John Nack says Photoshop bloated

Discussion in 'Design and Graphics' started by eclipse, Nov 9, 2007.

  1. macrumors 6502a

    eclipse

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Location:
    Sydney
    #1
    Hi all,
    who agrees with this assessment?

    Discussion also at Slashdot if it really get's you cranky.
     
  2. macrumors 65816

    AlexisV

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2007
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    #2
    LOL :D
     
  3. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    #3
    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.
     
  4. macrumors 65816

    ejb190

    #4
    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).
     
  5. macrumors 65816

    irishgrizzly

    Joined:
    May 15, 2006
    #5
    I think he's talking about a better interface and UI. Can you have too many useful features?:confused:
     
  6. macrumors newbie

    Pierce

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    #6
    Who is John Knack and who gives the sh*t what he thinks?
     
  7. macrumors 6502a

    Voidness

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2005
    Location:
    Null
    #7
  8. macrumors 68040

    ezekielrage_99

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    #8
    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.
     
  9. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2006
    #9
    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.
     
  10. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    eclipse

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Location:
    Sydney
    #10
    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?
     
  11. macrumors newbie

    Pierce

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    #11
    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.
     
  12. macrumors 6502a

    geese

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2003
    Location:
    London, UK
    #12
    He's the Senior Product Manager at Adobe! I think he's more qualified that anyone else to criticise Photoshop.
     
  13. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2007
    #13
    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.
     
  14. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2004
    Location:
    afk
    #14
    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.
     
  15. macrumors 68000

    davidjearly

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2006
    Location:
    Glasgow, Scotland
    #15
    So what exactly do you suggest? 50 different versions for different 'pro' users?

    David
     
  16. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2004
    Location:
    afk
    #16
    Personally, 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.
     
  17. macrumors 68000

    mcarnes

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2004
    Location:
    USA! USA!
    #17
    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.
     
  18. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    eclipse

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Location:
    Sydney
  19. macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    #19
    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.
     
  20. macrumors 6502a

    geese

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2003
    Location:
    London, UK
    #20

    Photoshop Elements?
     
  21. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    eclipse

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Location:
    Sydney
  22. macrumors regular

    Jonx

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2004
    Location:
    UK
    #22
    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 :)
     
  23. Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #23
    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.
     
  24. macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    #24
    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.
     
  25. Retired

    psychofreak

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    Location:
    London
    #25
    Its kind of an open source PS wannabe sorta thing...
     

Share This Page