Due to updates, over time, that have been made to the site and the age of this article, this post may not display correctly. In particular images may be missing or product reviews display incorrectly.

If this is the case and you'd particularly like me to fix it, then please reach out to me on Twitter.

Sometime ago I reviewed Adobe Reader against Foxit. Many people often direct PC users to Foxit when they find older versions of Adobe to be slow and bloated. My conclusion was that Adobe Reader is a lot better now and it’s many benefits outway the little speed improvement you get with Foxit.

You’d have thought Adobe would have been happy with this but, instead, argued with my comparison methods – even though they were generally favourable towards them.

However, they remained strangely quiet, even when I specifically questioned them on this, about not providing the facility, for many home users who just need the more basic feature set, a leaner, stripped down version of Adobe Readers. Others had done just this, and I concluded that people should try Adobe Reader Lite.

Now, this was never affiliated with Adobe – someone had taken the standard Adobe Reader and removed the lesser used features. This produced a much quicker, leaner version that could compete even more favourably with the competition.

That was 14 months ago. So, imagine my surprise to find that Adobe Reader Lite appears to be no longer available to download. My usual source is from Major Geeks, but the link simply shows a blank page. Searching Major Geeks still shows the software in their index, but clicking their links results in the same blank screen.

The programmer used to post his code on a forum and its there that we can see what has happened. The links in his forum posts have been removed and the following text added to the bottom…

Reason for edit: We’ve been directed by a 3rd party to remove the links, as these redists violate the Adobe EULA and copyright – redist is forbidden. Post edited, links removed.

And indeed, the discussion has been closed with a post that explains the situation further.

It’s not Adobe that’s directly doing this but I suspect they’re behind the request. I’d like to think that they’ve felt the need because they now provide an equivalent. But they don’t.

But then, from a company that argues with reviews which are in their favour, odd behaviour appears to be natural to them.