How Do I Set Reader 9 to be the Default Reader Over Old Acrobat?

Question

Since a crash from an unrecoverable virus, I formatted my HDD and loaded Office, etc. I downloaded Reader 9 and installed it, then reloaded my old Acrobat 6. When I try to launch a pdf file from the net, I get the statement, "The Adobe Acrobat/Reader that is running can not be used to view PDF files in a web browser. Adobe Acrobat/Reader 8 or 9 is required. Please exit and try again." When I click OK, Acrobat launches, but doesn't open the file.
I then got the report that my Acrobat could be config'd to read files in a browser, and clicked OK to do it. However, the process began, then the blank Acrobat sat for a very long time, and while I assumed it would report that it had been done successfully, it never happened, so I carried on assuming it was done. Now it just opens, but doesn't say that it can be config'd.
Even though the notice refers to the Acrobat/Reader that is running, neither are running. I've checked startup, and it doesn't show either one to be launched at startup. Task Manager doesn't show any Adobe running except when they are launched.
I have Reader 9 installed? I never had the problem before with whatever old version of Reader that I had (7?)
Tried everything I can think of and looked at every option trying to find a config that makes either one the default reader so I can disable acrobat and enable reader.
Any ideas other than uninstalling both, then reloading my old Acrobat that serves me just fine, followed by Reader 7.1 that worked just fine would be appreciated. (my fear is that soemthing from reader 9 will be left behind, and 7 won't work)
Cheers,
Bill

Answer 1

Hi Mike:
Thanks for your response. However, it doesn't work.
On reflection, I had kept the old adobe reader software in archive and loaded it, not reader 9. Then installed acrobat 6. Both worked fine in all applications that I used, as it did previously. I can't tell you which application would view the files, but do recall that it would open the file in a separate window from the browser (fine with me). Neither application has stated it couldn't run along with the other program when loading...?
My firewall kept alerting me to adobe wanting to update to 9, but I denied it all the time until I inadvertently clicked on OK. It was after that, that all the problems began.
This is so typical of doing upgrades, and I've always refused them unless functions failed. For the most part, a bunch of extraneous crap and the need to download a lot of utils happens with upgrades - with little value for me in the "wonderful new functions" added (and I'm absolutely certain the download includes new ways to snoop in one's system).
I'll cite Netscape as an example. I used it for a very long time, and it "just simply worked" for all functions. I upgraded to ver 5, and suddenly, I had to download this player, and that whatever, and still had issues (so did my friends). Of course that was dealt with patches that were called further updates. Then came new versions with the need for more util downloads, or upgrades to them.
I had also archived version 4.7 that "just simply worked", so I cleaned all old versions out and reinstalled it. Again, it just simply worked! I used it just fine up to version 7 coming out when I went over to Outlook/Explorer. I burned the s'ware onto a CD and it went around to a bunch of friends who "went back" to the good ol' reliable as well.
I do recall having to upgrade DirectX and Windoze Media Player, but after that, it worked fine. If I clicked on a video file, it ran, no need to download another player, images opened in whatever I had - didn't need to download Quicktime or ? to view a jpeg as was the case with the newer versions, etc. It just worked!
New versions were just more crap added to make money for Netscape (and annoy the user) ie: to view a jpeg, one would have to download a utility like quicktime and netscape would get a nickel(?) for every download done through it.
I'm a firm believer in "good ol'" as opposed to new and improved - whether in software or hard goods/products. New and improved most often = lower cost, cheaper components, bigger profits for the maker, and disappointment for the user. In the case of software: sent to market full of glitches/problems that the user will likely have to find out and possibly even resolve for the maker who will then write patches on top of patches until it becomes stable - usually in time for the next flawed version to appear.
I absolutely hate having to waste time and go through this kind of frustration when something worked perfectly fine, but guess I'll have to go through it and load up the old reliable versions that will function as before. Will have to do permanent denials in the firewall for things I don't want upgraded in the future so I don't screw up.
Again, thanks for the response (and sorry for the venting)
Cheers,
Bill