You know what I hate about Adobe? Pretty much everything. Post alternatives!

dopey220

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jul 19, 2006
418
3
Seriously, when are these jerks going to get a clue? The only app they make that doesn't make me want to put a drill to my temple is AfterEffects. Everything else is bloated, slow, and unstable as can be. The thing that really sucks is that there's no real competition, so they don't have to really worry about losing users.

I realize things like Gimp and Inkscape are available. And there are countless other cheap/free alternatives, but they're quite limited in terms of features because of that.

Anyone have any good Adobe alternatives? Let's get a list going. I'll start.

Coda>Dreamweaver

http://www.panic.com/coda
 

jaw04005

macrumors 601
Aug 19, 2003
4,369
15
AR
It has nowhere near the power of Photoshop, but Aperture and Pixelmator have replaced the majority of my photoshopping.

I also think OmniGraffle is excellent for some Illustrator uses. And there is always Pages for minor layout design.

My biggest complaint about Adobe is how their desire to become platform agnostic has really hurt their Mac products. They seem to want to do everything themselves from their installers to the UI, and they are slow to adopt Apple’s Core developer APIs.

There’s nothing “Mac-like” about Adobe’s products anymore. It’s like running a Java app at this point.
 

Buzz Bumble

Guest
Oct 19, 2008
802
2
New Zealand
There’s nothing “Mac-like” about Adobe’s products anymore. It’s like running a Java app at this point.
I don't know about their newer Mac OS X applications, but most of their old Mac OS 8 / 9 applications were done by a rather lazy / cheap programming trick. Instead of writing proper Mac applications, they apparently used some of the Windoze "code" and then had Microsoft libraries to "convert" things. Whenever you installed an Adobe application your Mac got littered with Microsoft rubbish, which caused most of the crashes / freezes. For the obscene retail prices they charge, you'd expect much better (luckily for me I only have to pay the much cheaper education prices).


As for alternatives, they're few and far between these days. Adobe has a similar business model to Microsoft - they buy out or run out the competition. :( For example, it's now "Adobe Dreamweaver" instead of "Adobe GoLive" and "Macromedia Dreamweaver".

The obvious alternative for Adobe InDesign is of course Quark XPress.
 

neutrino23

macrumors 68000
Feb 14, 2003
1,700
203
SF Bay area
That's one of my main complaints. It's as if they are going out of their way to antagonize you. Would it hurt them so much to have command-H hide the frickin program?
 

covisio

macrumors 6502
Aug 22, 2007
283
20
UK
It has nowhere near the power of Photoshop, but Aperture and Pixelmator have replaced the majority of my photoshopping.
I've been a professional Photoshop User for way too many years now. I recently bought a new iMac for home use and because I didn't have a legit copy of PS I could put on it I bought Pixelmator.
I can say right now it is NOT a worthy alternative to PS, or even Elements. It is a very cheap bitmap image manipulator which, with effort, can achieve some nice stuff. But it's hard work compared to PS. There are also many bugs in the program. I am eagerly waiting the next version to see if they can sort things out.
I'm not saying its bad value, but it needs improvement.
I'm still on CS3 at work and I generally don't have any problems with it. I have no plans to change unless forced into it.
 

SwiftLives

macrumors 65816
Dec 7, 2001
1,339
240
Charleston, SC
And Adobe wonders why Apple won't let their products anywhere near the iPHone. When was the last time you had a browser crash that didn't involve Flash?

Adobe should never have been allowed to purchase Macromedia. The best thing to happen at this point would be for Quark to develop a print/web suite to compete with Adobe's Creative Suite. It would take a few years for it to mature, but in this instance, competition for Adobe might cause them to step up their game.

...much like what happened to Quark when Adobe released InDesign.

...or what happened to Adobe when Quark was eating Pagemaker's lunch.
 

ChrisA

macrumors G4
Jan 5, 2006
11,598
380
Redondo Beach, California
..
I realize things like Gimp and Inkscape are available. And there are countless other cheap/free alternatives, but they're quite limited in terms of features because of that.
Gimp is Open Source. If there is something you don't like about Gimp YOU can fix it. No need to complain or wait until some other person fixes it YOU have total control over all the features.

OK maybe you lack the skills need to make the change. But you can organize the change and make screen mock-ups that show how it would work and if your idea is good it will gain traction. In most open source project the "winners" are ignored but if you are in there contributing in a positive way, maybe as a technical writing or web designer if you don't understand software. You can make a difference Gimp will gain the feaure set you want.
 

MongoTheGeek

macrumors 68040
Quark, one of a very few companies that is even dumber than Adobe.
Let me just say that when they outsourced their tech support to India, IT GOT BETTER

Adobe used to be an incredible company with wonderful products. Oddly when they came out with InDesign and started taking market from Quark things went down hill with them fast.

I think it's a Conservation of Stupidity.
 

bobr1952

macrumors 68020
Jan 21, 2008
2,040
39
Melbourne, FL
I used to like their products once upon a time. I really don't use much from them EXCEPT their damn Flash! I play some of those apps on Facebook and it heads up my Mac more than playing WoW. The other day I had to reboot in order to get Slacker to run. There has to be a better way...
 

Buzz Bumble

Guest
Oct 19, 2008
802
2
New Zealand
Buzz Bumble said:
The obvious alternative for Adobe InDesign is of course Quark XPress.
Quark, one of a very few companies that is even dumber than Adobe.
I never said it was a good alternative. :)

Personally I hate Quark XPress. InDesign is better, but still has "features" that make no sense. PageMaker was the better application, but Adobe's hopelessness and inability to make changes drove it into the gorund (yet another similarity to Microsoft).


Pixelmator has one big problem (at least, I haven't used it) - last time I looked it didn't do CMYK colours, which makes it rather pointless for print / publishing work (although technically you could use it and then convert the images to CMYK using GraphicConverter).
 

opeter

macrumors 68000
Aug 5, 2007
1,570
489
Slovenia, EU
Well, I know one alternative for Photoshop, that works on the Mac too:
http://www.pl32.com/

Yes, it does have an ugly interface, but it is one of these few (rare) applications, that can open .psd files with vector elements in them and manipulate them etc. It has full cmyk and lab support, duotone is work-in-progress.

On the Windows platform there are even more Photoshop alternatives: the above mentioned Photoline (even in 64-bit version), one of the best in its class is Serif PhotoPlus from an UK company, and than also Corel has the pro version of its Corel PhotoPaint and the (one Jasc product) Corel PaintShop Pro product line.
 

UTclassof89

macrumors 6502
Jun 10, 2008
421
0
As Winston Churchill said, "[Adobe's] the worst form of [software]... except all the others."
 

bigglefuzz

macrumors newbie
Feb 13, 2010
18
0
I don't like Adobe. I will freely admit that, but they do make good useful products.

But they also make bad ones, and force these together as part of their 'Creative Suite' forcing you to buy apps you don't need in order to increase their market share.

I will never touch Dreamweaver with a 10 foot pole, but most of their CS4 deals include it and I don't know a serious web designer or developer who would even consider using it. In fact for someone to ask if 'you used dreamweaver' is almost an insult. But then I love Photoshop! It's one of the best Apps and most well known in the field and no other image program can compare to it.

The fact is, if you are in the creative industry, Adobe products are unavoidable. I hope that some serious contenders can step in and make Adobe step up their game across all their product range. Alternatives like Pixelmater and Inkscape focus on usability, something that the Adobe range of products is solely lacking.

Apart from Dreamweaver. That product can just go fall down a well.

My favourite Alternatives: Coda, Inkscape and Final Cut pro.
 

sigmadog

macrumors 6502a
Feb 11, 2009
761
588
just west of Idaho
I will never touch Dreamweaver with a 10 foot pole, but most of their CS4 deals include it and I don't know a serious web designer or developer who would even consider using it. In fact for someone to ask if 'you used dreamweaver' is almost an insult.
I'm curious exactly what is it about Dreamweaver that you find so awful? I've personally found it to be quite useful in my work.
 

Yamcha

macrumors 68000
Mar 6, 2008
1,802
134
The problem lies with the Mac OSX version of Adobe products :p.. I don't know but even for me, Adobe Photoshop/Illustrator is slower on the Mac.. I've got both PC and Mac.. and I have noticed that Adobe apps for some reason are a bit laggy on the Mac..
 

bigglefuzz

macrumors newbie
Feb 13, 2010
18
0
I'm curious exactly what is it about Dreamweaver that you find so awful? I've personally found it to be quite useful in my work.
It's a hatred with WYSIWYG editors in general. Dreamweaver just generally loads slow and feels bloated to use. The fact is most of the features I will never use, and it just feels so over engineered for something that should be so simple (editing text files).
 

sigmadog

macrumors 6502a
Feb 11, 2009
761
588
just west of Idaho
It's a hatred with WYSIWYG editors in general. Dreamweaver just generally loads slow and feels bloated to use. The fact is most of the features I will never use, and it just feels so over engineered for something that should be so simple (editing text files).
Okay. Thanks for clearing that up.

Having made the switch from GoLive (way back at the 2.0 version all the way to Adobe's v6) to Dreamweaver CS3 and now CS4, I can say I'm pretty comfortable working with the app. I agree there are features I probably won't use, but I don't get the same impression you do of bloat and laggard performance.

I do wish that someday we'll be offered a full-featured app from Adobe in which we can disable some of the functions and/or features we don't need in order to speed up the program. However, I don't think that day will come anytime soon.

Honestly, I'm not dissatisfied with Adobe. On the print design end, I think they've done a good job of integrating most of their CS apps to such an extent that the creation of print publications is far easier these days than it ever has been. True, there are tons of bells and whistles added with each version release, many of which may or may not be of much use to any particular user, but that's just the way the software market works. Having written that, I most likely will be skipping the next iteration of the CS Design Premium due to economic considerations, the learning curve involved with each new version, and mostly because I'm waiting for Adobe to update their print software (mainly Illustrator, but InDesign would be nice) to take advantage of multi-processor systems. Until then, I have no need or desire for new stuff – what I have is working just fine, thanks.
 

bigglefuzz

macrumors newbie
Feb 13, 2010
18
0
Okay. Thanks for clearing that up.

Having made the switch from GoLive (way back at the 2.0 version all the way to Adobe's v6) to Dreamweaver CS3 and now CS4, I can say I'm pretty comfortable working with the app. I agree there are features I probably won't use, but I don't get the same impression you do of bloat and laggard performance.
It's hard to describe why I don't like it. It's just that WYSIWYG editors is not the way web designers work. Unlike most Adobe applications which target professional users, Dreamweaver seems to be focused on accessible web design and is a very different process which most designers/developers actually use.

I personally think that Adobe should have two web design apps. One for designers/graphic artists and the other which completely dispenses with the WYSIWYG element and acts as a streamlined coding app.

Until then, I have no need or desire for new stuff – what I have is working just fine, thanks.
For me, it just depends what they add. For example the OpenGL zooming and kinetic scrolling in Photoshop CS4 really improved the workflow. Most of what they do for new releases now though, is give the interface a slight tweak and add some new MUST HAVE features that people managed to work without previously. The only new features I have used in previous versions is the 'Shadows/Highlight', 'Black & White' and 'Type on Path'. Everything else like 'Vanishing Point' etc. I could never see myself using.
 

Buzz Bumble

Guest
Oct 19, 2008
802
2
New Zealand
It's a hatred with WYSIWYG editors in general. Dreamweaver just generally loads slow and feels bloated to use. The fact is most of the features I will never use, and it just feels so over engineered for something that should be so simple (editing text files).
Ahh, there's your problem. Dreamweaver is not designed to "edit text files" - it's designed to be a WYSIWYG webpage editor, a different objective entirely. Although you could use Dreamweaver soley to manually edit code, it would be overkill. No WYSIWYG web page editor will of course ever produce nice, efficient code and no text editor will ever be useful to someone who doesn't know (nor want to know) all the nitty-gritty of HTML / CSS.

Probably the main problem with Dreamweaver is that it is over-priced (as with all Adobe's products) and pushed as a professional tool when, as you say, most professional web designers wouldn't use WYSIWYG editors ... although some do use it to get the basic stuff done quickly and then move to manually editing the code.

Of course, Dreamweaver is infinitely better than Adobe's own GoLive, so having bought Dreamweaver hopefully Adobe doesn't screw it up like they did with PageMaker. :(
 

usclaneyj

macrumors regular
May 1, 2005
184
0
I don't have any problems with Adobe's products. Sure they are full of features I probably won't ever use, but that's a byproduct of trying to be all things to all people. I can't fault them for that.

I use Dreamweaver every day and it works just fine. If I don't need a feature, I don't use it. Simple as that.


PS - Bigglefuzz: Do you do a lot of photo manipulation? Vanishing Point has saved me tons of time.
 

usclaneyj

macrumors regular
May 1, 2005
184
0
Adobe should never have been allowed to purchase Macromedia.
Without the purchase of Macromedia, I don't think Adobe would've ever gotten around to putting a tool like the "Blob Brush" into Illustrator. And I *LOVE* having that tool in Illustrator. :)
 

sigmadog

macrumors 6502a
Feb 11, 2009
761
588
just west of Idaho
Without the purchase of Macromedia, I don't think Adobe would've ever gotten around to putting a tool like the "Blob Brush" into Illustrator. And I *LOVE* having that tool in Illustrator. :)
That tool is cool as hell. The erasure tool is extremely useful too. Illustrator is a great piece of software. I just wish it were faster (i.e. multi-processor aware).