Why Does Adobe Reader Need a System Restart?

[Lemurion]

I just updated Adobe Reader - and now it says it needs a system restart. What I want to know is why a simple and stupid document reader needs a system restart whenever it updates?

It's ridiculous!

[Worldwalker]

It loads DLLs. It needs a restart to load the new one instead of the old one. Or at least, that's my guess.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

A lot of programs need a restart after updating. It's annoying but that is the way it's done.

[will850]

double post

[will850]

Basically its answered already.
More detailed maybe: the adobe installer updated a shared dll which is currently in use by another running program.
So in order to install it windows has to shut down and restart.


will

[Lemurion]

I understand the whole need to reload shared DLLs thing - what I don't understand is why anyone would or could ever think it was reasonable to code a document reader that way/

[Hellmark]

most apps for windows use a shared framework of APIs. Why do the same work five times over, when you can have 5 apps use the same files? Adobe does this a lot. Problem is, if you update that file, all apps that use it have to be restarted as well, or they'll keep using the older version that is in memory. For windows, it is just easier to do a system update.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

This explaination was posted just a little while ago.

[wodin]

Why Do Application Installs Make You Reboot and Close Other Apps?

Originally Posted by How-To Geek

... really sad thing is that many applications these days are completely self-contained and aren’t replacing built-in Windows DLLs, but their installers still make you reboot.

[brecklundin]

part of the problem is you are dealing with legacy code...a LOT of legacy code. If coded correctly even in the case of shared DLL's the app should run in it's own memory space so a system restart should never been needed, only the service or app restarted.

Adobe is not alone in this crap...they are too cheap and lazy to recode the whole bloated mess even at the rates they are paying the exploited developers in whatever backwater country they pawn the development off to...trust me none of these companies use top tier developers anymore. If you watch the movie "Outsourced" you get a mildly humorous but also telling look at how people are treated. You know it's bad when call centers/code monkey's or whatever are off-shored from India where they get around an 8-10 to 1 cost per US developer over to China or other Asian country where they are getting 20-25 developers/support staff to one in the US or other country...and notice few if ANY of these jobs end up in the EU either...they head to wherever there are essentially no employee protection laws on the books. Just pay the bribes...errrr....fees and you have a building full of staff and who cares if it's done right. And it's not the poor employee's fault as rarely are they give other than basic training by someone who is likely only going through the motions while in the death-throws of their career and just wants them to reach the minimum level of efficiency....

Hence bloated crappy code from the corporate giants who have all the money to push the right buttons...one day this is going to collapse but I am gonna be long dead before then, unless it happens within the next 3-5 years that is...I would LOVE to see everything collapse under it's own weight of corruption...it will be very ugly and people will die, but we get the world we want it seems...

Now does that make sense? The marketing spin is it's because of the shared DLL thing, but that has not been a real issue since Win98...except for legacy code that never was written to the published Windows application guidelines to begin with...all that should be needed is to restart a process...and yes I have my tin foil hat but that also does not mean I am wrong.

[JeremyR]

What I find annoying is that Adobe rather sneakily tries to always run its updater program in the background, constantly checking for updates. Instead of doing that when I start Reader, which is probably once ever 6 months...

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by JeremyR

What I find annoying is that Adobe rather sneakily tries to always run its updater program in the background, constantly checking for updates. Instead of doing that when I start Reader, which is probably once ever 6 months...

When it's to fix security flaws, that's a reasonable enough approach. Bugs which allow malicious code execution really need to be patched as soon as possible. It's only too easy to be fooled into opening a malicious link on a web site that exploits a security hole. I have no issues with regular update checks.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by JeremyR

What I find annoying is that Adobe rather sneakily tries to always run its updater program in the background, constantly checking for updates. Instead of doing that when I start Reader, which is probably once ever 6 months...

I agree with what Harry has to say about it. I use Acrobat on a daily basis so I certainly don't have a problem with it. If you do, then all you need to do is get a good two way firewall (like Zone Alarm) so it can't phone home. I don't recommend that unless you faithfully manually check for updates (like that will happen) or you are running some program like Secunia PSI which checks for updates for you (a good idea even if you do let Adobe "phone home").

[HarryT]

It's especially understandable when you consider the reason for this patch:

Adobe has patched 23 security vulnerabilities in its Reader document viewer, including one that criminals were exploiting to install malware on the PCs of unwitting victims.

At least 18 of the other flaws also made it possible for attackers to remotely hijack users' PCs, Adobe said in an bulletin released on Tuesday. The patch updates Reader and its sister application, Acrobat, to versions 9.4 and 8.2.5.

Adobe accelerated the release of the patch after researcher Mila Parkour uncovered a sophisticated attack circulating by email that exploited a stack overflow. The exploit was notable because it bypassed defensive protections Microsoft has built into more recent versions of Windows, such as ASLR, or address space layout randomization, and DEP, or data execution prevention. (The bypass was made possible by a programming mistake on Adobe's part.)
...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10...ecurity_patch/

[Lady Fitzgerald]

While I agree having to restart a computer after an update is annoying (sometimes the reason is a good one and sometimes it is just from lazy programming; frankly, I just don't care), one can always delay installing updates until just before one can shut down at the end of the day or just don't restart until the end of the day (Microsnot updates are an exception since, if you don't keep telling them not to, they will just up and do it behind your back; those I update just before I'm going to shut down, generally just letting it happen while I'm sleeping). I run my computer 24/7 and need to restart every few days to clear up any glitches that may sneak in during that time so I just don't feel its that big a deal. I prefer to wait a couple of days before installing updates just to make sure they aren't buggy (it's been known to happen; reports of it come out pretty quickly) so I can pretty much pick my time. It's just not worth getting all out of joint over it.