases, completely unwanted - leading to quite a number of complaints regard it as a security risk or even be called malware itself. Note that even in the 9.0 Lite version, the PDFShell.dll explorer hook is still registered, but without the AcroRd32Info process, system impact is non-existent to minimal. I believe Shark007 made very wise decisions for removing plugins that are not used by a large majority of Adobe Acrobat Reader users. I congratulate XhmikosR for keeping with these decisions, including the removal of all Adobe updater components. A lot of these components are simply not needed. The updater alone causes irresponsible resource use. If I need to update, I'm more than happy to uninstall the older version and install a newer one. All in all, the Lite series for Adobe Acrobat Reader is an excellent product. It works just the way most people would want it to work. Adobe should be ashamed for not providing the option to install lighter versions of it software. However, its completely natural that once a company gets a certain measure of success, it assumes its smarter than its users. This leads to a great degree of arrogance in installing bloated software that just ignores the needs of users. As for the suggestion to use Foxit Reader... well, is it really a good replacement? The answer is completely dependent on the individual using it. I have installed and used Foxit. Its a very good piece of software. However, there are drawbacks. My main issue with Foxit is that it doesn't render certain documents correctly. By this I mean that the document is still readable, but there are formatting errors (elements moved out of place), and even fonts being displayed differently (slightly lower quality). So in summary, the reason I'm posting this is simply to state that I truly strongly believe that there is a place in this world for the Adobe Acrobat Reader Lite repackagings. In a perfect world, software would be light on resources, fast and work perfectly. However, this is not a perfect world... but having people who are willing to spend their time and effort to do something about it, makes things all that little bit better. So thanks once again to both XhmikosR and Shark007. Your contributions are immensely appreciated! PS: IMHO, rt3d.dll can be removed. If users REALLY needed 3D in their PDF, they can use the full version of Adobe Acrobat Reader. Alternatively, perhaps an archive file can be provided with the necessary files that can be copied in to add 3D support and provided as an optional download to add on to the Lite version.

  • Create New...