Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Size of Adobe Reader Installers Through the Years

sigwait.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 141 posts

Re: The Size of Adobe Reader Installers Through the Years

#111

Post by user_7832 »

tech234a wrote: post #31
user_7832 wrote: post #26

Tangential, is there any good smooth scrolling PDF viewer (for windows at least), that offers some level of customisation of view? (Like 2 pages side by side, and ideally dark mode and full top to bottom pages with hidden toolbars.) Adobe Viewer (? not sure of the name) was the only adobe product that had this ability afaik, and while I managed to get an old exe, it's been discontinued unfortunately. The closest appe…

Maybe Sumatra PDF?

Can it really offer those views? Last time I tried it, it seemed very, err, bare/unpolished. Kinda felt like Arch Linux, I don't doubt it can't do it, but I don't know if I can do it without reading some documentation (no disrespect intended to Arch or Sumatra!)

Re: The Size of Adobe Reader Installers Through the Years

#112

Post by user_7832 »

ZetaRicky wrote: post #46
user_7832 wrote: post #26

Tangential, is there any good smooth scrolling PDF viewer (for windows at least), that offers some level of customisation of view? (Like 2 pages side by side, and ideally dark mode and full top to bottom pages with hidden toolbars.) Adobe Viewer (? not sure of the name) was the only adobe product that had this ability afaik, and while I managed to get an old exe, it's been discontinued unfortunately. The closest appe…

Maybe Okular can be tweaked this way

Thanks, I think I had tried it in the past, I'll check it out again

Re: The Size of Adobe Reader Installers Through the Years

#113

Post by user_7832 »

carlosjobim wrote: post #29
user_7832 wrote: post #26

Tangential, is there any good smooth scrolling PDF viewer (for windows at least), that offers some level of customisation of view? (Like 2 pages side by side, and ideally dark mode and full top to bottom pages with hidden toolbars.) Adobe Viewer (? not sure of the name) was the only adobe product that had this ability afaik, and while I managed to get an old exe, it's been discontinued unfortunately. The closest appe…

Get a Mac and use Preview

(I didn't downvote) I legitimately would get a mac, if only I could run my own OS on it easily and if it was reasonably repairable (I don't mind paying high prices for good products.)

...I suppose that's why I got a framework (13) lol

Re: The Size of Adobe Reader Installers Through the Years

#115

Post by MortyWaves »

hbn wrote: post #103
MortyWaves wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Got a link?

Not sure if I can find a particular episode right now that has that type of call but if you look up Phone Losers of America, or The Snow Plow Show (both are the same guy) you can find lots of Craigslist calls. Here's a similar idea where he pretends to be calling from AT&T to let them know they have no incoming calls: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1sxF6vN3Ho

That’s pretty funny. The UK had something like it called PhoneJackers for a while.

Re: The Size of Adobe Reader Installers Through the Years

#116

Post by qualeed »

wat10000 wrote: post #99
qualeed wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the purposes of what this post is communicating , I don't think the exact sizes of adobe prior to 2000 or the exact size of sumatrapdf matters at all. The linear graph instantly communicates: - sumatrapdf has barely changed size in the same time that adobe's size has grown exponentially - adobe's crazy growth spike started ~6 years ago Maybe I'm just dumb, but I didn't realize the graph had a log y-axis at first.…

I think this is an argument for the log scale. I'd argue that the things you say it communicates are not actually correct. Adobe's size has been growing exponentially pretty much this whole time. The rate increased slightly in the mid-2010s. SumatraPDF started out that way too, but managed to level out after about a decade. Relative size is what matters here. That increase from ~2.5MB to ~5MB in the mid-90s was prett…

>Relative size is what matters here.

This is where our disconnect is. Relative change in size means nothing to me. I care about the absolute size of the final thing I'm installing.

Adobe big, getting bigger. Sumatra small, staying small.

Re: The Size of Adobe Reader Installers Through the Years

#117

Post by jabroni_salad »

user_7832 wrote: post #111
tech234a wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe Sumatra PDF?

Can it really offer those views? Last time I tried it, it seemed very, err, bare/unpolished. Kinda felt like Arch Linux, I don't doubt it can't do it, but I don't know if I can do it without reading some documentation (no disrespect intended to Arch or Sumatra!)

Sumatra can do side by side with or without a cover page but I don't think you can do a frameless UI and the dark theme is a bit fugly.

It is a fairly mature program, it's just that the developer decided to maximize on "small" and "fast" at the expense of other things.

Re: The Size of Adobe Reader Installers Through the Years

#118

Post by breadwinner »

After acquiring Macromedia in 2005, Adobe integrated Flash into several of its products, including Acrobat and Acrobat Reader. This allowed embedded Flash (SWF) content in PDFs, which contributed to increased installer size and complexity. Flash support was eventually removed in the early 2020s after Adobe officially ended support for Flash Player.

Adobe also embedded a JavaScript engine in Acrobat to support interactive PDF features like form validation and automation. Both Flash and JavaScript introduced significant security risks over the years.

While Flash is no longer supported, Acrobat Reader still includes JavaScript functionality, which remains a potential attack surface. In contrast, lightweight PDF readers such as Sumatra do not support JavaScript or Flash, offering a smaller and more secure footprint.

Re: The Size of Adobe Reader Installers Through the Years

#119

Post by conductr »

wat10000 wrote: post #99
qualeed wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the purposes of what this post is communicating , I don't think the exact sizes of adobe prior to 2000 or the exact size of sumatrapdf matters at all. The linear graph instantly communicates: - sumatrapdf has barely changed size in the same time that adobe's size has grown exponentially - adobe's crazy growth spike started ~6 years ago Maybe I'm just dumb, but I didn't realize the graph had a log y-axis at first.…

I think this is an argument for the log scale. I'd argue that the things you say it communicates are not actually correct. Adobe's size has been growing exponentially pretty much this whole time. The rate increased slightly in the mid-2010s. SumatraPDF started out that way too, but managed to level out after about a decade. Relative size is what matters here. That increase from ~2.5MB to ~5MB in the mid-90s was prett…

I disagree, am with qualeed on this one. I don’t think the size doubling means much at all except raising the question of why did it double? What was added that I care about? My instinct tells me nothing so it’s shouldn’t really be acceptable except this is par for the course these days. Nobody cares about bandwidth it’s just assumed to be fast and unlimited by nearly every publisher of software.

In the 90s that jump cost me in terms of modem time. I couldn’t download anything else for an extra 30-60 minutes that day (if I remember my speeds correctly). Today, extra 300mb costs me less than a minute and I can easily continue multitasking in the process.

Re: The Size of Adobe Reader Installers Through the Years

#120

Post by 93po »

ginko wrote: post #38
taspeotis wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the log scale makes this a contender for https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisugly/

What's wrong with the log scale? IMO it's a good use of it since the size of the installer grew exponentially over time.

because the trend looks linear at a glance, and doesnt really provide a visual representation of the absolute difference in sizes. not to mention its quite rare to see log scale graphs, and many people wont even notice that it is, and leave with the wrong impression
Post reply on HN