Been on hold with Adobe for over 2 hours...

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

bruceb

Diamond Member
Aug 20, 2004
8,874
111
106
It is not the $600 for one copy of the program he is complaining about. It more an issue that Adobe, along with many others, like Autocad, do not offer an inexpensive upgrade to a product you paid a very high initial cost for. Also, making a new version of a program that does not operate with files created by an earlier version, is bad. It forces people to keep 2 versions in use or not to upgrade. In the end, it all comes down to GREED by the companies. And they wonder why there is software piracy. Price a product reasonably and people will pay for it. Overcharge and they will seek other ways or products.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
Most that need these programs will happily pay for them. They are making much more than the license costs.

It's the fucktard thinking he needs full blown CS1000 because he wants to resize gifs and doesn't want to spend $600+ to do so that are usually the whiners.

I don't know of many manufacturers supporting beyond 2 versions current of any software lineup.
 

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
Adobe, what an awful mess they have become. I'm an artist and when I set up my workstation I install all my other applications, but I always put off adobe till the last possible minute. Sometimes I can go 2 weeks without having to use it, then I have to break down and install 20 apps just to use photoshop. They need to realize I do not want AIR, Bridge , device manager, or any of their other crap . Someone would think they have learned, but no. If you thought adobe had mastered bloat before, you haven't seen anything yet, CS5 makes their previous bloat look like a malnourished child.



Most CAD and 3d software works for 5+ years with previous versions , it would be suicide for them not to. I have 3ds Max 2011 and it still support max 7 files which was about 6 years ago. Usually the problem is using a file from a new version in an older version.
 

rivan

Diamond Member
Jul 8, 2003
9,677
3
81
Adobe, what an awful mess they have become. I'm an artist and when I set up my workstation I install all my other applications, but I always put off adobe till the last possible minute. Sometimes I can go 2 weeks without having to use it, then I have to break down and install 20 apps just to use photoshop. They need to realize I do not want AIR, Bridge , device manager, or any of their other crap . Someone would think they have learned, but no. If you thought adobe had mastered bloat before, you haven't seen anything yet, CS5 makes their previous bloat look like a malnourished child.

I'm curious how you know. We're still waiting for our beta and I'd assume we'd be relatively early receivers of a public beta.

And if you only need PS, why are you installing the rest?


Most CAD and 3d software works for 5+ years with previous versions , it would be suicide for them not to. I have 3ds Max 2011 and it still support max 7 files which was about 6 years ago. Usually the problem is using a file from a new version in an older version.

Outside of InDesign, this is thoroughly true of the CS apps.
 

tk149

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2002
7,253
1
0
InDesign incompatibility is super annoying. So is Acrobat's bloat.

That said, if a $600 expenditure is going to break your company, I think there are bigger issues that need to be handled.

At the time, CS4 (not just InDesign) was going for a lot more.
 

rivan

Diamond Member
Jul 8, 2003
9,677
3
81
At the time, CS4 (not just InDesign) was going for a lot more.

Regardless, I just can't swallow the idea that a production environment busy enough to /require/ 3 full time workstations can't come up with enough cash to purchase a few copies of the Suite.

$1000 applications for such environments are not extraordinary. It's just not that expensive for production environments.
 

bob4432

Lifer
Sep 6, 2003
11,727
46
91
It lets you edit .pdf files.

You can also print to .pdf which is handy.

If I want to send a hand-out or document (resume, scans of my homework) to someone that I do not want them to edit, it's useful for that. The OCR feature is nice when you scan text in.

It's quite honestly absurd that Acrobat Pro costs more than certain versions of Windows and MS Office (student). The above features I mentioned are really not essential to anyone's career. The whole world could survive without .pdf files.

For as much as Acrobat costs, Adobe should be providing support for older versions.

you do realize that the adobe "protection" for their pdfs is extremely weak and takes all of 5sec w/ the correct tools. i wouldn't count on it for any real protection.
 

rivan

Diamond Member
Jul 8, 2003
9,677
3
81
you do realize that the adobe "protection" for their pdfs is extremely weak and takes all of 5sec w/ the correct tools. i wouldn't count on it for any real protection.

The average schmoe doesn't know that, though, and getting to a significantly better level of security drops usability, convenience, etc by a fair amount.

It's like bad sector copy protection, or funky heads on screws in public bathrooms. A sufficiently motivated person can work around it, but it'll generally get the job done.
 

EarthwormJim

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 2003
3,239
0
76
you do realize that the adobe "protection" for their pdfs is extremely weak and takes all of 5sec w/ the correct tools. i wouldn't count on it for any real protection.

Most people don't even have Acrobat Pro, so just sending out a .pdf is deterrent enough. Most people wouldn't even know that you can crack a .pdf, let alone find the right software to do it (without getting a virus). There's always a way around protection, I know that and have unlocked protected .pdf's myself.

It's not like I'm sending out something dealing with national security, I just don't want a person to accidentally change my formatting. Since I already have Acrobat and everyone has Acrobat Reader, I use it...
 

bob4432

Lifer
Sep 6, 2003
11,727
46
91
Most people don't even have Acrobat Pro, so just sending out a .pdf is deterrent enough. Most people wouldn't even know that you can crack a .pdf, let alone find the right software to do it (without getting a virus). There's always a way around protection, I know that and have unlocked protected .pdf's myself.

It's not like I'm sending out something dealing with national security, I just don't want a person to accidentally change my formatting. Since I already have Acrobat and everyone has Acrobat Reader, I use it...

excellent, just giving a friendly heads up as some people think that the adobe protection really protects the file and do send sensitive information that can be read, but they think can't be printed or modified.
 

EarthwormJim

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 2003
3,239
0
76
excellent, just giving a friendly heads up as some people think that the adobe protection really protects the file and do send sensitive information that can be read, but they think can't be printed or modified.

Yes, I appreciate it.

I wonder why Adobe's protection is so weak. Simple programs like winrar are pretty damn hard to crack with their encryption.

I was trying to modify the meta data on a .pdf ebook for a kindle. The ebook was protected, the unlock program I found took all of 5 seconds to change the protection. It was great :)
 

bob4432

Lifer
Sep 6, 2003
11,727
46
91
Yes, I appreciate it.

I wonder why Adobe's protection is so weak. Simple programs like winrar are pretty damn hard to crack with their encryption.

I was trying to modify the meta data on a .pdf ebook for a kindle. The ebook was protected, the unlock program I found took all of 5 seconds to change the protection. It was great :)

i don't know why, for the price, that protection should actually protect :). i have run into some pdfs that were using a 3rd party protection that i couldn't get passed. i just wanted to print it but the protection wouldn't let me, so i figured no biggie - not the case, everything i tried wouldn't touch it.

what do you use for winrar's protection? i have always found it be pretty good.
 

EarthwormJim

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 2003
3,239
0
76
i don't know why, for the price, that protection should actually protect :). i have run into some pdfs that were using a 3rd party protection that i couldn't get passed. i just wanted to print it but the protection wouldn't let me, so i figured no biggie - not the case, everything i tried wouldn't touch it.

what do you use for winrar's protection? i have always found it be pretty good.

The only thing you can do for winrar as far as I know are dictionaries and brute force.
 

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
I'm curious how you know. We're still waiting for our beta and I'd assume we'd be relatively early receivers of a public beta.

I am part of adobe focus group as well as autodesk and several other companies that produce programs that artist use. I often see alphas and artist concept work on interface changes. CS5 has a lot of good things coming to it, but again they fail to get that bundling lots of other applications is not a substitute for improving the single application. I got annoyed at the canned responses when I brought it up in the past so I just stick to workflow quirks or features inside the actual applications.

And if you only need PS, why are you installing the rest?

There is no way to just install photoshop itself as a single application when doing the setup. It has dependencies I will never use and really are not dependencies at all. I can go back and uninstall them after the setup, but can't do so on the install.
 

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
70,547
13,797
126
www.anyf.ca
LOL wait, so they have protection that stops you from being able to print?

Can't you just do a print screen, past it in word, and print that way? May need to play with it more so it looks ok but still... if they spent any amount of money on this "protection" that is super silly. Even if they found a way to stop print screen, you could technically project it to a wall and take a picture which would turn out decent, or just take a pic of the monitor. haha fail.
 

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
70,547
13,797
126
www.anyf.ca
Regardless, I just can't swallow the idea that a production environment busy enough to /require/ 3 full time workstations can't come up with enough cash to purchase a few copies of the Suite.

$1000 applications for such environments are not extraordinary. It's just not that expensive for production environments.

That 3k could buy 5 new laptops, or a new office printer, or even a piece of janitorial equipment like a floor cleaning machine. It just seems wasteful to spend it on software that does one small task when you could buy something else with it that does a bigger task.
 

bob4432

Lifer
Sep 6, 2003
11,727
46
91
LOL wait, so they have protection that stops you from being able to print?

Can't you just do a print screen, past it in word, and print that way? May need to play with it more so it looks ok but still... if they spent any amount of money on this "protection" that is super silly. Even if they found a way to stop print screen, you could technically project it to a wall and take a picture which would turn out decent, or just take a pic of the monitor. haha fail.

when it is a 500pg manual?
 

rivan

Diamond Member
Jul 8, 2003
9,677
3
81
i have run into some pdfs that were using a 3rd party protection that i couldn't get passed. i just wanted to print it but the protection wouldn't let me, so i figured no biggie - not the case, everything i tried wouldn't touch it.

Happen to know what the third part protection was? I've got a client interested in securing distributed PDFs to prevent art export/modification when printing ONLY as-is is the intended use. The user base is pretty sophisticated and accustomed to tearing apart art they're sent and re-purposing it. My client would love to put an end to that.

I am part of adobe focus group as well as autodesk and several other companies that produce programs that artist use. I often see alphas and artist concept work on interface changes. CS5 has a lot of good things coming to it, but again they fail to get that bundling lots of other applications is not a substitute for improving the single application. I got annoyed at the canned responses when I brought it up in the past so I just stick to workflow quirks or features inside the actual applications.

Well, from my point of view, the releases since about PS4 have been almost incremental, hardly worth a new version number. Can't sell upgrade licenses like that though.

There is no way to just install photoshop itself as a single application when doing the setup. It has dependencies I will never use and really are not dependencies at all. I can go back and uninstall them after the setup, but can't do so on the install.

Interesting. I've always turned off tons of stuff I didn't need from the CS install, but never tried to do just a PS install. It's not surprising, but I'd imagine the people who wrote the Suite installer never expected users to only install one application (when that application is available for less money, standalone). Still, you should be able to pare down the install however you see fit.

The Acrobat install is absolutely retarded now, how large it is. It's literally a poster child for application bloat, and that makes me sad. At it's core it still functions exceptionally well when used for it's original intent - portable, high quality, single-file printing.

LOL wait, so they have protection that stops you from being able to print?

Yes, there are controls for restricting print, editing, viewing with password, etc. And yes, there are ways around it, but the deterrent is sufficient to keep an average user from doing it.

That 3k could buy 5 new laptops, or a new office printer, or even a piece of janitorial equipment like a floor cleaning machine. It just seems wasteful to spend it on software that does one small task when you could buy something else with it that does a bigger task.

5 new laptops and a new printer will get the job he needs done how, exactly? He has work to do. Which requires InDesign. Janitorial equipment won't help him get that work done.

I assume if he needs 3 copies on 3 workstations it's doing a little more than one small task. I think it's pretty clear you're uninformed as to what InDesign does.
 

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
70,547
13,797
126
www.anyf.ca
I assume if he needs 3 copies on 3 workstations it's doing a little more than one small task. I think it's pretty clear you're uninformed as to what InDesign does.

How are we suddently talking about another software? I was talking about adobe acrobat. MS word or even open office is cheaper and does the same thing. (you can use pdf writer to print a document to pdf when done).
 

bob4432

Lifer
Sep 6, 2003
11,727
46
91
Happen to know what the third part protection was? I've got a client interested in securing distributed PDFs to prevent art export/modification when printing ONLY as-is is the intended use. The user base is pretty sophisticated and accustomed to tearing apart art they're sent and re-purposing it. My client would love to put an end to that.

i will look and see if i have the pdf anymore or can get it from the buddy of mine....will update when i find it.

edit - found it. turned out to be something i tried about 14-16mos ago so not sure how it holds up now, but it was FileOpen - http://www.fileopen.com/ can't open it in illustrator or photoshop either atm. again, i searched for a workaround when i was asked, couldn't find anything that would take it off like the built in acrobat protection.
 
Last edited:

tk149

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2002
7,253
1
0
Regardless, I just can't swallow the idea that a production environment busy enough to /require/ 3 full time workstations can't come up with enough cash to purchase a few copies of the Suite.

$1000 applications for such environments are not extraordinary. It's just not that expensive for production environments.

I'm glad that you don't have to deal with office politics when justifying $1000 vs. $3000. $1000 fell under our Capital Expenditure review process, $3000 didn't.

Our workload and department size were increasing. Since we didn't share workstations or offices, it would have been really nice to have a third copy for the new person, which would also provide redundancy - especially considering that one copy was loaded on my laptop which stayed with me and not in the office. (Yeah, laptop...I never said the company had good management)

Regardless, Adobe fvcked us (and others) over. If I owned a small graphics design company, I'd be livid over this crap. $2000 spent "upgrading" would be $2000 less in my pocket.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
If I owned a small graphics design company, I'd be livid over this crap. $2000 spent "upgrading" would be $2000 less in my pocket.

If you owned a small graphics company then the full Creative Suite would probably not be the smartest purchase. There are options out there.
 

rivan

Diamond Member
Jul 8, 2003
9,677
3
81
How are we suddently talking about another software? I was talking about adobe acrobat. MS word or even open office is cheaper and does the same thing. (you can use pdf writer to print a document to pdf when done).

When you quoted me, I was referring to the cost of InDesign.

So I'll revise my statement: If you think PDF export from Word is equal to a full version of Acrobat, then you're clearly uninformed about everything a full version of Acrobat does.

If the PDF export from word, or Cute, or whatever you want to use does the job for you, then great. Just be very clear: those solutions are not anything close in function to the complete Acrobat product.

i will look and see if i have the pdf anymore or can get it from the buddy of mine....will update when i find it.

edit - found it. turned out to be something i tried about 14-16mos ago so not sure how it holds up now, but it was FileOpen - http://www.fileopen.com/ can't open it in illustrator or photoshop either atm. again, i searched for a workaround when i was asked, couldn't find anything that would take it off like the built in acrobat protection.

If that works as well as it purports; it might be a big win for me. Thanks.

I'm glad that you don't have to deal with office politics when justifying $1000 vs. $3000. $1000 fell under our Capital Expenditure review process, $3000 didn't.

Our workload and department size were increasing. Since we didn't share workstations or offices, it would have been really nice to have a third copy for the new person, which would also provide redundancy - especially considering that one copy was loaded on my laptop which stayed with me and not in the office. (Yeah, laptop...I never said the company had good management)

Regardless, Adobe fvcked us (and others) over. If I owned a small graphics design company, I'd be livid over this crap. $2000 spent "upgrading" would be $2000 less in my pocket.

If your workload and department size were increasing, and you still couldn't get the expenditure past your beancounters, then your own company's fiscal policy fucked you, not Adobe.

You aren't forced to upgrade in any way other than your own convenience.

I could keep telling you it's a business reality that you sometimes have to spend money for software, but you want to seem to carry this torch of indignation, so have at it.