jonathanmoeller ([info]jonathanmoeller) wrote,
@ 2007-05-23 20:48:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
some thoughts on the Adobe Loop of Death
Recently, I had to troubleshoot a computer that kept freezing up whenever someone started Internet Explorer. Upon investigation, I discovered that the homepage had been set to a PDF tax form on a government website. Odd, but certainly no big deal. The problem lay with Adobe Reader 7. Whenever Internet Explorer hit the PDF file, it started Adobe Reader 7, which wanted to upgrade itself to Adobe Reader 7.0.9 in the worst possible way. Of course, the Adobe Updater program kept crashing and maxing out the CPU in the process.

Alas, I come across this a lot with Adobe software. Adobe's applications have gotten fat, which was why this blog post made me laugh:

http://www.downloadsquad.com/2007/05/23/dear-adobe-what-the-hell-happened-to-you/

(The screenshot of the Adobe Updater alone is worth it.)

The weird thing is, Adobe's software is vastly better than that of its former chief rival, QuarkXpress. QuarkXPress stunk, and its whole hardware-dongle based copy protection thing must have been designed by Cthulhu-worshipping hyenas. So I was quite glad to see Adobe's InDesign stomp QuarkXPress like a gnat.

But, alas, it seems to be a universal curse that whoever bumps off a Dark Lord becomes a Dark Lord in turn themselves.

-JM

(And for those of you who do use Adobe Reader on a regular basis, try this program. It is vastly quicker.)

Advertisement

(Post a new comment)


[info]jaderabbit5
2007-05-25 02:04 am UTC (link)
I wasn't sure Adobe was that good in the first place. Sure, their lovely PDF file format and free viewing program gave us a standard not yet seen. But the rest of their software, though sometimes better than specific competitors, really sucks and I'm pretty sure it always has.

Though things are bound to be worse now that Adobe owns their most successful competitor. Man I wish I could use InkScape or GIMP.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]jonathanmoeller
2007-05-25 04:13 am UTC (link)
I told someone once that Adobe stunk; but it stunk *just enough* less than QuarkXPress.

What's wrong with GIMP? I use it myself (granted, I doubt my image-editing requirements are quite as rigorous as yours). I use the Mac version, which means I have to run it through the X11 windowing system, so it takes forever to load, but once it's up it's sprightly enough.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]jaderabbit5
2007-05-25 01:44 pm UTC (link)
What is wrong with GIMP is basically the same things that are wrong with Photoshop, just bigger. "Um, so what do I do with this? And you think THAT is what I need an image editor for? So how do I do something useful?" And then there is the secondary problem that I work better with vectors and type than pixels.

What is wrong with Inkscape (since it is supposed to be a vector editor) is that it has the feel of a Microsoft Office program, and I just can't stand that look when I'm trying really hard to be artistic.

I know, I'm not exactly a model graphic designer when I say: "So I can use the programs, but what do I actually NEED them for?"

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]jonathanmoeller
2007-05-25 06:15 pm UTC (link)
Ha! In best graphic-designer tradition, you're supposed to demand $10,000 worth of software and a $5,000 computer to run it on so you can produce a two-page brochure every six months.

(Of course, in the grand IT tradition, I would respond by giving you a Pentium II with Windows 98 first edition, Microsoft Photo Editor, and Word 97.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…