Newest reader versions appear to use same resources as Adobe?

[richell_huang]

We will have simple version with small size in future.

[Doug]

"foxit bloat"

I've seen comments elsewhere about 'Foxit bloat'. So it's a real occurrence but not necessarily a problem for some. I'm not a power user so my computer is more than I need, and handles current versions well. One suggestion: download from filehippo.com or another site that lets you choose older versions.

Add bloat 10/17: My version (now 5.3.1.0606, available at filehippo.com) is a much smaller d/l than Adobe. I don't know about the resources because, again, my computer handles it. (Xp, 2.4gHz, one gig of memory, etc. I do have an upgrade power supply FWIW.
Anyway, hardware is cheap. (Today's h/d are about the same in $/Gb as yesterdays in $/Mb.) Try getting all these features in a PC with MSDOS handling 64K of memory, you young whippesnappers ...

[bristol_p]

Thanks. On my computer (vs spouse's) - I don't have Adobe reader. I started using Foxit reader yrs ago because it WAS much faster (& smaller) than Adobe. I took Adobe off my machine, but spouse still wants to use it - occasionally.
I was surprised when recently checked & saw nearly identical RAM / CPU usage of both readers, open same time, same machine, same file.

[richell_huang]

Thanks for your detailed and valuable feedback, i will absolutely forward it to our PM team for future reference.

[bristol_p]

1st, I'm not an Adobe fan - nor dedicated to ANY one software - PDF reader or otherwise. For a long time, Foxit Reader used considerably less resources than Adobe. Except for possibly installed size, I see little difference in Reader 5.3.x & latest Adobe Reader, in RAM / CPU use. Now, disk space is usually less concern for most than RAM & CPU usage. Is what I'm seeing consistent w/ others recent experiences? Maybe I'm doing something wrong.

"Small & very fast" used to be big marketing terms for Foxit Reader. Don't see that mentioned anymore. Maybe was inevitable it had to get much larger & use same resources as Adobe, to provide same functions/ features.

Haven't done extensive side by side testing, but I now see very little difference in Foxit & Adobe readers - resource use & speed of the application opening or opening files.
Maybe Adobe trimmed their "bloat" while Foxit had to use more resources to offer a product equivalent to Adobe?

Input of others recent experiences on this would be appreciated.