Leaving aside the terrible OCR inaccuracies-still a major problem for computers-cutting and pasting text using the Adobe Reader was much more successful than with Foxit (shame I can't post images here for you to see). That said, both books were tolerable with regard to speed when read in Foxit although accessing the dictionary would not want to be any slower as far as this impatient reviewer is concerned.Īccessing (cutting and pasting) text from within these volumes was another matter altogether. Moreover, the last few versions of Adobe Reader (including the recent 'lite' version) have been significantly better than previous ones but this is the best Reader since perhaps versions 4 or 5. Adobe Reader 10 was faster in randomly accessing pages and one's ability to select text from within pages was enhanced over that of Foxit 4.2. Whilst not the fastest available, it was considered typical of the average users that I have to support.Īs much as I hate to admit it, the Adobe Reader did noticeably better than Foxit. The machine chosen for the test was desktop model running XP-sp3 and an Intel Q9550, 2 Quad at 2.83 GHz with 4GB RAM. Scanned pages: 462, Text: mostly single column per page interspersed with detailed b&w and color diagrams together with foldout pages with b&w and color diagrams. 'A textbook on the locomotive and the air brake - Car Lighting' etc, International Correspondence Schools, 1901. Text: 3 columns of small-point per page.Ģ.
Adobe acrobat reader for windows xp pdf#
(AKA: OED/Oxford English Dictionary, 1st edition.) PDF file size: 235,094,929 bytes. 'A New English Dictionary on a Historical Basis', Editor: Sir James Murray, Vol 6-part 2, letters: MN, 1908. If anyone wants to do similar tests using the same two books that I've used here then be advised that they're in the public domain and easily obtainable from the Net. The test setup for this version 10.0 of Adobe Reader was a comparative runoff with Foxit version using large books with known difficult text/content that significantly slow PDF readers and thus make viewing awkward and tedious. For instance, a scan of Samuel Johnson's, 'A Dictionary of the English Language', 1755 or an early out-of-copyright volume of the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) can slow PDF readers down to the point where viewing becomes almost untenable-even on the fastest of machines. The best way to performance test PDF readers is to load old yellowing-page books with page print-through and other similar graphics noise (if anything is going to slow readers down then this will as whole pages have to be analyzed as graphics). Foxit is still my default reader and the one I still recommend to clients.)
Although Foxit has had problems, especially in its inability to accurately render detailed graphics which have now been fixed, Foxit has consistently outperformed Adobe Reader, especially in speed.
However, by the end of 2005 I'd personally switched to Foxit because of the increasing slowness and excessive bloatware in Adobe Reader.
(Background and my biases: I've used or have been required to test just about every version of the Adobe Reader since PDF version 1.0 in the early 1990s.
0 kommentar(er)
