Personally, I prefer to download PDF files separately and to open them in Preview. So I removed the Adobe PDF plug-in from my “Internet Plug-Ins” folder a long time ago, and typically I option-click on links to PDF documents to force Safari to download them as files instead of displaying them in the browser window.

Same here… except I use Default Apps to tell the system to treat PDF’s as Preview files and download them automatically, instead of having to option-click them every time. It means I don’t even have to think about whether it’s a PDF or not, which sounds like something you would advocate.

Who knows, maybe the Adobe updater wants to supply the browsers with code that will enable you to do a much more satisfactory job at copying complex text from those browsers and pasting that information with formatting into InDesign?

Considering how mediocrely-at-best they actually accomplish this, I wouldn’t count on it.

I’m VERY much in favor of manufacturers informing us better about what’s being installed. On the other hand, I can imagine the headaches of providing detailed information about, say, new “copy-and-paste translators” being added for browsers when InDesign is updated, if I’ve guessed correctly. Most people won’t have a clue what the technical information means, and most won’t care. There will be compulsive tekkies who will demand further information, or the capability of micromanaging the update process. That leaves a very small number of users who will actually get something useful from being informed and won’t generally cause further headaches for the manufacturers.

I disagree. I believe it is the developers’ responsibility to keep track of every change they make between releases and to inform us the users of these changes. Plenty of much smaller developers than Adobe have gotten this down to an art form, listing each change made to the product in plain English (usually). Whether or not a consumer understands exactly what each change means, he will understand that, say, in your example, something has changed with copy-and-paste behavior and some improvement in its functionality may be expectable. But I think anybody who actually bothers to read the changelog will get plenty of benefit out of it, and it’s the developer’s headache to bear.

As for the requirement to quit all browsers, I simply do not see how it is justified. Even if InDesign makes use of some parts of WebKit, the engine behind Safari, this does not justify having to quit Safari in order to update InDesign. I highly doubt that Adobe can interfere in any way with the way non-Adobe applications use the Clipboard! If they did, why would they limit the “shutdown” requirement only to browsers? They should ask the user to quit all applications!

No, the only “reasonable” explanation here is that lazy Adobe developers have an installer script that requires the user to quit all browsers for any application update, regardless of whether it is actually necessary or not.

It DOES seem unreasonable to shut down all (?) browsers when doing an InDesign update. It may be reasonable, considering the amount of inter-application processing that may be going on behind the scenes.

Here’s a somewhat related example: The clipboard “just works” in general, and I’ve noticed it has worked better in recent years — at the task of transferring information among very different applications, exactly what it is supposed to do What enables this is that copying in app ‘A’ puts a surprising number of differently-formatted copies of the selected items “on” the clipboard. So when you try to paste in app ‘B’ you have an increasingly better chance of getting what you expect pasted in. To do this requires a lot cooperation among manufacturers.

Who knows, maybe the Adobe updater wants to supply the browsers with code that will enable you to do a much more satisfactory job at copying complex text from those browsers and pasting that information with formatting into InDesign?

I’m VERY much in favor of manufacturers informing us better about what’s being installed. On the other hand, I can imagine the headaches of providing detailed information about, say, new “copy-and-paste translators” being added for browsers when InDesign is updated, if I’ve guessed correctly. Most people won’t have a clue what the technical information means, and most won’t care. There will be compulsive tekkies who will demand further information, or the capability of micromanaging the update process. That leaves a very small number of users who will actually get something useful from being informed and won’t generally cause further headaches for the manufacturers.

Full disclosure: I’ve been trying to get a bug fixed in an Adobe application that’s been reported for several years now. I’ve even got an inside contact … but no progress despite 7 months of on-and-off correspondence wotj. When I think about the kind of excellent response I generally get from small companies and even free-ware writers…

I think are absolutely right that large software companies can become bloated and insensitive. I’m very worried about the continuing trend towards oligopoly in the industry. Doctrine says that competition ensures sensitivity to customer needs. Hmmm…

That said, I try to decide for each given issue is if the the problem can be attributed to that trend, or it’s just due some numb-brained individual inside who made a stupid choice.

Henry