Dear Adobe

[Frank Petronio]

http://www.dearadobe.com/top_rated.php

So true....

[Daniel_Buck]

51. make a Linux build!!

[Gordon Moat]

CS4 is coming out 23 September . . . I guess that is too late for that list.

[Walter Calahan]

Yep, all true.

CS4 will need its own list, I'm sure.

Thanks, Frank.

[Greg Miller]

I think #1 is spot on. I get so frustrated with getting a pop-up window for Acrobat updates every time I open at a PDF. They should have stopped updating with version 1.0. It doesn't need to do much else other than display the darn file.

[Greg Miller]

Now that I have taken time to read the entire list, all 50 are spot on. Although they should consolidate the list to reduce all the redundancy, and make room for a few more suggestions.

[Scott Knowles]

I guess I don't see a problem with Adobe and find the list just a rant against them. They're good at their products and marketing, and I don't see they're losing customers even if the prices seem unusually high. Once you buy a package, the prices aren't that bad to upgrade and you get free updates.

As for the pop ups windows, you don't mind all the e-mail spams and ads on Web pages but mind Adobe's for Acrobat? Buy it and you can turn them off for specified periods. I don't get them, so I don't see a problem.

I'm not defending them, only I don't see a problem with them. If you don't like them, don't buy or use their product. Oh, I forgot, PDF is a standard format and the reader is free, only you have to put with the annoying window that all software packages have. If you update, they go away.

[Greg Miller]

I think Adobe is pretty good overall too (I used to think Photoshop was the most bug free and stable app available; The new features in CS3 were great, but they slipped a bit in the QC/QA area). But the list is pretty accurate too. All apps can be improved, so I did not see the list as a rant; I actually think it is pretty humorous.


And I did buy Adobe Acrobat. But I still get "install our new version of reader" waaaay more often than I should. It already does what it needs to do. Stop adding features. I just want the read a PDF. I don't want to stop and install a new update. And Acrobat Reader should be able to launch much quicker than it does. If they kept the functionality to a minimum it would be a much leaner app to load.

The other comments about having to close Firefox to install an update to Firefox are very true as well. WTF?!?!



I guess I don't see a problem with Adobe and find the list just a rant against them. They're good at their products and marketing, and I don't see they're losing customers even if the prices seem unusually high. Once you buy a package, the prices aren't that bad to upgrade and you get free updates.

As for the pop ups windows, you don't mind all the e-mail spams and ads on Web pages but mind Adobe's for Acrobat? Buy it and you can turn them off for specified periods. I don't get them, so I don't see a problem.

I'm not defending them, only I don't see a problem with them. If you don't like them, don't buy or use their product. Oh, I forgot, PDF is a standard format and the reader is free, only you have to put with the annoying window that all software packages have. If you update, they go away.

[Frank Petronio]

Acrobat takes 30 seconds to launch, Preview takes 1 second at most.

[Scott Schroeder]

Recently I was reading some old photo books off archive.org. Using the Foxit reader (which does open and load faster) just wasn't as good as Adobe. I was kind of surprised because Foxit is fine for most general viewing, but when it came to layout and readability adobe was much better.

[David Luttmann]

Hmmmm....wonder if my scanners and printers will work with a 64 bit version. I was looking at a sweet 64 bit Vista machine with 8gb of ram. Would be nice to finally have Photoshop handle 1.5gb scans.

[Richard M. Coda]

Adobe is probably the best there is at software. I don't get any of the complaints, especially since I switched from Windows XP to Mac last year. Their software is very stable and I have made a lot of money using it. Quark, on the other hand, sucks. I have been using it since v3 and it still works the same, and it crashes frequently.

I do wish they would make the toolsets and shortcuts the same across ID, AI, and PS. Flash could be easier to use, but they've only had that a short time. And, I agree that Bridge is a waste... I especially wish they would move "Browse" away from "Open" in the menus... I accidentally slip and hit Browse sometimes and then have to wait for Bridge to open. Put it at the bottom of the menu where it belongs.

[Daniel_Buck]

Their software is very stable
yes, photoshop is quite stable! Always has been, from as far back as I can remember. I think that's because they wait a year or two before they implement 'new features' even though the technology is already there for the features. That's my guess anyway.

[David Luttmann]

yes, photoshop is quite stable! Always has been, from as far back as I can remember. I think that's because they wait a year or two before they implement 'new features' even though the technology is already there for the features. That's my guess anyway.

Agreed. I can't remember the last time Photoshop crashed for me.

[Don Hutton]

I work with 1.6G scans a fair bit and CS3 leaks memory and I have the odd crash - on both a mac and PC platform. I don't find it that stable when you push the envelope.

[Scott Knowles]

As for "launching" Acrobat, are you starting it from your browser with an on-line file or opening a file on disk? I know Acrobat takes awhile opening an on-line file because it has to load almost the entire file before displaying, so you're getting the download time and not the launch time. Loading from a file on disk only takes a few seconds for me, from small file (<1Mbyte) to large ones (>10 Mbytes). And I don't get the popup windows because I set Adobe CS3 to check for updates weekly (Sundays) and don't see any in between, loading any on-line PDF.

[Daniel_Buck]

I work with 1.6G scans a fair bit and CS3 leaks memory and I have the odd crash - on both a mac and PC platform. I don't find it that stable when you push the envelope.

What are the specs on your machines? I work with large files quite often as well (scans, as well as large digital stitches with many layers), although photoshop slows down when you run out of ram and it has to swap things to the drive alot, it doesn't ever (or very very rarely) crash on me. At work, our 3d programs and 2d compositing programs crash regularly, but photoshop is the stable rock.

[jim kitchen]

Folks,

Has anyone used this application on their Mac?

http://www.pixelmator.com/

jim k

[D. Bryant]

What are the specs on your machines? I work with large files quite often as well (scans, as well as large digital stitches with many layers), although photoshop slows down when you run out of ram and it has to swap things to the drive alot, it doesn't ever (or very very rarely) crash on me. At work, our 3d programs and 2d compositing programs crash regularly, but photoshop is the stable rock.
CS3 has memory leaks. It works well most of the time but occasionally it will get confused. I can't believe Adobe would release a product with memory leaks, especially one that is so pricey and has such a large user base.

Don Bryant

[Jiri Vasina]

jim k,

although it's not for me (I don't have a Mac [yet? :) ]), I've looked at it. Seems interesting, but nowhere did I find any mention on supported bit-depth of the images. Does it work with 16-bit per channel files? I save all my files as 16-bit p/c JPEG2000, have used this format for several years. It saves a lot of space in the long run (compared with TIFF/PSD. There are very few other formats supporting higher bit-depth). And this pixelmator seems to be reading them (at least as per specification).

[Daniel_Buck]

CS3 has memory leaks. It works well most of the time but occasionally it will get confused. I can't believe Adobe would release a product with memory leaks, especially one that is so pricey and has such a large user base.

Don Bryant

very well might be! I've only used CS3 a few times, most of my recent heavy work with photoshop has mostly been in CS2, I have yet to do a big project in CS3 (and since you've mentioned it, I may stick with CS2 just to be safe!) We aren't on the latest versions of all our 3d or 2d programs either, sometimes by choice due to major bugs in the latest versions!

[jim kitchen]

Photoshop CS2 does leak memory...

A few months ago we talked about "Mac Users - How Much is Enough? " and in that discussion I mentioned the memory issue within Photoshop, which exists within the Mac version of CS2, and quite possibly CS3. I do not know about a CS3 memory leak just yet, since I have not used the new application thoroughly, and where I will probably discover whether that issue exists in the very near future.

Adobe did not abandon the original coding for Mac Photoshop, where the code is still Carbon based coding for CS2 and CS3, and within the CS2 coding there is a memory leak, which I describe in the post mentioned above, but whether the error was corrected for CS3 is still a mystery to me. The post refers to the ram requirements for Photoshop versus the ram requirements for the computer's OS, and whether Photoshop plays fair with the ram allocation, and for the moment Photoshop does not play fair. Until Adobe completely rewrites the software to operate as a native application in Cocoa while using 64bit architecture, which happens to be the current Mac OS language, Photoshop should continue to have a memory leak, forcing the application to search the hard drive for incremental space to operate within.

As a side note, I mentioned in a previous post that a few of my files approached 28GB, while marrying two 3.5GB files with layers, and Photoshop CS2 did handle the file, but Photoshop did chug along. :)

A good example of a Cocoa based Photoshop type design happens to be mentioned above in my previous post, regarding "Pixelmator." This application, although very young, looks very promising because of the newer coding design, which happens to completely incorporate Mac OS Cocoa programming. As a young application it will have a few growing pains...

I am certain Adobe is focused on this talented group of coders.

jim k

[Daniel_Buck]

oh, are we talking about photoshop in Mac then, for the memory leaks? I've only ever used it on windows. I've never (or very rarely, can't remember the last time) had any crashes with CS2 handling large files on windows, even on my home machine which is windows 2000 with only 2 gigs of ram. haha! Slows down for sure, with big files, but doesn't crash. I wish they would make a Linux version though! :-D

how do you check for memory leaking?

[jim kitchen]

jim k,

although it's not for me (I don't have a Mac [yet? :) ]), I've looked at it. Seems interesting, but nowhere did I find any mention on supported bit-depth of the images. Does it work with 16-bit per channel files? I save all my files as 16-bit p/c JPEG2000, have used this format for several years. It saves a lot of space in the long run (compared with TIFF/PSD. There are very few other formats supporting higher bit-depth). And this pixelmator seems to be reading them (at least as per specification).

Dear Jiri,

This application handles 16bit files, since I am playing within their demo mode at the moment, and I fed the application a 16bit tiff file...

I use tiff files only for printing the final image, and I always work the file as an Adobe "Large Format Document," which significantly reduces the original tiff file through a compression routine known only to Adobe, to a file size that is approximately one-quarter the original tiff file size. This "psb" format does take a while to open and save, but it happens to be my preferred file method while working within Photoshop, because the 4GB file size limitation is rendered mute for my working images.

This newer application will probably open an Adobe 16bit large format document "psb" file, but only if you buy the license for a silly low price. :)

jim k

[D. Bryant]

very well might be! I've only used CS3 a few times, most of my recent heavy work with photoshop has mostly been in CS2, I have yet to do a big project in CS3 (and since you've mentioned it, I may stick with CS2 just to be safe!) We aren't on the latest versions of all our 3d or 2d programs either, sometimes by choice due to major bugs in the latest versions!

CS2 is much worse than CS3. I much prefer CS3 to CS2. I've been using PS since 3.0 and CS3 the best yet IMO but it still leaks memory (poorly worded I admit). There are development tools that can be used to plub the leaks. As I said Adobe should be ashamed. If there were a better product I would use it.

Don Bryant

[Paul Kierstead]

I am always amazed at how functional, useful and generally well written Adobe products are, and am totally stumped out the company could screw up the updater and installer so badly. It is like they sent all the idiot programmers to that division.

Acrobat Reader displays PDFs very well. Otherwise it could only be described as crap. It is extremely clear that most users suffer very long start-ups and memory usage for a raft of features a very very small subset use. On windows I use Sumatra and on Mac I use preview.

I'd own more of the products if they were more reasonably priced.

I found the list spot on, outside of the photoshop gripe; in my usage it has been spot-on. I've used it both on mac and windows.

[redrockcoulee]

Regardless of how well Photoshop or Premiere or any of their other programs work etc the updateder can be annoying, as can Quicktime which seems to also need to be upgraded on a weekly basis. A complaint against one of their products should not be a rant against the company

[Brian Ellis]

Memory leaks? I thought they were called "senior moments."

[PViapiano]

Someone mentioned Adobe prices? Well, yes, they're very expensive...and it's not just the upfront purchase, it's the annual update subscription usually around $200, so in ten years you've shelled out $600-700 plus $1200-1500 in updates.

Digital photography is like this now as well..."upgrade now because that 3 megapixel cam is terribly inadequate...upgrade now because that 16 megapixel cam is inadequate"...it just a subscritpion that keeps going and going. Same with printers and the rest of the equipment list...basically it's just good for the retailers, manufacturers and the folks who write off gear on their taxes.

The truth is you don't need it. The gear and software you have is plenty good enough to do what you need to do. Simplify, make good choices and get out there and photograph, concentrate more on your seeing, your relationship to the process...that's worth more than any gear or software feature.

[Frank Petronio]

If you have an older system there is usually an advantage to using contemporaneous software. CS4 even on a G5 may not be pretty....

[jetcode]

That's so funny it's not funny at all but it made my day for sure ...

Now Acrobat does some kind of indexing/whatever operation and pops up a dialog box right in the middle of the document I am trying to read, and the updater from hell, etc.

It's getting so the first hour of every boot deals with the machine I lost to software vendors.

[Charles]

I work with 1.6G scans a fair bit and CS3 leaks memory and I have the odd crash - on both a mac and PC platform. I don't find it that stable when you push the envelope.

Ditto, I have a Mac Pro dual quads with 8 gigs. After going through Adobe hell (India) to get a new Mac version of CS3, it crashed the first hour after installing. However, it's only crashed a couple of times since the original install but one time did require a hard reboot of the Mac.

The reality, at least for me, is that certain functions in Photoshop (sharpening, HDR processing, stitching) are all performed better and with more efficient use of memory by other software programs. I don't find I can execute a file from scan or download to save, in one software program. Photoshop is just another necessary evil.

[Preston]

"how do you check for memory leaking?"

Your shoes slip on the floor when you get up to get a beer?

:D

-P

[Marko]

Someone mentioned Adobe prices? Well, yes, they're very expensive...and it's not just the upfront purchase, it's the annual update subscription usually around $200, so in ten years you've shelled out $600-700 plus $1200-1500 in updates.

Digital photography is like this now as well..."upgrade now because that 3 megapixel cam is terribly inadequate...upgrade now because that 16 megapixel cam is inadequate"...it just a subscritpion that keeps going and going. Same with printers and the rest of the equipment list...basically it's just good for the retailers, manufacturers and the folks who write off gear on their taxes.

Please excuse me for being a bit slow here, but what subscription are you referring to? I've been using Photoshop since version 3 and have purchased every major update that came out since then, but I was never aware of any subscription model.

In my business at least, I find that keeping my software and hardware up to date has a noticeably beneficial impact on my bottom line. Since those are my main tools of the trade, I can write them off my taxes in the same way you do with your cameras. Or film, for that matter, if you still use it professionally.

It is very simple really - if you think it is too expensive, then you don't really need it.

Actually, I've been using my current DSLR for almost three years now and I still find it pretty adequate and up to my requirements and the "upgrade police" has yet to knock on my door in the middle of the night.

Just like the film cameras, digital stuff does not come with an expiration date. It is only the professionals who need to keep their tools current, but they also get to expense it and to write it off. The amateurs can safely keep playing with what they have as long as what they have keeps working or until they start feeling constrained by it, whichever comes first. ;)

[mdd99]

CS4? I am still learning CS3!

[Ben Chase]

CS4? I am still learning CS3!

CS3? I'm still learning CS2!

[3312easy]

I can't see any pic

[Aahx]

I honestly have not seen a really valid reason for me to upgrade my Photoshop in years. And I am still using version 7 at home and CS3 (paid for by company) at work. I use Lightroom for my raw handling, and 7 to do the slight editing I need to do. Though I am a proponent of getting the image as close to perfect in the camera, so post processing is kept to a minimum. But what tools in the newer versions are applicable to my needs? I have yet to find one that I find "necessary" to be honest. Since I still shoot a lot of film in my personal work, I keep the image crafting on the camera side, and not the digital side of things. At work I shoot all digital, and find I still just don’t use many of the added tools in the CS series of Photoshop’s. Heck... most of the tools I am using are from Photoshop 4 and 5.5 days. It just seems to be by buying the newest greatest version I would just be throwing my money away.

[PViapiano]

Please excuse me for being a bit slow here, but what subscription are you referring to? I've been using Photoshop since version 3 and have purchased every major update that came out since then, but I was never aware of any subscription model.

In my business at least, I find that keeping my software and hardware up to date has a noticeably beneficial impact on my bottom line. Since those are my main tools of the trade, I can write them off my taxes in the same way you do with your cameras. Or film, for that matter, if you still use it professionally.

It is very simple really - if you think it is too expensive, then you don't really need it.

Actually, I've been using my current DSLR for almost three years now and I still find it pretty adequate and up to my requirements and the "upgrade police" has yet to knock on my door in the middle of the night.

Just like the film cameras, digital stuff does not come with an expiration date. It is only the professionals who need to keep their tools current, but they also get to expense it and to write it off. The amateurs can safely keep playing with what they have as long as what they have keeps working or until they start feeling constrained by it, whichever comes first. ;)

Of course, by subscription I mean the very updates that come out on an annual basis. I was being sarcastic...

Actually most pros don't upgrade every single time something new comes out. It's the wealthy amateurs who keep the business going. The pros know that the equipment they have still works great and continues to make them money. At a certain level, it's not the gear.

Also, pros (if they want to stay in business) need to follow a business plan that balances income and expenditures. The vast majority of pros do not make enough money to justify upgrading their equipment every single year. They need to follow their plan. The ones who are shooting for the major magazines, of course, have money to burn and definitely sink a huge amount back into their biz.

The companies know that everything you'd ever need is built-in to a camera nowadays already, that's why they start to include stuff like GPS, wireless transmission and now, HD video. It's all a very cool gee-whiz factor and could be useful for some, but for creative image making...nah, don't need it.

[Marko]

Of course, by subscription I mean the very updates that come out on an annual basis. I was being sarcastic...

Actually most pros don't upgrade every single time something new comes out. It's the wealthy amateurs who keep the business going. The pros know that the equipment they have still works great and continues to make them money. At a certain level, it's not the gear.

I was under the impression we were talking about software here, not the equipment... Either way, no need to be sarcastic. Even car manufacturers come up with "new and improved" models every three years or so but that doesn't mean we have to "update", does it? They're just minding their business, just like we do ours.

Now as for upgrading the software, a photographer obviously does not need to buy every photoshop upgrade that comes out. The fact that the software companies do come out with new versions every 18 months or so has nothing to do with the need, much less with subscription, as you put it, as some sort of mandatory participation.

But there is very little doubt about the need for prompt upgrades for those of us whose business entails cooperation with other authors who may be using any version from recent memory.


Also, pros (if they want to stay in business) need to follow a business plan that balances income and expenditures. The vast majority of pros do not make enough money to justify upgrading their equipment every single year. They need to follow their plan. The ones who are shooting for the major magazines, of course, have money to burn and definitely sink a huge amount back into their biz.

The companies know that everything you'd ever need is built-in to a camera nowadays already, that's why they start to include stuff like GPS, wireless transmission and now, HD video. It's all a very cool gee-whiz factor and could be useful for some, but for creative image making...nah, don't need it.

You know, it is always the poor and the mediocre that ridicule the wealthy and successful, the latter are too busy working on getting even more rich and successful.

[PViapiano]

Nobody's ridiculing anyone here; you didn't get my point.

[Marko]

And I still don't. Never mind, let's leave it at that.

[PViapiano]

...

[Nitish Kanabar]

I don't understand why there are so many gripes about the 'updates available' notification. Just go to the preferences dialog box and make sure that the 'Check for Updates' box is unchecked.

For Adobe Reader (on XP)
1. Ctrl K
2. Select General in Categories
3. Uncheck the 'Check for Updates' checkbox in the Application Startup section.
4. Click on OK.

I haven't been annoyed by the 'Updates Available' message ever since I did this.

[3312easy]

Photoshop CS2 much good than CS3. I prefer CS2