| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Adobe Jumps Gun on Microsoft's Xdocs | |
|
||
| Time: 13:43 EST/18:43 GMT | News Source: Internet News | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
With Microsoft nipping at its heels in the network publishing space, Adobe Monday said it would push its heralded Acrobat product line to the enterprise market. The San Jose, Calif.-based firm said the Adobe Document Server and Adobe Document Server for Reader Extensions are the latest server-side tools being marketed to clients looking to integrate enterprise applications with document workflows. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 222 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:55:31 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 7390 (63.211.44.114) at 12/2/2002 1:57:41 PM |
| I am glad to see that they are not just going to roll over. Though I do see MS wearing them done. It will take some time but clearly Adobe's market share will come down. |
| #2 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 12/2/2002 2:58:26 PM |
|
Alright! An even more bloated, buggy, and hog-ish Acrobat Reader! As if it didn't hoark my system and crash enough, now let's add a bunch of networking code to it and even some spyware/privacy issues too, while we're at it!
Adobe: Joining with Oracle to prove that it _IS_ possible to make crappy software and still turn a profit |
| #3 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 12/2/2002 3:48:55 PM |
|
you're describing a typical Microsoft software product there.
Um, no. I'm describing Acrobat Reader, and all Adobe software for that matter. Ever use any of it? Ever use an MS piece of software? I have, they're pretty good. I'm using Remote Desktop right now and it's by far the best remoting type app I've ever seen. Certainly better than PCSuckware and VNCrap. Adobe: Joining with Oracle to prove that it _IS_ possible to make crappy software and still turn a profit Yea, don't forget Microsoft has joined that club too No, not really. Ever use Adobe or Oracle software? Apparently not. |
| #4 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 12/2/2002 4:31:56 PM |
| This comment has been removed due to a violation of the Active Network Terms of Use. |
| #5 By 3653 (63.162.177.140) at 12/2/2002 4:40:42 PM |
|
You gotta love how Microsoft moves into a market, and the competitors start breaking down immediately. The mere threat of credible competition already has Adobe shaking, and releasing code early (and spending $ paying programmers overtime, etc).
Sorry bas, but I have to side with Daz... Acrobat is very bloated for its purpose. But please feel free to suggest some bloated Microsoft software. I would be curious which programs you have in mind. Hey sodajerk, reread daz's comments - he said Adobe ACROBAT READER. You are defending the wrong products. He NEVER claimed to be a graphics "expert" (Whatever the F that is supposed to be). And if Adobe thinks they can charge "$20,000 per CPU" and compete with Microsoft... they are mistaken. This post was edited by mooresa56 on Monday, December 02, 2002 at 16:45. |
| #6 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 12/2/2002 4:52:37 PM |
|
mooresa, why don't you do some reading. He was critical of the whole company and he's talking about new software as if he's jumping on board to buy these server products tomorrow. (See, this shows how ignorant you both are--a claim that Adobe makes crappy products and this article points to new crappy products on the horizon based on only using Reader, does (1) inherently criticize other software, and (2) these server products have nothing, absolutely ziltch, to do with Reader.)
Besides these points, mooresa, shall we point out the line which proves you to be a complete idiot, moron, maybe illiterate, certainly not-reading, d!psh!t? Yes, let's: "Um, no. I'm describing Acrobat Reader, and all Adobe software for that matter. Ever use any of it?" Adobe isn't running scared nor are these products, ultimately, going to be in the same category--this is the press trying to drum up a story... Releasing code early? Earlier versions of the Acrobat Server line have been available and this is entirely within release schedule. It's MS who promised XDocs this coming year while admitting they don't know if it'll be client/server, have a free client app, or be bundled with Office. That sounds like a bizness that understands the market and has a well thought strategy, huh? Did you miss that part, mooresa? Oh, that's right, you don't bother with reading. Compete with MS? Uh, no. This is a highend backoffice enterprise product. MS WANTS to and HOPES to compete with Adobe and will peck away at bottom feeders with a free, subsidized product that isn't about managing a large enterprise's documents. A graphics expert is someone who either uses graphic products on a daily, extensive basis and/or makes money doing so. A graphics expert, or for that matter someone with a valid opinion, is someone who's usage extends beyond Acrobat Reader. This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, December 02, 2002 at 17:01. |
| #7 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 12/2/2002 5:26:13 PM |
|
sodajerk: 1
daz/mooresa: 0 |
| #8 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 12/2/2002 5:49:46 PM |
|
littleevil, I was gainfully employed from '95 through '99 doing graphics work. Since '90 (the first time I could afford or "borrow" Adobe products from other GD's, I have been using Adobe, MM, Quark, Apple, and other graphic software--I've always been heavily involved in art, visual design, and writing.
From '95 through '98, I was employed in various graphics jobs-- PrePress is boring as hell but will teach you the ins and outs of Post Script and some advanced press skills that some designers never pick up, freelance graphic design, working out of a studio doing design, a forms designer for two summers, a typesetter/graphics designer for a press/printer/silk screening operation, and even some part-time work as a Press Operator. In '97 and '98, I was involved with a very successful small studio and was working in Photoshop, Freehand, and Quark 12 hours a day. Towards the end of '98, I transitioned to multimedia and web design (Director, After Effects, DW, and Fusion if anyone remembers their web GUI) to augment the print skills of the designer that I had partnered with. And in '99, I began my transition more fully into web and database design/applications, but have maintained my skills in and still frequently use Acrobat (the full production product), Photoshop, Illustrator, PageMaker, and InDesign at work and at home for personal use. So today, I only use these apps for a half hour or a couple of hours every few days. Do I still know what I am doing, remember how I made more money off of these tools than I do now, and understand what the products offer and how to use them, and get use out of them? Yes. Do I own the most current versions of all of these apps (and others) at home and get use out of them? Yes. Do I continue to turn down requests to do graphic design work on the side? Yes. Anymore questions. Do I have to send you my portfolio next? This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, December 02, 2002 at 18:17. |
| #9 By 1868 (141.133.152.79) at 12/2/2002 7:09:18 PM |
|
Sodajerk,
I wouldn't mind taking a look at some of your work. From what is sounds like, I would be mighty impressed. Do you have a URL with pictures? |
| #10 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 12/2/2002 7:27:59 PM |
| Nah, zeo. I'm a bit paranoid about letting people figure out who I am over the net. It's bad enough that I gave the details I have and that people know that I'm in the Bay Area. Yeah, someone can probably hunt me down right now, and yeah, people probably don't care to hunt me down, but I don't like leaving web "residue." Oh well, off to the Raider vs. Jets game!! See ya all! |
| #11 By 37 (24.196.75.142) at 12/2/2002 7:41:24 PM |
|
Sodajerk wrote:
"As for apps that suck in categories that Adobe competes in: .....MS Publisher, what else?" Please elaborate about Microsoft Publisher. |
| #12 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 12/3/2002 1:21:51 PM |
|
What does this question mean Mr. Dee? All? No. Only? No. Alot of them with experience with the competing products and even new and cheap products on the market? Yes.
I use GIFConverter frequently and tens of little shareware programs too. I create generic pdfs with no apps (from my system) if I do not need to use the fuller Acrobat. I use other apps as well for pdfs. There are always new tools to try and most of them are very specific and cheap if not free. PageMaker isn't all that expensive, but the type of work you are mentioning doesn't even seem to require a page layout program at all--I would use Illustrator or FreeHand. For what purpose does anyone need a dumb-downed less-featurefull page layout program? I know there are hundreds of crappy little PC apps for such amateur work so why not just spend $20 or $5 at the flea market. But what is your point? My point was Adobe makes quality software... software that could not be replaced by most other players in the market, certainly not MS. Are you suggesting that Publisher (even if you are the amateur who won't ever make money from the software tool so will never spend more than a $100 bucks) can replace Quark XPress and Adobe InDesign? No? No sh!t. So we don't want Adobe run into the ground and out of business because we aren't all amatuers who just d!ck around on our computers instead of making money, right? That's what some people seemed to suggest and I refuted that. I never said your grandma wouldn't have her ass kicked by Publisher. I said Indesign and Xpress kick Publisher's ass. (Which you seem to agree with.) Big publishing jobs? My ass. If I did one freelance job on the cheap for a newsletter and only charged the person $500 (minus production which I usually handled), I'd still go out and buy the $700 app if I ever wanted to work again. It's called investment. And that's not a big publishing job, that's 10+ hours of work. This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, December 03, 2002 at 14:42. |
| #13 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 12/3/2002 2:05:23 PM |
|
By the way, Dee, if you were just asking: do you have experience with most of the major graphic/visual design apps because I'd like to know something or wonder how something compares? Yes, I can probably help and am willing.
If on the other hand you were just trying to be prickish and assuming that I'm an elitist snob who throws money every which way, well... I think I've answered for that. |
| #14 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 12/3/2002 3:06:00 PM |
| Brian, I don't feel the need to elaborate; Dee has and has proven my point since it's leading feature is: it's good for grandmas and cheap. That doesn't sound like it gives InDesign, Xpress, or even PageMaker competition. Since I made a statement and you apparently want to controvert it, and I'm one of the few posters who is always requested to provide copious proof of my assertions, why don't you begin by stating why you think Publisher is a competitive product with the other page layout programs mentioned. |
| #15 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 12/3/2002 3:23:54 PM |
|
Actually BobSmith, it's daz: 1, sodajerk: -2
He has no argument. Rather than arguing against my arguments, he questions me and my expertise. It doesn't take an expert to install and run Photoshop and know it's a bloated, buggy, crashy pile of dung. Are any other pieces of software in that space better? Who cares. That's not the point. The point is, Adobe doesn't produce software well. I don't need to be a graphics expert to know this. I know software very well, and I know good and bad software and Adobe *.* is bad software. Period. |
| #16 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 12/3/2002 4:08:33 PM |
|
Ooo, now daz has gone from using Acrobat Reader which was preinstalled to having installed Photoshop. Oooo. What have you done in Photoshop, daz? Run any filters? Composite numerous images of different file types using many layers and effects? Photo editing? Color correction? What have you done? Or for that matter what have you experienced that was a bug, or caused a crash, or was bloated? Please do tell.
So far you have said: I don't need to use this software to know that it sucks. Everyone else would disagree with that. |
| #17 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 12/3/2002 6:39:54 PM |
|
That's the best you got, Jagged, yet again? Yet again, Jagged jumps in at the last minute to pull the slightest quote out of his @ss that says nothing... I was responding to an insult and lie. If you yourself didn't read it, Jagged, Mooresa suggested I hadn't read the post. When point of fact, he clearly didn't read the post.
If the best you guys got is to claim I haven't read my crap or that I'm too insulting, I'll take that, but I'd actually love to argue some real points of contention and merit, here. Oh well. |
| #18 By 37 (24.196.75.142) at 12/3/2002 8:44:14 PM |
|
Hi Soda,
I was just asking for you to elaborate is all. Not looking for any confrontation or troll response. Why so defensive? Let's start by saying that Microsoft Publisher is not marketed as competition to the products that you mentioned as "competition". In fact, the following quote comes from my Prepress training manual for Microsoft Publisher 2002 (this manual is free when you sign up for the free PSPP program): <quote>"Publisher is not intended to compete with high-end Desktop Publishing (DTP) products such as PageMaker, Quark or InDesign. Publisher does not have all of the commercial printing features that the high-end products have." </quote> BTW, if you are a commercial printer, newspaper business, etc, you can sign up for free at: http://office.microsoft.com/publisher/prepress/AboutPSPP.htm There is no question that Publisher doesn't have anywhere near the features that the other programs offer. But at the price difference, I wouldn't see why Publisher would have as many: Microsoft Publisher is $99 Adobe PageMaker is $499 Adobe InDesign is $699 Quark Xpress is $899 Microsoft Publisher is aimed at assisting Small Business', SOHO, and typical home users with providing prepress ready items to commercial printers. Microsoft Publisher can do some things very similar to the other packages, such as verifying fonts, verify linked graphics, edit linked graphics, page setups, set automatic trapping or manual trapping, print laser proof composites and seps, font embedding, graphics manager, automatic process color (CMYK), spot colors and a Pantone Color Matching System. Microsoft Publisher will RIP color sep CMYK and spot-color film with no problem. Now add to that the ability to use an integrated mail merge engine to merge addresses for catalog mailings or ticket numbering (for raffles, local concerts, school events). Even the ability to mail merge linked graphics into print publications. Now, take Microsoft Publisher a step further, and you can automatically turn those printing items that you created into a website directly within Publisher. Or embed the print publication in an email as html and send to any mail recipient that is using an HTML enabled client. Full support for importing of Microsoft Word documents including formatting, graphics, headers, TOC, indexes. Publisher also has a built in thesaurus, spellcheck, autocorrection and design checker. Now add an endless number of options by using the all new VBA support in Publisher. Add-Ins and Macros add numerous possibilities as well. Global Find/Replace of Graphics, Color, Fonts or Text. I could go on and on as I have been using Microsoft Publisher in a commercial printing environment since Microsoft Publisher 95 was released, and I have made a substantial amount of money from the numbers of customers that bring in Pub files for me to output. I of course have all of the other mentioned "competing" products and use them daily as well. Microsoft Publisher is not a direct competitor to those products, but it is far cheaper, far easier to use, and has a huge bang for the buck with a clientel base of literally millions. There are more Publisher users than all of the products you mentioned, COMBINED!. This is why I asked you to elaborate. I wanted to know why you felt that Microsoft Publisher sucks in the DTP category. BTW, I have been using Xdocs for about 6 weeks now, and based on actual EXPERIENCE, I can comment that it needs work, but it has awesome potential. This product will work with the largest customer base in the world, Microsoft Office users. |
| #19 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 12/3/2002 9:38:13 PM |
| I think I was right the first time, daz. The subsequent rebuttles might lose you a point or two and gain jerk a point or two. He clearly has more experience in this field than you do. Further, his views are fully in line with the general feeling in the design industry (you know, the ones that use Adobe products on a daily basis). |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 222 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:55:31 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
