PDA

View Full Version : John Nack says Photoshop bloated




eclipse
Nov 9, 2007, 09:19 PM
Hi all,
who agrees with this assessment (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2007/11/photoshop_as_se.html)?

Discussion also at Slashdot (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/09/0226215) if it really get's you cranky.



AlexisV
Nov 13, 2007, 03:52 AM
With the power of customizability, we can present solutions via task-oriented workspaces. Today if a user walks up to Photoshop and says, "What do I do?," the app kind of shrugs, stubs out a cigarette, and says, "I dunno--you tell me." That's not real cool, and we can do better.

LOL :D

Ke^in
Nov 19, 2007, 08:37 AM
It's only bloated if you don't need all it's features. If you are just doing basic image editing iPhoto is fine. I've used most every feature that Photoshop has multiple times at work. To me bloated means software that has the "do it all" approach and doesn't do anyone one of those things very well. Or a application that has useless features that just makes it run slower.

I wouldn't call Photoshop bloated at all. What I think he means he, he doesn't know Photoshop well enough, or doesn't need all it's features for what HE does.

And I've known a lot of people that have bought Photoshop because they were told it was "the best" when all the did was simply photo correction.

Photoshop is an over-kill for that. But surely not bloated.

ejb190
Nov 19, 2007, 09:16 AM
It's only bloated if you don't need all it's features.

Agree totally. I have been using Photoshop Elements for some time because that is all I need. I have access to a full version of Photoshop if I need it, but I haven't had to use it in a couple of years.

I think I like Ke^in's use of "overkill" as opposed to "bloated". To me bloated would be a program that is full of moderately useful features that are more complex to use then necessary (Most of MS Office).

irishgrizzly
Nov 19, 2007, 09:19 AM
I think he's talking about a better interface and UI. Can you have too many useful features?:confused:

Pierce
Nov 19, 2007, 03:31 PM
Who is John Knack and who gives the ***** what he thinks?

Voidness
Nov 19, 2007, 04:14 PM
Who is John Knack and who gives the ***** what he thinks?
Senior Product Manager, Adobe Photoshop (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/about.html)

ezekielrage_99
Nov 19, 2007, 04:39 PM
It's only bloated if you don't need all it's features.

Yeah I totally agree, but then most people out there don't use 100% of the features so I can see where to bloated reference is coming from.

Still if you are paying top dollar for a professional application you expect heaps of feature even if you don't expect utilising them all.

uberfoto
Nov 27, 2007, 11:36 PM
Senior Product Manager, Adobe Photoshop (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/about.html)

lol.

I bet he didn't see that one coming...


I think the majority of Adobe's CS3 has the same cigarette stub smoldering attitude. They are get'er done pro apps aimed at the experienced user. The best thing to do (IMO) is to keep building their support site. Their video tutorial section is awesome for beginners.

(Deep breath)

Keep supporting their products, continue to allow users the freedom to create whatever they can imagine, and increase compatibility to use it across multiple platforms/software and increased file format compatibility and the software will continue to do well. (Now you can breath again...) ;)

The biggest plus I see is the similarity of the interface between all of the CS3 programs. It is improving with every release. Now they need to work on the Macromedia apps but apply changes gradually over several releases to allow users to adapt to the new features/interface without having to relearn the software.

Sorry, I strayed a little from the topic. It will be interesting to see what direction Adobe will take their CS software over the next 10 years.

eclipse
Nov 28, 2007, 12:08 AM
Video support is a great idea.

Having been burned by GoLive, I'm finally excited about learning Dreamweaver and am relieved GoLive is dead and buried.

At about $800 or so $Aussie every 2 years or $400 bucks a year, I'm happy... and I'm only an apprentice designer. (My wife is the professional graphic designer.)

But I do wonder where open source are going to be in 5 or 10 years, especially if the coming oil crisis forces businesses to start thinking about how to save money at every corner. Maybe FOSS will really take off then?

Pierce
Nov 28, 2007, 10:42 AM
Senior Product Manager, Adobe Photoshop (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/about.html)

Regardless of who he is nothing can compare to Photoshop. Sure its bloated for some people who just resize and crop pictures. However for the advanced user who takes the time to understand and learn the tools its light years above anything else.

geese
Nov 28, 2007, 06:52 PM
Regardless of who he is nothing can compare to Photoshop. Sure its bloated for some people who just resize and crop pictures. However for the advanced user who takes the time to understand and learn the tools its light years above anything else.

He's the Senior Product Manager at Adobe! I think he's more qualified that anyone else to criticise Photoshop.

SouljaBoiTellEm
Nov 28, 2007, 07:13 PM
John Nack Is A Hater, now watch me crank dat robocop

But honestly, Photoshop now-days has so many unuseable features or featurs that are much easier to do simply in other programs that calling it bloated would probably be a correct assessment.

angelneo
Nov 28, 2007, 11:18 PM
I have to say Photoshop is indeed bloated. Not all pro people uses every single features of Photoshop. Can you guys say you uses everything Photoshop has to offer? They try to make Photoshop appeal to almost every type of pro users and as a result, some get thrown by features that they never touch.

davidjearly
Nov 29, 2007, 03:20 AM
I have to say Photoshop is indeed bloated. Not all pro people uses every single features of Photoshop. Can you guys say you uses everything Photoshop has to offer? They try to make Photoshop appeal to almost every type of pro users and as a result, some get thrown by features that they never touch.

So what exactly do you suggest? 50 different versions for different 'pro' users?

David

angelneo
Dec 1, 2007, 05:30 AM
So what exactly do you suggest? 50 different versions for different 'pro' users?

DavidPersonally, I would love to have a customizable features set which you can change or update or even pay for when you ask for it. When you realize you need it, a click of a button would download the feature into your own copy of photoshop and then you will be charge accordingly. But I think it's pretty unrealistic to ask for this now. I will have to wait and see how Adobe would improve then.

mcarnes
Dec 2, 2007, 08:31 PM
What they really need is a version just for photographers. It is more a program for graphic artists and always has been, but pro photographers have always had to use it because there was never any real alternative. A streamlined app designed from the ground up just for photographers would be really cool.

eclipse
Dec 2, 2007, 08:56 PM
Yeah, it's called "Gimpshop" isn't it?;)

Evangelion
Dec 3, 2007, 05:29 AM
Regardless of who he is nothing can compare to Photoshop. Sure its bloated for some people who just resize and crop pictures. However for the advanced user who takes the time to understand and learn the tools its light years above anything else.

you do realize that nothig you just said refutes the claim that "Photoshop is bloated". your "argument" seems to be "Photoshop is the best tool in it's field, therefore it's not bloated". Well, it can be the best image manipulation program out there, and it can also be bloated at the same time.

geese
Dec 3, 2007, 05:45 AM
What they really need is a version just for photographers. It is more a program for graphic artists and always has been, but pro photographers have always had to use it because there was never any real alternative. A streamlined app designed from the ground up just for photographers would be really cool.


Photoshop Elements?

eclipse
Dec 3, 2007, 05:55 AM
Gimp?

Jonx
Dec 3, 2007, 05:56 AM
having a lots of features is a good thing but everyone has different needs and use of the photoshop and ability to what features to install from the installer will make it less bloated in my opinion :)

Blue Velvet
Dec 3, 2007, 06:00 AM
Gimp and Elements don't work in 16 bit or in LaB, Photoshop is only bloated to those who don't know how to use it. Downloadable features wouldn't work; not all studio Macs are online.

Just because someone is Senior Product Manager, doesn't mean they're the team leader of the Photoshop team... this is a silly idea and the standard install of CS3 with its patronising 'show more menu options' on as default is a sop to those who don't bother reading the manual or organising some training for themselves.

I would wager the people who actually pay for their apps don't think it's bloated.

Evangelion
Dec 3, 2007, 06:58 AM
Gimp and Elements don't work in 16 bit or in LaB, Photoshop is only bloated to those who don't know how to use it. Downloadable features wouldn't work; not all studio Macs are online.

Sure it is bloated. Anyone who claims otherwise doesn't really know what they are talking about. Hell, just about every single app out there is bloated in some degree, including Photoshop.

Anyone who claims that "Photoshop is not bloated" is someone who has been conditioned in to accepting Photoshop as a non-bloated software. Just like people who think Windows is "stable" have been pre-conditioned in to thinking what is "stable" and what is not. A real eye-opener on the stability-front came from an SGI-engineer in mid-nineties when he wrote in an internal memo regarding the latest release of IRIX: "It's not reasonable to expect our users to reboot their computers every week".

Like I said: anyone who claims that Photoshop is not bloated is fooling themselves.

psychofreak
Dec 3, 2007, 07:01 AM
Gimp?

Its kind of an open source PS wannabe sorta thing...

Blue Velvet
Dec 3, 2007, 07:17 AM
Sure it is bloated. Anyone who claims otherwise doesn't really know what they are talking about.


Oh really? How about being specific... Tell us precisely in what way it's bloated instead of making spurious and subjective claims without anything to back that up. If anything's bloated, it's unsubstantiated statements without a shred of evidence.

Those who use it every day for work use features in it that others haven't got a clue what to do with. That's not bloated, you're (in the generic sense) just not who the software is aimed at. After all, it's easier to claim something is overkill than admit your own shortcomings.

Evangelion
Dec 3, 2007, 07:24 AM
Oh really? How about being specific... Tell us precisely in what way it's bloated instead of making spurious and subjective claims without anything to back that up. If anything's bloated, it's unsubstantiated statements without a shred of evidence.

It's bloated because it's too slow, because it consumes more resources than it needs to, because it's too sluggish. And I'm not singling out Photoshop here, just about ALL software suffers from it.

Those who use it every day for work use features in it that others haven't got a clue what to do with. That's not bloated, you're (in the generic sense) just not who the software is aimed at. After all, it's easier to claim something is overkill than admit your own shortcomings.

I'm not talking about features as such, I'm talking about speed and resource-consumption. Or are you saying that Photoshop is as fast as possible, that it would be utterly impossible to make it any faster or make it consume less resources?

koobcamuk
Dec 3, 2007, 07:30 AM
*Awaits Blue Velvet's reply* :)

Blue Velvet
Dec 3, 2007, 07:38 AM
Or are you saying that Photoshop is as fast as possible, that it would be utterly impossible to make it any faster or make it consume less resources?


No; I'm not a programmer. Are you? If that's the case, then we're coming at the argument from different perspectives. I'm talking about feature sets and the stupid concessions that I see within it for a less experienced crowd.

If I decided to change my career and start video-editing, I wouldn't expect Final Cut Pro to hide half of its menus and options from me as a default; I'd step my game up to deal with a pro application.

I don't have any problems with its speed or the resources it consumes. I tend to use fast Macs with plenty of RAM. I'm also aware that Photoshop and all the Creative Suite apps have had to move code bases... and that Adobe essentially have to rewrite most of it for the next revision. If any Adobe app is bloated and makes me curse on a daily basis, it's Acrobat Pro; even a 3mb PDF can bog it down.

Anyway, rereading the article again, he's not making the claim of it being bloated in a coding sense... ack, stoopid argument, stoopid me for falling into it. :D

Gotta go, Photoshop is calling. I've got some duotones to prepare; can't do those in Gimp or Elements either. ;)

Evangelion
Dec 3, 2007, 07:57 AM
I don't have any problems with its speed or the resources it consumes. I tend to use fast Macs with plenty of RAM.

And there we have it. "It's not bloated if you have a good setup". We are hiding bloated software behind gigaflops of CPU-power, behind gigabytes of extremely fast RAM, behind hard-drives that are terabytes in size. We are "fixing" the issue of bloat by throwing more hardware at the problem.

Blue Velvet
Dec 3, 2007, 08:03 AM
And there we have it. "It's not bloated if you have a good setup". We are hiding bloated software behind gigaflops of CPU-power, behind gigabytes of extremely fast RAM, behind hard-drives that are terabytes in size. We are "fixing" the issue of bloat by throwing more hardware at the problem.


There's bloated and then there are tasks that used to take many minutes on older hardware to do. That's got nothing to do with the app at all, that's just a measure of what can be done these days on newer hardware. Not one of my professional colleagues pines for the days of Photoshop 3, no layers, on a Quadra. ;)

Pierce
Dec 3, 2007, 08:04 AM
Then I guess we can make the discussion that any OS is bloated as well right?

Lol @ Evangelion.

koobcamuk
Dec 3, 2007, 08:07 AM
And there we have it. "It's not bloated if you have a good setup". We are hiding bloated software behind gigaflops of CPU-power, behind gigabytes of extremely fast RAM, behind hard-drives that are terabytes in size. We are "fixing" the issue of bloat by throwing more hardware at the problem.

Like putting a fat person in a larger room?

Evangelion
Dec 3, 2007, 08:07 AM
There's bloated and then there are tasks that used to take many minutes on older hardware to do. That's got nothing to do with the app at all, that's just a measure of what can be done these days on newer hardware. Not one of my professional colleagues pines for the days of Photoshop 3, no layers, on a Quadra. ;)

What today takes 10 seconds might have taken 1 minute before. But when the consider the fact that we have computers that are maybe 200 times more powerful than we had "back then", then yes, we are talking about bloat.

bartelby
Dec 3, 2007, 08:08 AM
Not one of my professional colleagues pines for the days of Photoshop 3, no layers, on a Quadra. ;)

I bet they do really!


As a side note, I recently thought about getting my 7500 running just to install PS 3.0.5 (?. the first PPC version)...

Evangelion
Dec 3, 2007, 08:15 AM
Then I guess we can make the discussion that any OS is bloated as well right?

More or less, yeah. Bloat is pretty universal characteristics of modern software. Like I said, I'm not singling out Photoshop as such.

Lol @ Evangelion.

?

Blue Velvet
Dec 3, 2007, 08:15 AM
What today takes 10 seconds might have taken 1 minute before...


No, more like what used to take 30 minutes... go and have a cup of coffee... can now be done in seconds. Tasks that you couldn't even do on a desktop machine ten years ago now can be done by a Mac Mini.

I honestly don't know what kind of background or history you have in the field, but if there's anything that causes my peers grief, it's not the size and speed of Photoshop... it's rare, even on a mid-level machine, for it to devastatingly and intrusively halt the flow of creating artwork; that's reserved for rendering stuff in 3D apps these days.

Evangelion
Dec 3, 2007, 08:34 AM
No, more like what used to take 30 minutes.

Or one minute. Point is that performance of software has not progressed in similar speeds as speed of hardware has progressed. And that difference is caused by bloat. I don't understand why that is so hard to admit. Hell, it wasn't long when resizing Finder-windows was sluggish in OS X! I remember reading a review of Tiger that said that "resizing Finder-windows is ALMOST smooth on my Quad-G5 with 2.5GB of RAM". And can you HONESTLY say that PS is as fast as it could be at this very moment? No you can not.

Am I the only one who sees the problem here? The problem is manageable only because speed of computers more or less double every 2-3 years or so, with amounts of RAM shooting straight up as well. That is: we throw more hardware at the problem and call it a day.

Seriously: Photoshop is not a god that you are not allowed to criticize. You CAN admit that it is bloated. The bloat might not annoy you personally, bit that does not mean that it does not exist.

koobcamuk
Dec 3, 2007, 08:39 AM
I'll chime in by saying that people do not get 4 times the work done compared to 10 years ago, or something crazy like that. The end result just looks a little different.

Blue Velvet
Dec 3, 2007, 08:45 AM
Or one minute. Point is that performance of software has not progressed in similar speeds as speed of hardware has progressed. And that difference is caused by bloat.


No matter how many times you repeat something, it doesn't make it true (http://blogs.adobe.com/scottbyer/2006/03/macintosh_and_t.html).

There's nothing that you've indicated that seems to be backed up by being a professional user or having coding experience or even the development history of Photoshop. End of story, and end of my contributions to a futile discussion that has strayed so far from the meaning of 'bloated' in the context of the article and the user-experience of using Photoshop, day in, day out.

iGav
Dec 3, 2007, 08:54 AM
As a side note, I recently thought about getting my 7500 running just to install PS 3.0.5 (?. the first PPC version)...

I consider v3 to be the first truly modern incarnation of Photoshop. :)

I used it until v5 came out because v4 was just... :rolleyes:

And don't tell Blue, but v3 did have layers. ;) :)

bartelby
Dec 3, 2007, 08:56 AM
I consider 3 to be the first truly modern incarnation of Photoshop. ;)

I used it until 5 came out because 4 was just... :rolleyes:

And don't tell Blue, but 3 did have layers. ;) :)

I used 3 until 6 came out, then I remembered I actually had a license and I could upgrade for cheap :o


I didn't like to say about the layers because I wasn't 100% sure.

iGav
Dec 3, 2007, 12:24 PM
I used 3 until 6 came out, then I remembered I actually had a license and I could upgrade for cheap :o.

Not an unwise decision.

Though even now I think, what the hell were they thinking with Photoshop 4? :eek:

I didn't like to say about the layers because I wasn't 100% sure.

2.5 was the last version sans-layers, but even then you could approximate them mathmatically.

Anyway I digress, best let folk get back to the discussion at hand. :)