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. Dsergeant 10:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC) Reply 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. I never have experienced any excessive memory usage and can't recall this mentioned on the forums. Notinasnaid 07:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC) Reply I have used Foxit from way back in its v1 days together with monitoring the Foxit forums. A different form of words like "A later review said that this problem was resolved in 2.0" or "Foxit assert this problem is fixed" may be a good way to incorporate this information while maintaining sources and NPOV. 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. Strong negative statements like this carry important information. This seems to be saying that this statement cannot be sourced. Notinasnaid 08:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC) Reply In "Current version 2.x has no such criticism" someone removed the "citation needed" with the comment "citation needed for saying there is nothing to cite". It really isn't the job of Wikipedia to say some software is better than another. Current version 2.x has no such criticism." 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). Version 1.x has, however, been criticised for excessive memory usage. Notinasnaid 08:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC) Reply 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. 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. 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 refers to a review that no longer exists, based on a version that is no longer current. Have a look on to get more information. :) 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) Reply They do though do Pro versions and various other products which they do charge for (just as Adobe do). This product is not free, as is mentioned in the article. Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.4.97.194 ( talk) 23:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC) Reply I've downloaded Foxit Reader and could not find the malware. I followed the link of the prev poster and saw that Foxit responded that they removed the Ask.com malware when they became aware of it. My avast! firewall automatically created a rule for Ask.com when installing Foxit Reader last week without the toolbar ever being mentioned during setup. Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.184.60 ( talk) 00:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Reply Still contains malware. This is really something people should be warned about. What's more, the options for installing this intrusive, stealthed add-on are presented in an unusually convoluted, unintuitive way-so that even if the user clears the checkboxes for installing the add-on, then clicks the highlighed "I Accept" button (on the same screen), the add-on is installed anyway.Īnyway, I'm not just being dramatic. Hides itself-from both Add/Remove Programs, and in the user's file system-so it's nearly impossible for the average user to uninstall.Locks the user's Internet settings so they can't change these back.Sets the user's homepage to a big Ask.Com page.Sets the user's default search engine to Ask.Com.The bundled Ask.Com software now actually hijacks the user's default browser, doing the following (which I'm repeating here from the article, in case it's subsequently edited out):
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |