Talk:Foxit Reader

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This product is not free, as is mentioned in the article. Why is it listed as freeware?

-flipao-

No, Foxit Reader IS free. They do though do Pro versions and various other products which they do charge for (just as Adobe do). And please put new content on this talk page at the end of the page to make it easier to find Dsergeant 15:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Have a look on http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxit_Reader to get more information. :)

The note "Editorial review of Foxit PDF Reader on CNet." refers to a review that no longer exists, based on a version that is no longer current.

Should it be removed? -rcv-

The guidance in Wikipedia:External links is that the mere fact that a linked page no longer exists isn't a good reason to remove the citation. No view on the other point. Notinasnaid 08:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I would favour removing the whole of " It is notable for its short load time and small filesize, which are sometimes favorably compared to Adobe Reader[1]. Version 1.x has, however, been criticised for excessive memory usage[1]. Current version 2.x has no such criticism[citation needed]." It only existed in this form because someone added a citation to the review, but selectively quoted from it, missing out the second point (and indeed, claiming the opposite: the history tells the story). It really isn't the job of Wikipedia to say some software is better than another. Notinasnaid 08:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

In "Current version 2.x has no such criticism[citation needed]" someone removed the "citation needed" with the comment "citation needed for saying there is nothing to cite". This seems to be saying that this statement cannot be sourced. Therefore it must be removed. Strong negative statements like this carry important information. Consider "nobody has died of smallpox since 1990": simply saying "I, the editor, haven't seen any reports of death" isn't enough: you would have to quote a medical study. A different form of words like "A later review said that this problem was resolved in 2.0[citation of editorial review]" or "Foxit assert this problem is fixed[citation of readme file]" may be a good way to incorporate this information while maintaining sources and NPOV. Notinasnaid 07:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I have used Foxit from way back in its v1 days together with monitoring the Foxit forums. I never have experienced any excessive memory usage and can't recall this mentioned on the forums. Should we really be quoting experiences of a single user (presumably the editor of that review which we can no longer read) if it was never a widespread problem? As for filesize, load time etc these are valid reasons why people like Foxit over Adobe and as such deserve to stay. Dsergeant 10:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia deals in verifiable sources. One result of this is that what reviewers working for real magazines say (no matter how ignorant) may belong in articles, while what people say in forums (no matter how smart, or how many) never does. Otherwise, everything becomes a target for what "fans" and "enemies" feel like writing about. Notinasnaid 10:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This statement about memory usage, which you first added in June 2006, has been in and out like a yoyo. It is totally irrelevant to the current version and probably never was an issue in the earlier versions apart from that reviewer you cited. Can we please delete the statement for good, it has no place in WK. Dsergeant 13:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news service, tracking current versions and deleting references to old things. But I would support removing the whole section "It is notable for its short load time and small filesize, which are sometimes favorably compared to Adobe Reader[1]. Version 1.x was, however, criticised for excessive memory usage[1]." Keeping one sentence but not the other would surely be showing a particular point of view. Notinasnaid 14:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

On reflection, I'd also favour removing "It allows Windows 9x/ME to open Acrobat version 7 files, which the current version of Adobe's Acrobat reader for those operating systems will not. Foxit Reader is favoured by some system administrators of Windows-based servers. Foxit Reader normally does not require reboots after updates.[citation needed]" These are unsourced, for one thing. And also, there seems a constant attempt to add things which make this product compare favourably to another, as if Wikipedia is a marketing or fan tool. Reporting what this tool does, without actual or implied comparisons with other tools, in a neutral tone, is surely more appropriate. Notinasnaid 14:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Notinasnaid rolled back all my edits today so we're back at the original version. Notinasnaid, you've reinstated the comment "Version 1.x was, however, criticized for excessive memory usage". This seems wrong to me, since version 1.x no longer exists! Version 2 has much smaller memory requirements which I tested today: An 11Mb file was 11Mb in FoxIt, 30Mb in Adobe 6 and 40Mb in Adobe 8. This little gem of knowledge has been deleted and that is a sticky one: I couldn't find any magazine articles quoting actual numbers and I'm not really surprised. This is niche software and you're not going to find the New York Times or even ZDNet spending much if any time on it. So I did the numbers (which CNET don't have in their article BTW). I also made some structural edits to the article.

But, Notinasnaid, you rolled it all back. The article is now in worse shape than I found it, and I'm not going to waste time editing it for you to sit there and whack the [Revert] button again. Particularly when you're not adding anything to the topic! So once again this article blurbs off about Version 1.x which doesn't exist anymore. All you did today was make this article worse, not better. All yours, Buddy. 203.213.7.133 07:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

When I saw there had been some edits to this article I opened it with great expectations. Sadly the changes had already been undone. The changes which 203.213.7.133 made looked good and were a step in the right direction. Surely it is time to bury this one off reference to high memory use in an obsolete version for good. Foxit have been doing a lot of improvements of late and in the current versions have none of these problems. Dsergeant 08:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This article does not exist to be an advert for Foxit Reader. The fact is, this article has only one source. The article is currently a fair reflection of that source, and has a bunch of stuff which is unsourced. Writing about things that aren't in use is called "history". We don't edit the article "Presidents of the United States" to remove anyone but George W Bush because the others "are no longer presidents".

But there is a much deeper issue here. This article seems to have a number of editors determined to add the message "Foxit Reader is better than Adobe Reader" to this article. If this belongs at all, it must be balanced. But if you go to the Adobe Reader article you don't see "Adobe Reader is better than Foxit Reader because ...". This would be shot out of the water. Similarly, if you go to the Microsoft Word article you don't see "Microsoft Word is better than (other product) because". The more I think about it, the more I feel that this is agenda pushing, and should be removed in its entirety, because subjective product comparisons have no place in an encyclopedia. Notinasnaid 12:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Notinasnaid that makes as much sense as criticizing Windows Vista because DOS 4 had a 640Kb memory limit. If you want to add a counterview that Adobe is better than Foxit, great! But are you saying unless we can find that counterview (maybe because it doesn't exist), we can't state the arguably more common view that Foxit is better than Adobe? Anyone coming to this article for info on Foxit would see the "1.x has excessive memory usage" quip, snort and leave. You even removed the reference that 2.0 has a much lower memory usage than Adobe entirely, so they wouldn't know that 2.0 exists!!! Everything you're doing here seems to be to keep this article in its original ragged stated and make Foxit sound as bad as possible. 203.213.7.133 00:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

So, are you saying that information about how good Foxit Reader is should be included even if it doesn't have a reliable source? Or that it's so obvious that it doesn't need a source? Notinasnaid 08:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This is easy, Notinasnaid. If you want to update the article so it is up to date, go for it. If you don't, let other people make the changes. If you sit here on the sidelines, do nothing but revert to keep the article out of date, then either you've got way too much spare time on your hands or you're deliberately running interference either because you're bored or someone has asked you to. I'd say this page should be labeled as in dispute and escalated up through Wikipedia management. 203.213.7.133 06:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course it would be entirely proper to say that this problem was fixed, if it can be sourced. I think it may be that some editors on this page don't realise that sources are the most important thing in Wikipedia, and every "fact" which isn't sourced can be, and is likely to be, removed. See Wikipedia:Attribution. To be included in Wikipedia things don't have to just be true; they have to be true and verifiable using a reliable source (for instance, including reviews from established press, but excluding blogs and forum posts).

Also, I am concerned that the view that "negative aspects will cause people to turn away from the product". Am I to take it that the job of this page is to promote Foxit Reader? I would ask you to review Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

It may well be a good idea to start a Wikipedia:Requests for comment process for this article. I consider this to be a debate about Wikipedia policy, not about the specific details of memory usage in one product: please be sure you are familiar with the policies, as it will help you frame your arguments for the best effect.

Further comments? Notinasnaid 09:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Given the dispute, I have added a "neutrality" tag for now, until it is resolved one way or another. Notinasnaid 09:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course the dispute is of your own making... in case you haven't noticed I have already changed the original CNet review (now unavailable) which apparently mentioned the memory hog problem with their current review which does acknowledge that the problem has now been fixed. And another review from a different source. I am sure I could find plenty more. Perhaps I will try and make the article more NPOV and remove the irrelevant bits, the fact remains that the popularity of Foxit is growing significantly at the moment. Dsergeant 09:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, Dsergeant. It is of Notinasnaid's own making. If Notinasnaid wanted to tweak new edits and add 'citation needed' where he thought it was needed, that would be cool. But just reverting everything and leaving the article in its old ragged state gets us nowhere. As for the NPOV thing, there's a difference between being 'balanced' and being 'impartial'. That's why Britannica doesn't spend equal pages promoting the flat earth. If a product is better, it's better, and Foxit's memory usage (11Mb Foxit vs 30Mb Reader6 vs 40Mb Reader8) puts Adobe to shame. Foxit have mimiced the Adobe UI, so its hard to put them down there either. Do we have to get someone to blog about this so we can use it as a reference? Maybe. Foxit deserves a fair and accurate Wiki entry. I reckon if someone like Notinasnaid kept reverting the Adobe Reader Wiki back to version 1.0, they'd be an outcry. Keeping the Foxit article stands at the moment is a joke. 203.213.7.133 01:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No need for reboots

Thanks for your last change, we are slowly getting there..

I have been looking at the paragraph: "Foxit Reader is favoured by some system administrators of Windows-based servers. Foxit Reader normally does not require reboots after updates.[citation needed]"

I have no information that it is liked by system administrators and don't know who added that. But it is certainly true that reboots are not needed after updates. Foxit comes in two versions - with the .zip version you simply unzip its .exe file and write it on top of the existing one and away you go. The .exe version includes a simple installer which effectively does exactly the same (though I guess system admins wouldn't use that one). I found nothing on the web to cite this fact, but did find a lot pointing out that Adobe DID need reboots and has auto updating functions which would drive any system admin nuts...

I am inclined to delete this whole paragraph (maybe adding a phrase 'simple install' in the introductory lines), it adds little to the article and only increases its 'anti-Adobe' tone. Best to let the reader make up his mind... Dsergeant 20:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The paragraph should be deleted. --Hamitr 14:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Hamitr 21:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Bit late but I agree too. It's me 203.213.7.133. Had proxy vandal problems. Been looking for refs to back up the Foxit article. Unfortunately I haven't found any IT press reviews at all, and Foxit don't have an 'In the Press' section on their site (I'm guessing they're still in Startup mode but they really should ramp up their PR). There is a lot anecdotal recommendations in blogs, but most of these were brief. *BUT* the best collection of user reviews though was this one: Many reviews and I think it nicely covers the gamut both good and bad: http://fileforum.betanews.com/review/1102316680/1/view It's also fairly recently updated. How about using this as a reference? Frondfall 06:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Giving Notice: I intend to use the above reference to update the article. Frondfall 07:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry not to have picked this up before. Wikipedia:Attribution#Reliable sources -> Using questionable or self-published sources. Blogs, bulletin boards, user reviews etc. come under the heading of "self published" and "...self-published material is largely not acceptable." There are specific exceptions like blogs of known notable people, which is attributable. It is the case that a great deal of the "common knowledge" about software has not crossed the threshold from popular discussion to being mentioned in the press, probably the threshold for inclusion. Notinasnaid 07:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. I am still looking for a decent magazine review or similar for Foxit and the two I added were about the best I could find. Certainly the one you mention above does not seem to be appropriate as it is largely just blog comments on it. At the moment reviews of Foxit seem to be buried among more general articles on pdf software. Hopefully this will soon change as Foxit appears to be becoming more widely accepted. Dsergeant 11:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That's why I asked first :-). That policy works fine for popular issues, but for fringe things like this it doesn't really work. That page of comments, by its sheer volume, is probably the best indicator of the state of Foxit. It's far more useful that the CNET little stub review we're using as a reference, yet, by Wiki policies, we can only quote that and not the other. I'd suggest the Wiki policies in this area are broken. Likewise if you have to do your own article just so you can use it as a Wiki reference. Are we allowed to list those user reviews as a link? At least that way people can make up their own mind. Frondfall 03:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Just re-read the CNET stub review and found it's updated over the old version I saw. Still not comprehensive, but it's an improvement. BTW I've been using FoxIt since first visiting this web page and it's now my #1 Browser. Could perhaps ask another mag to look at it, but heck, I wish FoxIt would down their own PR! Frondfall 03:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PC World Review from March 2006

http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file/fid,62648-order,1-page,1/description.html

"This free utility lets you view PDF files, and edit any of the text they contain. Adobe Reader isn't your only option for viewing PDF files. Foxit Reader is a free utility that includes some tools that Adobe lacks, including a "typewriter" tool that lets you type text over any PDF, not just files that have been set with form fields.

We found that Foxit launches very quickly (in about one second) and it requires no installation--you just run the executable file. It allows you open, view, print, and change the page layout in PDF files. For some functions, such as the typewriter function, FoxIt Reader shows an ad for FoxIt Reader Pro. However, these functions still work with minor limitations.

In our experience, when it comes to viewing PDF files, Foxit Reader beats Adobe Reader hands-down.

Note: We have received reports that some security software flags Foxit Reader as a security threat. The vendor claims that this is because FoxIt reader is an .exe file with no installer package. PC World has scanned Foxit Reader for malware, and we have discovered none in the program."

71.174.78.146 01:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Foxitreader.png

Image:Foxitreader.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)