If you download Adobe Reader from the official Adobe website you notice (or might not) that the version offered on that website is still version 9.3 of Adobe Reader and not the latest version 9.3.1. Users who do not update the pdf reader after downloading and installing that version make their computer system vulnerable to security exploits that have been fixed in Adobe Reader 9.3.1. A user who for instance downloads the pdf reader to install it offline on another computer system might not know about the update.
It is not clear why Adobe is not updating the version offered for download on their website. That it is possible shows the release of Adobe Reader 9.3.1 Lite which is the – unofficial – lite version of Adobe Reader.
Adobe Reader 9.3.1 Lite is basically a version of Adobe Reader with several modules and features of the program removed. This in turn speeds up the pdf reader, especially its loading time.
Adobe Reader 9.3.1 Lite can be directly downloaded from Rapidshare. Executing that portable version will throw an error message as it does not include the Eula of the program. This can however be easily fixed by importing keys into the Registry that tell Adobe Reader that the Eula has been accepted.
Save the following file as adobe.reg and double-click it to add the information to the Windows Registry.
Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00
[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Adobe\Acrobat Reader\9.0\AdobeViewer]
“TrustedMode”=dword:00000000
“EULA”=dword:00000001
“Launched”=dword:00000001
Adobe Reader 9.3.1 Lite can be downloaded directly from Rapidshare.
Enjoyed the article?: Then sign-up for our free newsletter or RSS feed to kick off your day with the latest technology news and tips, or share the article with your friends and contacts on Facebook or Twitter.Related Articles:
Adobe Reader 9 LiteAdobe Reader 9.3.2 Lite
Adobe Reader 9.3 Lite Released [PDF]
Adobe Reader 9.1 Lite
Adobe Reader Lite
订阅了你的博客，一直关注你的文章，感谢。
Thanks again Martin would you be so kind as to let us know when Adobe is offering for download, Adobe Reader 9.3.1 Lite not portable version on their website.
Sure I do that but it will probably never happen.
Adobe forces people to activate the Adobe update feature by having the old version for download. This is so that they may catch and inactivate any hacked Adobe software on the user’s PC. i.e. Adobe Acrobat Pro or C3.
The problem with Adobe Reader Lite is that available versions do not follow Adobe Reader releases, so what happens is that when Adobe will release next version, say 9.3.2, either you will have to install it on top of Adobe Reader Lite (I wouldn’t recommend that), either uninstall Adobe Reader Lite to re-install latest version, either wait for next Lite version…
If Adobe Reader is your PDF reader, install Adobe Reader 9.3 then install Update 9.3.1. It’s not complicated.
Moreover, personally I dislike installing software without even knowing the developer’s homepage…
Why would anyone, anywhere, want to install Adobe reader anyway?
This bloated resource-hugging software was rendered obsolete as soon as alternative pdf readers like Foxit became available.
There are several myths on the Web, and Adobe being bloated and slow is one of them.
I’ve tried alternatives, never as good, either the font rendering is lousy, either at one time this or that function will miss. And, also, Adobe Reader here starts very fast, and i have a Duron 1.6GHz with 1024kB RAM !
So that’s why I install Adobe Reader, to answer your question, MikeR :)
Sorry to hear you’ve had problems with pdf readers other than Adobe.
I’ve never had a single one with Foxit. Ever. And when I was road-testing it first, before Revoing out Adobe Reader, the results were indistinguishable, one from another.
Re your remark about the mythical ‘bloated’ Adobe Reader, perhaps there’s a different version I don’t know about which confounds those ‘myths’?
Last time I looked, Adobe Reader was a 35MB download.
Foxit was one-fifth that size. Less than 7MB.
I still haven’t figured out what Adobe Reader delivers with that extra 28MB. . ..
Adobe Reader is heavy, not bloated. I mean it weighs was it offers.
Foxit as I remember had a very bad font layout, when Adobe’s is thin, neat, beautiful. And too many functions only available with paid Foxit version. Paying for PDF is like paying for taking a picture, nonsense!
Well, users can use Foxit it Adobe’s stead. It’s much smaller and not as susceptible as Adobe is.
Adobe is susceptible, is she? Gosh, she must adore me, I’ve never noticed :)
I have Bullzip as my virtual printer (freeware) for just about every routine task. And the commercial, paid-for Nova PDF for when I need high print quality.
I actually work a lot with .pdfs so tend to be critical (thus, for example, I’ve found Bullzip to be better than PDF Creator. And Nova PDF to be over-priced: its output even at max isn’t significantly better than Bullzip’s.)
Both are teamed to Foxit’s freeware version (because I’d no more pay Foxit for all the other stuff on offer than I’d pay Adobe.)
And no, I really honestly can’t remember — from when I was comparing Adobe with Foxit — any example where the former out-performed the latter.
And let’s face the truth here: Adobe Reader may have started out as a simple pdf viewer, but hubris of the Microsoft kind set in long since.
(And how come a *Reader*, for Gawd’s sakes, has had such a history of security fixes???)
Sorry, but my earlier remarks still stand: Adobe Reader is bloatware — a download 500% bigger than Foxit — and a resource hogger, too (Reader chewing up at least 25MB RAM compared to Foxit’s 5MB.)
If Adobe Reader, being five times bigger and five times heavier on resources was also five times superior, I could understand it.
But it ain’t.
note the operative word for Adobe Reader: “reader”. there are far better reader apps which can do more than just read. I agree with the comment about security – how is it that a reader app is a security hole waiting to happen.
personally I use: PDF Exchange. I can edit PDFs, highlight, add notes. I run a 1.6GHz Athlon 1800 and PDF Exchange starts up *way* faster than Adobe Reader.
I also installed the portable version on two flash drives.
CoryTek:
Thanks for that info, I’ll go check out PDF Exchange today. (Something I’ve been meaning to do for ages, but your post has nudged me into action!)
Re “how is it that a reader app is a security hole waiting to happen”.
Exactly. That something as relatively straightforward as a *reader* has to be continually patched by its authors is an enduring indictment.
But bad enough though that is, Adobe’s track record in actually issuing essential security fixes is even worse: time after time, the company seems (a) impervious to criticism and (b) downright arrogant in its treatment of users.
Combine those two “qualities” and I’m not surprised to hear that Microsoft itself got involved in the latest Adobe fiasco (for more details: http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=5492) and yet another out-of-cycle patch.
I guess I’m going to be accused of perpetuating yet more “Web myths” (as per above) but so be it.
Bloated, resource-hungry, subject to one belated ‘security fix’ after another and authored by a company whose sheer size appears to convince it of its absolute infallibility, Adobe Reader is a triumph of marketing over substance.
I prefer PDF-XChange too. I use both Viewer and Lite and can say that they are excellent products with excellent support! Now I don’t want Adobe.