[robin_reala]

Note: log scale on the y axis. Current Adobe reader is 83x bigger than current Sumatra according to the chart.

[wanderingstan]

Yes. Log scale seems like a poor choice, given that the point is to show the relative size disparity.

[StrangeDoctor]

For a technical audience, it’s probably one of the better choices, it’s probably a poor one for mass consumption.

A purely linear graph would absolutely crush their pdf installer and the first 15 years of adobe into a flat line

[fooofw]

For reference, here's a version with a linear y-axis: https://imgur.com/a/A2D1puk

[qualeed]

For the purposes of this article, this graph is much more effective at making the point than the log scale one. I think it would have been a better choice to use a graph like this.

Thanks!

[ginko]

But you can barely tell the growth of sumatrapdf in the non-logarithmic chart. Same for Adobe Reader before 2000 or so.

[qualeed]

For the purposes of what this post is communicating, I don't think the exact sizes of adobe prior to 2000 or the exact size of sumatrapdf matters at all.

The linear graph instantly communicates:

    - sumatrapdf has barely changed size in the same time that adobe's size has grown exponentially

    - adobe's crazy growth spike started ~6 years ago

Maybe I'm just dumb, but I didn't realize the graph had a log y-axis at first. Then, once I realized that, I had to spend a bit of time parsing the graph to figure out what it was saying (I don't work with log graphs often at all). And once that was done, the only thing I came away with was "wow, adobe grew a hell of a lot when sumatra didnt", which is the same thing the linear graph told me instantly.

Being able to see that sumatras size remains relatively flat while adobes size growth is practically vertical is all the granularity I care about at a glance. If I want to know exact sizes, I'll dive in deeper.

[bigstrat2003]

Thank you! That graph is so much clearer than the one in the article. You can see at a glance the relative size of the two programs, which the logarithmic scale does a terrible job showing.

[Night_Thastus]

This makes way more sense if the point was to show how big and bloated Adobe Reader has gotten, and by comparison just how space-efficient Sumatra is.

Way more representative.

[bigstrat2003]

I'm a technical audience and the logarithmic scale is meaningless to me. So I don't even agree that it's a good choice for a technical audience. It may be a good choice for people who already are used to reading logarithmic scales, but that can't be a particularly large group as it's very rare to see a graph like that.

[chrismorgan]

I looked at the graph first, and misread the version numbers as sizes in megabytes, because that yielded stuff that wasn’t far off matching the curve linearly. “25.1 MB?” I said. “Huh, I’d have expected a lot more than that, but… maybe it’s just ultra compressed? Somehow? Still seems a bit too small. But maybe this article is actually praising Adobe for keeping it down.”

Then Sumatra being 3.something MB seemed possible, for a well-compressed installer.

Ugh, some of these sizes are absurd. I still remember Zoom basically doubling in a single release, as they put a second entire web browser inside the package.