Creative Cloud....not everyone is a fan

<p>I have dozens (if not hundreds) of installed applications. I'm not about to attempt to reinstall them on a new operating system. Some are legacy applications from WAY back. I can probably run them under some sort of emulation modes on Windows 7 but why should I bother.</p>

<p>As Microsoft say "...<em>You'll need to reinstall your programs by hand after installing </em><em>Windows 7.</em>.." . Yea, right, that's what I'm going to do...</p>

<p>In what way is Windows 7 (which I have on my notebook) better than XP? XP does everything I ask it to do. In what way could that be "improved"? It seems to work on my notebook just fine, but so does XP SP3 on my desktop. In fact I have a backup system running Windows 2000 that never misses a beat.</p>

<p>Vista sucked big time, Windows 8 sucks but might be redeemable if Microsoft listen to their user base. I'm certainly not gambling on Windows 7 unless I have absolutely no choice, in which case I'll wait for them to fix Windows 8 for desktop use.</p>

<p>I can easily live without Lightroom 4.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The questions to ask are "Is the product as good?" and "Will it cost me more or less than before?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />I'm just going out on a limb here, but something tells me Adobe didn't make this move with the intention of taking <em><strong>less</strong></em> money...</p>

>>> Yes, let's wax poetic on your powerful passive-aggressive piece of snark.

 

 

( Heh, "no plans to..." ) = ( powerful passive-aggressive piece of snark. )

 

!

 

:)

<p>Richard, you need to read the rest of what I wrote.</p>

<p>What is really need to combat the Creative Suite of Adobe is for another company to build a similar system. But one that is not an assemblage from other developers. One that is fully integrated and all of the displays are matched so the tools are all in the same place, and saving files can be in any of the normal outputs. I suspect the Chinese have the skill sets to do this and underprice Adobe in the Market. The lack of a serious competitor leaves us at the mercy of Adobe and its marketing policies.</p>

<p>I will stick with CS5 as long as I can. I worked with Photoshop 4 and Elements 2 up to three years ago. It was ten years of usage until I needed a bigger computer for stitching photos using more than four photos.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nobody ever succeeds at keeping proprietary formats proprietary.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Except maybe Apple, Oracle, and Microsoft.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In what way is Windows 7 (which I have on my notebook) better than XP?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Security. I think it's the worst OS you can use today. W7 is faster and the Search Bar is fantastic as well. Unlike Andy, I love Windows 8, the concept of tiles and "signing in" to my work space on multiple computers. And again, W8 is also a huge security improvement over W7 as well as being faster than W7. I used to love the stability of XP and the software compatibility is incredible. But I couldn't be paid to use it today.</p>

<p>I don't have anything to add unfortunately but rading this thread makes me realise that I am way <em>way </em>behind in understanding current computer systems.</p>

<p>Bob, I have Picture Window Pro, and I used it for 16-bit pre-processing as a front end to PSP 9. However, what bothered me was that I didn't have 16 bit tools like cloning, perspective correction, sharpening, etc. PSP X promised 16 bit editing, and like a sucker I bought it, thinking the 16 bit extended throughout their collection of tools. In fact it gave me literally nothing more than I already had with PW and PSP9, except perhaps for a more seamless environment in a slightly dumbed-down user interface.</p>

<p>I like the new features in Lightroom 5. As time goes by I use CS6 less and less. I am not generally into heavy manipulation and LR does almost all of it. Mostly my CS6 is used for big prints but I am doing most of my stuff for the web and none of that ever sees photoshop. As for the Hitler thing, unlike most of you I was around during WWII. I don't think the parody is funny to those death camp survivors who are still with us. I think it demeans and trivializes their suffering. He killed and tortured six million Jews and we lost four hundred thousand troops in WWII not to mention horrible civilian losses. Those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it as we all know and making light of him as a personality is not respectful to those who gave their lives to stop his madness. The video makes a some good points but when I watch it, having participated in war myself, I think it somewhat sick.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> However, what bothered me was that I didn't have 16 bit tools like cloning, perspective correction, sharpening, etc.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Do you need them? 16 bit editing can be useful at times when <em>large</em> changes need to be made in levels to prevent quantization (banding). However things like distortion and perspective correction, cloning and sharpening don't significantly benefit from 16 bit editing as far as I know. Plus images that don't need large changes made don't really benefit from 16 bit editing.<br>

<br>

GIMP now supports 16 bit editing in their current "unstable" version, but which functions are available I don't know. The current "stable" version 2.8 has all the 16/32 code engine built in but doesn't offer 16 bit functions in the user interface. I think the next stable update (2.10?) will have 16bit and possibly even 32 bit processing available. I'm not sure on which functions though.<br>

<br>

Of course the point is moot if you are processing 8 bit JPEGs and if you're using RAW files all the major level and color adjustments, sharpening etc. are done at the 16 bit level in the RAW convereter, so you really don't normally need 16-bit image editing on the JPEG created by the RAW converter.<br>

<br>

16-bit editing could be useful for major adjustments of 16 bit TIFF files from scanned slides I guess, but I've not need that in the last decade as far as I recall.</p>

<p>Just a warning trying to download trial versions of any apps off Adobe's site. It appears CC subscription route is the only way to access downloads this way. I mentioned my experience I just had today trying to download CS6 over at Luminous Landscape and it seems to have gotten buried so I'll just copy/past what happened to me and others and post it below in quotes.</p>

<p>The Adobe forum link pretty much explains the issues with Adobe Application Manager and how it could affect perpetual license apps that are not CC subscription. The last page shows screenshots to command line troubleshooting with Windows. You need to read the first entry and "Correct" answer given by an Adobe Staff member to get the complete issue. It's not pretty.</p>

<p>My #730 entry at LuLa's long CC thread... http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=78085.720</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Has anyone actually signed up with the CC service here?<br /><br />Well I sort of inadvertently ended up signing up, entering my date of birth and agreeing to Adobe marketing by phone, mail or email just trying to download the trial version of CS6 after discovering my options with LR4 due to no other download options available on Adobe's site.<br /><br />Now I have a new app on my system called AAM (Adobe Application Manager) permanently on my Mac system which now controls BOTH CC subscription apps (I'm not using) and perpetual licenses of existing Adobe apps. <br /><br />I found the link below to an Adobe forum discussion about issues with this AAM answered by an Adobe Staff member and it doesn't look good for those who have perpetual licenses with regard to removing AAM from the system if you use Adobe apps...<br /><br /><a href="http://forums.adobe.com/message/4719208" target="_blank">http://forums.adobe.com/message/4719208</a><br /><br />The reason I'm posting is that the downloading interface has changed where you can't see the size and length of time of the download within the AAM. There's no instructions for what you're getting into. You just end up going headlong into the download sequence one step at a time. By the time you find out what you've done the AAM is on your system. I found out by accident the download size is listed in your "Signed In" Adobe "My Account" dropdown menu within the CC app web page. Very Google-ish way of doing things. <br /><br />I had to stop the download because it was taking WAY TOO long. CS6 is a 2GB download just to try it out."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As an additional note of concern I've got LR4 DVD-ROM coming in the mail from my purchasing it off Amazon and I'm a bit concerned this AAM is going to get in the act when I enter the serial number off the DVD and cause trouble like the folks are having in that Adobe forum discussion.</p>

<p>I'm crossing my fingers of that not happening. I can't remove the AAM but if things go wrong I'll have to download the <strong><em>"Cleaner"</em></strong> mentioned in that Adobe forum.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Richard, you need to read the rest of what I wrote.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I did, and it's pretty obvious that Adobe's bean counters think far too many people (I wonder what proportion?) are routinely skipping versions and losing them money. Almost as bad as piracy! I've always disliked time-bombed subscription software and the whole crack dealer business model that goes with it, and this no exception. Increasing their overall profits is the only motivation for the change, and they don't mind giving their current 'every version' upgraders a bit of a break to do it (at least for now).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Do you need them?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sometimes, yes. When doing a spot here and a dab there, the 8 bit is usually fine. However, if one edits an image more thoroughly, making repeated passes over the same area, severe combing can occur. Admittedly, most people don't edit an image that far, but I sometimes do.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I'm going to tweet my rage until my fingers bleed" seems strangely appropriate. --Bob Atkins</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Adobe is the new Gestapo.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>With the introduction of CC, there doesn't seem to be a "student version" anymore. Will school courses that require graphics software still use PS? My hunch is that some won't. School and student budgets are tight and requiring students to learn a software product for which they will have to pay a monthly fee for the rest of their life seems like a far stretch. </p>

<p>So just to summarise...</p>

<p>mortgage/rent<br>

property tax<br>

electric bill<br>

water<br>

gas<br>

cable bill<br>

Internet bill<br>

Landline bill<br>

Cell phone bill<br>

Satellite radio bill<br>

And now Photoshop bill</p>

<p>So these are just some of the monthly bills we have been asked to pay in perpetuity. Well I ditched the land line and cable. I took a meat cleaver to the satellite radio bill and got a stripped down package. And I refuse to pay the Photoshop bill. I would like even for just a portion of the remainder of my life to OWN something. I can't just be an ATM machine for corporations. At a certain point I'm just going to do without. Photoshop CS6 is going to be it for now. I own it. Even if I lose my job tomorrow I will still own it.</p>

<p>The Photoshop bill when examined in isolation doesn't look that bad. But that's the problem. Everyone says oh my bill just adds $5, $10, $20 extra dollars a month. Well you end up with 5, 6, 7, 8 bills like that a month and you aren't going to make any forward progress. I like to budget, make my purchase, and be done with it. Bleeding money forever is totally unappealing.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>He killed and tortured six million Jews and we lost four hundred thousand troops in WWII not to mention horrible civilian losses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Your convictions here are heartfelt, earnest, and no one is attempting to trivialize them. Most people are aware of Adolph Hitler's place in human history. Watching a parody about Adobe software is not going to make people "forget the past" and stumble blindly into another World War. <br>

<br>

The 'Downfall' clip has been used to parody countless unpopular products and policies. It has become a cultural phenomenon. It's admittedly edgy and a bit tasteless, but personally, I think it's a stretch to suggest that it dishonors those who died in the Holocaust or experienced WWII firsthand.</p>

<p>European diseases killed ninety percent of the indigenous people living in Latin America at the time of the arrival of Cortez (roughly 70 million people). The American economy (first the Colonies and later the USA) exploited 12 million African slaves over the course of 200 years of government sanctioned slavery. These were human tragedies of a massive scale, but no one would suggest that Americans and Europeans should refrain from taking part in humorous sketches as a result. </p>

<p>Human history is full of grim and regrettable chapters. We acknowledge past tragedies, make corrections such as the abolition of slavery, and move forward for the betterment of mankind. Thankfully, we have amazing movies such as 'Downfall' (and the chilling performance of Bruno Ganz) to remind us of the damage that the dark side of human nature can perpetuate. Personally, I take some degree of comfort watching Ganz' portrayal of Hitler realizing for the first time that his "reich" is about to collapse. </p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>With the introduction of CC, there doesn't seem to be a "student version" anymore.</em></p>

<p>There is the student and teacher version which is currently $19.99/mo (for all the programs included) in the US. It is often the case that the students can use campus licenses to software without paying for their own license; I guess it would depend on the school whether this is provided (or whether Adobe issues such licenses; e.g. I have access to campus licenses to lots of software but not Adobe). In any case if the students of graphic arts are to use their home computers, they need expensive displays, color calibration tools, maybe printers etc. which probably are easier (not to mention cheaper) to use at school in such programs as photography or graphic design.</p>

<p>I see the CC subscription as a bargain and I get access to many useful programs (such as Illustrator and Premiere) which I could not justify as perpetual license purchases, in addition to frequently updated Photoshop and Lightroom.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"There is the student and teacher version which is currently $19.99/mo (for all the programs included) in the US. It is often the case that the students can use campus licenses to software without paying for their own license; I guess it would depend on the school whether this is provided..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Looks like I will be taking the library course or auditing something.</p>

<p>Most of the people who are upset about Adobe's new rental model aren't even on Adobe's radar.<br /><br />The rental model is based on extracting maximum revenue from specifically defined "core" users. Those users are professional graphic designers and Web content developers who rely on Adobe tools for their livelihood, and have no alternatives. Those who rely on several Adobe tools will probably find the rental plan very attractive and cost-effective, since they're getting an excellent deal on software that they would continually update anyway. Those who rely on one or two Adobe tools will find the plan less attractive, but they'll dutifully pay their rent because they have no other choice. The focus on its most loyal (and dependent) users is a sensible way for Adobe to maximize its investors' return by ensuring steady continuous revenue.<br /><br />It's the amateur/hobbyist Photoshop users who are understandably upset about the new business model, since they get a very raw deal. But that's intentional, since the amateur/hobbyist is outside the market Adobe needs to focus on. Adobe has no ill will toward amateur/hobbyists, some of whom have been faithfully purchasing every upgrade since Day 1. It's strictly a business decision. The MBA-geniuses crunched the numbers, and the numbers told them that Adobe no longer needs the amateur/hobbyist as a "core" customer. <br /><br />Adobe, of course, hasn't completely ignored the amateur/hobbyist. They offer Elements, which is much friendlier and fully meets the needs of nearly all that market. They also offer Lightroom, which is a crossover product suitable for many of the professional photographers who are not "core" customers as well as the amateur/hobbyist. Those products will continue to be available with perpetual licenses because there are competitive products in that market. They can't get away with forcing the rental model down those users' throats, as they can with their captive "core" market. And there is, of course, nothing to stop a dedicated hobbyist from renting Photoshop. But as far as Adobe is concerned, that's nothing more than a grateful free-will donation. <br /><br />Again it's all strictly business, to maximize shareholder return. But however brilliant the plan for doing that, there's some risk involved. Adobe is now maximally leveraging its current monopoly. But if that leads competitors to create truly competitive products (or leads the developer community to add full color management and Photoshop plug-in compatibility to The GIMP), it could eventually backfire.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br />Again it's all strictly business</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Indeed: