tip: disable PDF viewer in Chrome

Hi All,

One of my pet peeves is when folks don't date their articles
on the web. Articles on Google products are the worst.
You look for something and find a bazillions hits on defunct
procedures.

Well, not. Chrome's build in PDF view stinks to high heaven.
It even screws up one's ability to print calendars from Google
Calendar. Chuckle.

Good luck finding an "in date" article on how to fix it.

Well, I found an article that covers the current version
and previous versions of Chrome that I really like on how
to disable Chrome's build in PDF viewer.

https://www.drivereasy.com/knowledge...on-57-onwards/

-T

T wrote:

One of my pet peeves is when folks don't date their articles
on the web. Articles on Google products are the worst.
You look for something and find a bazillions hits on defunct
procedures.

There are lots of blogs that purport to be news articles yet the authors
have no awareness that information is always time sensitive. Most
information gets stale or inaccurate as it gets older but some becomes
more valuable with age. Articles aren't bots checking for updated
information or to correct it, and way too many authors don't review
their past articles to update for relevance or accuracy. The reader has
to do that research but it helps a lot if the article is datestamped to
know how relevant it is and what might've changed since published.

Well, not. Chrome's build in PDF view stinks to high heaven.
It even screws up one's ability to print calendars from Google
Calendar. Chuckle.

Good luck finding an "in date" article on how to fix it.

When you did an online search, did you mention the version of Chrome?
Since configuration is dependent on software version, you should add the
version in a search.

https://www.google.com/search?q=goog...l+pdf+vie wer

Specify whatever is your version of Chrome in the search criteria. The
first hit in the above search is for a Windows Club article. Although
datestamps in articles should be at the top, like just under the title,
this one has the datestamp at the bottom in the author's profile box.

Even if I omit the version number from the search, I still got hits on
articles that were accurate on how to configure NOT to use Chrome's PDF
viewer for versions 57+. I used Google. Don't know what search engine
you used.

Yes, there are lots of articles on how to DISABLE that function within
Google Chrome. Same for Firefox. Instead of loading the PDF document
into an integral PDF viewer, have the web browser pass it to whatever is
currently defined in your OS as the PDF handler.

I have PDF viewing disabled in both Google Chrome and Firefox. When I
find a PDF in Firefox that I want to read, click on it, it downloads
into the temp folder, and the web browser passes that document as a
command-line argument (%1) to the PDF handler. In my case, that would
be PDFXchange Editor. Firefox is more gracious in actually starting the
PDF handler for you. Google Chrome just has you download the .pdf file
and then *you* have to use the download status shown at the bottom of
its window or its Downloads dialog to elect to open it (which uses the
OS-defined default handler). Chrome takes a couple more mouse clicks
than Firefox to not just download the PDF but also automatically open it
in the default handler.

I'm on the fence regarding Mozilla's PDF viewer (pdf.js) mostly because,
for me, my PDF handler (PDFXchange Editor) is primarily used as just a
viewer. Google's PDF viewer in Chrome sucks, so I configured Chrome to
pass the PDF to the currently defined default .pdf handler in the OS
(which is PDFXchange Editor, for me). To keep the web browsers somewhat
consistent in behavior, I also disabled using Firefox's PDF viewer to
have it also use my default PDF handler.

Well, I found an article that covers the current version
and previous versions of Chrome that I really like on how
to disable Chrome's build in PDF viewer.

https://www.drivereasy.com/knowledge...on-57-onwards/

I never thought of PDF handling as hidden features in Firefox or Google
Chrome. In Firefox, you configure the handler for the filetype: itself
or an external handler (registered program for the filetype). In Google
Chrome 57+, you configure the Content settings: you have Chrome open the
temp downloaded PDF or you have it pass it to the OS-defined filetype
handler. In pre-57, you enabled/disabled the PDF plug-in. If you're a
long-time Firefox user, you should be aware of Mozilla dropping support
for plug-ins.

Yes, some users never delve into the settings for a program. They
deliberately choose to remain ignorant of what the program can do or how
its behavior can be altered. After installing software, and as part of
actually learning about it instead of just blindly using it, I dig into
its settings. After all, how can you know how to use a program if you
don't check how it can be configured? I may not understand all the
settings at the time but I've seen them at least once, so later I may
recall a setting when I want the program to do something different. Not
all settings may be exposed via a config GUI dialog but are stored in
the registry. To me, looking in and editing the registry is no
different or more difficult than editing the .ini files of old to
configure a program. Looking into the Windows registry using
regedit.exe is a hell of lot easier than using SQL commands to query a
database.

Google wrote their own PDF viewer and their own Flash player
(PepperFlash using PPAPI: Pepper Plug-in API). As part of Mozilla's
continued Chromification of Firefox, Mozilla started Project Mortar to
look at using Google's PPAPI and PDF libs in Firefox. They decided not
to go with Google's PDF viewer and instead stick with their pdf.js PDF
viewer; see https://mozilla.github.io/pdf.js/.

https://news.slashdot.org/story/16/0...-flash-plugins
https://techdows.com/2016/09/firefox...r-project.html
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Mortar_Project

Adobe is dropping Flash in 2020, so Mozilla decided not to waste time on
Flash by trying to incorporate Google's PPAPI to support Flash. By the
time Mozilla got the bugs mostly worked out with integration of PPAPI,
Adobe would be killing off Flash. See:

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/...lugins/Roadmap
https://theblog.adobe.com/adobe-flash-update/

On 08/31/2018 02:34 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
Adobe is dropping Flash in 2020

Good riddance!!!

Now to get all the foot draggers to update their web
sites to html5. I can hear the bitching now!

:'(

In article , wrote:

Now to get all the foot draggers to update their web
sites to html5. I can hear the bitching now!

nearly everyone has long since done that.

the few who haven't don't have sites that are worth visiting anyway.

On Fri, 31 Aug 2018 12:22:53 -0700, T wrote:


One of my pet peeves is when folks don't date their articles
on the web.

When I look at the header information of your post, I see:

Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 12:22:53 -0700

Is there some other date information that people should see?

On 08/31/2018 03:04 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , wrote:

Now to get all the foot draggers to update their web
sites to html5. I can hear the bitching now!

nearly everyone has long since done that.

the few who haven't don't have sites that are worth visiting anyway.


This is the worst one I have to deal with:

https://login.trustwave.com/portal-core/home/plm

And they are a security company!

On 08/31/2018 03:38 PM, Monty wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2018 12:22:53 -0700, T wrote:


One of my pet peeves is when folks don't date their articles
on the web.

When I look at the header information of your post, I see:

Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 12:22:53 -0700

Is there some other date information that people should see?



I was talking about "how to" articles.

Newgroups are automatically dated, fortunately!

What I would really love to see is these two
groups archived. Google is being as ass about it.
Probably trying to keep M$ happy with their horrible
community support

In article , wrote:

Now to get all the foot draggers to update their web
sites to html5. I can hear the bitching now!

nearly everyone has long since done that.

the few who haven't don't have sites that are worth visiting anyway.

This is the worst one I have to deal with:

https://login.trustwave.com/portal-core/home/plm

And they are a security company!

a security company who uses flash, particularly for a login page, is
*not* very good one and best avoided.

the rest of their site works without flash, and i see they offer
security scanning & detection. they ought to test their own website.

On 08/31/2018 04:19 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , wrote:

Now to get all the foot draggers to update their web
sites to html5. I can hear the bitching now!

nearly everyone has long since done that.

the few who haven't don't have sites that are worth visiting anyway.

This is the worst one I have to deal with:

https://login.trustwave.com/portal-core/home/plm

And they are a security company!

a security company who uses flash, particularly for a login page, is
*not* very good one and best avoided.

the rest of their site works without flash, and i see they offer
security scanning & detection. they ought to test their own website.


Preaching to the choir!

I have no choice but to use them. It is the credit card
processors my customer use.

Oh and they are constantly getting ****ed off at me when
they do external scans of my various firewalls. They can't
find me so they think I powered them off before the test.
Gee Wiz guys, just exactly what do you think a 500 U$D
firewall is suppose to do?

In article , wrote:


This is the worst one I have to deal with:

https://login.trustwave.com/portal-core/home/plm

And they are a security company!

a security company who uses flash, particularly for a login page, is
*not* very good one and best avoided.

the rest of their site works without flash, and i see they offer
security scanning & detection. they ought to test their own website.

Preaching to the choir!

I have no choice but to use them. It is the credit card
processors my customer use.

that's unfortunate.

Oh and they are constantly getting ****ed off at me when
they do external scans of my various firewalls. They can't
find me so they think I powered them off before the test.
Gee Wiz guys, just exactly what do you think a 500 U$D
firewall is suppose to do?

they're even more clueless than i first thought.

T wrote:

VanguardLH wrote:

Adobe is dropping Flash in 2020

Good riddance!!!
Now to get all the foot draggers to update their web sites to html5.
I can hear the bitching now!

Adobe warned about discontinuing Flash many years ago. No matter how
long for a grace period, some will still procrastinate until the deed is
absolutely needs to get performed or they refuse to change. They get
left behind. If a site relies on Flash content for revenue, they'll die
if they don't convert to HTML5 video. Just another site that came and
went. Happens all the time.

https://www.pcworld.com/article/1910...h_html5.htm l
(that one's dated back in 2010)

Even after Adobe drops support for Flash, many sites still have a lot of
Flash content. Flash content will survive's Adobe's cutoff. Some
archived content is in Flash. There have always been file formats that
get discarded but there remain documents using the old formats.

The Flash Player will still be available for a long time. The Flash
Player on your computer won't self-destruct at the end of 2020: it will
still play .swf files (that actually have content, not just a pointer).
It's the streaming Flash content (where the .swf file doesn't hold the
content but just points at its resource on a server) at the sties that
will get disencumbered from web browsers that the sites will have to
convert or abandon.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/...to_HTML5/Video
https://theblog.adobe.com/what-to-ex...lash-to-html5/

Monty wrote:

T wrote:

One of my pet peeves is when folks don't date their articles on the
web.

When I look at the header information of your post, I see:
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 12:22:53 -0700
Is there some other date information that people should see?

He wasn't talking about his submissions aka posts aka articles in
Usenet. He was talking about articles on the Web.

On 08/31/2018 04:53 PM, T wrote:
On 08/31/2018 02:34 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
Adobe is dropping Flash in 2020

Good riddance!!!

Now to get all the foot draggers to update their web
sites to html5.Â* I can hear the bitching now!

:'(

There are some sites that can use HTML5, but won't unless they think you
don't have Flash.

On 08/31/2018 05:04 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , wrote:

Now to get all the foot draggers to update their web
sites to html5. I can hear the bitching now!

nearly everyone has long since done that.

the few who haven't don't have sites that are worth visiting anyway.

I use Firefox, and had to reinstall everything (hardware problem) a few
months ago. Flash used to be a regular part of such a reinstallation,
but I haven't yet for this installation. I haven't had a need for it
yet, even on a site somebody told me required Flash. It doesn't, just
uses it if it knows about it.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

sign at a travel agency "Welcome ... Please Go Away"

On 08/31/2018 05:53 PM, T wrote:

[snip]

This is the worst one I have to deal with:

https://login.trustwave.com/portal-core/home/plm

And they are a security company!

It looks like an error page. Its wrong about JavaScript (I do have that).

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

sign at a travel agency "Welcome ... Please Go Away"