Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: Pogo33 on July 02, 2015, 09:08:43 am
-
Finding issues with the new release of Adobe's CC2015 and the changes to Creative Cloud from when it was first introduced, I decided to cancel my subscription and acquire the stand alone version of Lightroom 6. This was not a simple task and anyone interested to making the same move would benefit from my blog post here:
http://www.erpimages.com/naturesetude.com/?p=1295 (http://www.erpimages.com/naturesetude.com/?p=1295)
This is not an anti-Adobe post, but it is an anti-Creative Cloud/subscription post. I am no fan of what Adobe is becoming. Adobe does not want people to use the stand alone version and makes it very difficult to accomplish this task.
There are a lot of CoolAid drinkers in this forum and my humble advice to assess the security issues your computers are now subject to.
-
This is not an anti-Adobe post, but it is an anti-Creative Cloud/subscription post. I am no fan of what Adobe is becoming. Adobe does not want people to use the stand alone version and makes it very difficult to accomplish this task.
There are a lot of CoolAid drinkers in this forum and my humble advice to assess the security issues your computers are now subject to.
So what's your point in posting? Those of us happy with the subscription are CoolAid drinkers?
-
Indeed, good question Andrew. Quite apart from the gratuitous insult, as a cautious drinker of Cool-Aid, I would like to know what security risks CC is exposing my computer to. Perhaps the OP is a computer security specialist and he has some inside knowledge of how Adobe's code is menacing our computers. If so, this would of course be useful to understand. Otherwise it's rubbish.
-
Andrew and Mark, if you read the OP's blog it's clear what his concerns are. Indeed, I don't know how organizations with IT departments and good computer security are handling Adobe's CC. You simply don't allow outside parties to automatically make changes to your computers. You have a firewall that's locked down tight. If Adobe has an access a hacker has an access.
Allan
-
There are a lot of CoolAid drinkers in this forum and my humble advice to assess the security issues your computers are now subject to.
I actually gave up Kool-Aid (http://www.koolaid.com/)when I was a teenager...my soft drink of choice now is red wine :~)
P.S. it helps when trying to make a point to spell the word correctly, just sayin'
-
Andrew and Mark, if you read the OP's blog it's clear what his concerns are...
When someone posts something here, on this forum, it helps to make his points here, outright and clearly, without the need to follow a link to his blog. Otherwise it might be perceived as a thinly veiled attempt to drive traffic to his blog. Hurling an insult instead is certainly not going to endear him enough to many here to follow a link just to find out what he meant in the first place.
-
When someone posts something here, on this forum, it helps to make his points here, outright and clearly, without the need to follow a link to his blog. Otherwise it might be perceived as a thinly veiled attempt to drive traffic to his blog. Hurling an insult instead is certainly not going to endear him enough to many here to follow a link just to find out what he meant in the first place.
I agree, yet I must point out that Andrew also does this (the first part, not the second).
Standing on the outside looking in it's seems that a lot of the debate about CC is non-rational. On the plus side the cost of the Photographer Plan is a rational reason to adopt it. On the negative side the security issue pointed out by the OP is a rational reason not to adopt it.
-
And? You mention security problems without any details or references. To be honest, this is useless.
-
CC is purely a marketing and pricing package. It doesn't dynamically send updates to your computer, it doesn't steal your images into the cloud, it doesn't run the code from the cloud. Both versions install the same code base on your computer, and your license type determines which features you can use.
Updates to your computer take place the same way as they do with the perpetual license, when you want them to. I am an IT guy and I can't imagine that CC imposes any more of a security risk than the perpetual version.
I understand why people can don't like the licensing model of CC, although I've decided it's a good deal for me. I'm flummoxed by the fear and hatred of the imagined "cloud" technology model, which simply doesn't exist.
BTW, if there is some additional security issue, I'd love to know what it is.
-
In this case it was worthwhile going to the OPs website for a more detailed understanding of where he is coming from and who he is. But I still don't get it. (And Jeff, thanks for the correct spelling of Kool-Aid along with the page link; I agree red wine makes a lot more sense and used in moderation is actually supposed to be healthy; not sure about the health attributes of Kool-Aid these days.)
Now, on his site, Earl complains about needing to be on the internet to use the applications. Earl says: "While technically, this is still correct, in actuality this is not the case."
Adobe says:
"No, the desktop applications in Creative Cloud, such as Photoshop and Illustrator, are installed directly on your computer, so you don’t need an ongoing Internet connection to use them. An Internet connection is required the first time you install and license your apps, but you can use the apps in offline mode with a valid software license. The desktop apps will attempt to validate your software licenses every 30 days. Annual members can use the apps for up to 99 days in offline mode. Month-to-month members can use the software for up to 30 days in offline mode."
I think the onus is on Earl to better explain the difference between something that is technically but not actually correct, because if he's right that they don't perform as Adobe says they do, it would mean Adobe is misleading the public and that would be somewhat serious for a number of people.
As for the computer security business, if Adobe is not lying about using these applications off line, that issue tends to melt-away. The checking-inshould be no more dangerous than anything else one may do on the internet - such as downloading software or participating in Forums. So far nothing I've seen or heard reaches the spectacular heights of 4 million personnel files being hacked from so-called secure databases of the US Government. It's important to put things in perspective and get real. We use our computers, we use all kinds of stuff on the internet, we are exposed. Full stop. We depend on the diligence of the website owners. And I believe it still makes a difference to security whether we use a Windows or an Apple OS; not that the latter is invulnerable, but the former gets 99% of the attention.
-
And? You mention security problems without any details or references. To be honest, this is useless.
Bingo.
-
I do wonder just how secure Adobe is, personally. Last year alone several huge companies were hacked, companies that outwardly should have a larger IT staff than Adobe. Examples Target, Home Depot and most recently the US gov the scope of which is still being determined.
I don't have issue with the subscription package, however with the increase in destructive hacking that is going on, to me it's not of it
when. I hope that Adobe has a large level of security. From my queries to their tech support Adobe seems to have taken the route that most US companies what taken, outsource it outside the US, hope full that they kept their web/subscription service closer to home.
So far all has gone well in that regard.
Paul
-
Nothing wrong with outsourcing from a quality perspective as long as it is competent outsourcing and well-managed. The security risk about CC is a question of relativity. Relative to doing what - is this any greater a security risk than a lot else we do on the internet? I'd be looking for much more tangible, credible evidence of differential risk before I find this line of attack on the CC approach at all convincing.
(edit for typo)
-
Me?
I am pretty careless about health, safety and security issues of all kinds because I find restrictions and being excessively cautious exceedingly tiresome!
Perhaps I just like living dangerously and am bound to come unstuck one day.
But what is the point of worrying about what might happen (because it probably won't!).
I prefer to simply deal with fixing any issue when and if it ever happens.
-
I wonder why Adobe decided to call their subscription service "Creative Cloud" if it's not cloud-based?
Did they not know the negative connotations of this word with many users? They could have called it Adobe Pay-as-you-go, Adobe Rental, Adobe subscription.
I think software developers live in a parallel universe.
-
I wonder why Adobe decided to call their subscription service "Creative Cloud" if it's not cloud-based?
Actually, there are indeed certain aspect of CC that are cloud based...
-
Lest we forget - there's no such thing as the "Cloud" anyhow - only data in servers - but that's just so blah.
-
I do wonder just how secure Adobe is, personally. Last year alone several huge companies were hacked, companies that outwardly should have a larger IT staff than Adobe. Examples Target, Home Depot and most recently the US gov the scope of which is still being determined.
...
So far all has gone well in that regard.
Paul
Actually Adobe was among the companies hacked:
Our investigation currently indicates that the attackers accessed Adobe customer IDs and encrypted passwords on our systems. We also believe the attackers removed from our systems certain information relating to 2.9 million Adobe customers, including customer names, encrypted credit or debit card numbers, expiration dates, and other information relating to customer orders. At this time, we do not believe the attackers removed decrypted credit or debit card numbers from our systems. We deeply regret that this incident occurred
http://blogs.adobe.com/conversations/2013/10/important-customer-security-announcement.html (http://blogs.adobe.com/conversations/2013/10/important-customer-security-announcement.html)
-
Yes indeed, but somehow, that makes me now feel safer with them, because after an incident like that they are surely redoubling their efforts on security.
-
Actually, there are indeed certain aspect of CC that are cloud based...
Too bad....my milk is labeled "contains no bst", my cereal is labeled "contains no GMO's". Adobe lost a chance to label its products "contains no Cloud".
-
Me?
I am pretty careless about health, safety and security issues of all kinds because I find restrictions and being excessively cautious exceedingly tiresome!
Perhaps I just like living dangerously and am bound to come unstuck one day.
But what is the point of worrying about what might happen (because it probably won't!).
I prefer to simply deal with fixing any issue when and if it ever happens.
You're Ann Shel------ from the old Photoshop Forum, right? Nice to see you again after several years.
-
That's me!
Nice to see you here too!
-
Andrew and Mark, if you read the OP's blog it's clear what his concerns are.
Indeed:
...the internet is becoming a scary place ...
Well, I'm totally convinced.
By the way, little if any of his explanation applies to CC more than to any other downloaded software, or to any PC connected to the Internet, and I think he misunderstands the nature of the CC authentication process. Now I know some photographers live in cloistered cells free of all Internet connections. For the rest of us Koolaid drinkers (many of us working in IT all our careers, but what do we know about the demons lurking out there) we live connected to the Internet most of the time (at least once a month, which is all CC requires).
There may be many reasons for disliking CC, but security or Internet connectivity considerations would not be top of my list.
-
I think there are some CC subtleties missed in the article that was posted on the blog.
The CC Desktop app has Preferences
- you can choose NOT to launch it at login
- you can choose NOT to always update the CC desktop app
In my experience CC has never forced an update to apps like PS, Lr, etc. It's always been up to me to select when this happens. I do get notified of the availability of the updates though.
I doubt anyone who has used Reader or Flash will ever confuse Adobe with a very security conscious company. It is wise to be wary of their offerings from a security perspective. Enabling the security features of the Mac will help but are not foolproof. As usual, the best security is an informed, cautious user.
-
I doubt anyone who has used Reader or Flash will ever confuse Adobe with a very security conscious company. It is wise to be wary of their offerings from a security perspective...
As usual, the best security is an informed, cautious user.
I quite agree. I don't trust either Adobe's motives or their competence in implementing secure systems, but as an "informed, cautious user" I don't consider these issues on are sufficient to reject CC.
-
Indeed:
Well, I'm totally convinced.
By the way, little if any of his explanation applies to CC more than to any other downloaded software, or to any PC connected to the Internet, and I think he misunderstands the nature of the CC authentication process. Now I know some photographers live in cloistered cells free of all Internet connections. For the rest of us Koolaid drinkers (many of us working in IT all our careers, but what do we know about the demons lurking out there) we live connected to the Internet most of the time (at least once a month, which is all CC requires).
There may be many reasons for disliking CC, but security or Internet connectivity considerations would not be top of my list.
Thom Hogan has a pertinent article here:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/accessories/software-for-nikon-dslrs/software-news/the-thunderstorm-in-adobes.html
Ian
-
Thom Hogan has a pertinent article here:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/accessories/software-for-nikon-dslrs/software-news/the-thunderstorm-in-adobes.html
Ian
The only totally secure computer is one that is not connected to a network, has no users and is not powered on.
-
What bothers me a lot more than any security risks - perhaps because (rightly or wrongly) I don't perceive them having that high a probability of occurrence - is what looks to be, emerging quite recently, a sheer lack of adequate product QC and process bullet-proofing before they release new updates; this is a concern, because I expect resulting impacts to have a much higher probability of occurrence that will affect me. Thom's article is very pointed on this matter and deserves attention in Adobe. Looking from the outside in, one gets the impression that the finance managers and marketing folks are fully in control there, while the developers/engineers are doing their level best pushing the leading edge of very complex software, but gasping for breath. Technically, LR remains a brilliant application. Again, this would appear to be less of a specific CC matter - rather more a broader corporate problem manifesting itself in various ways, including the management of the latest CC release. That said, I found the 2014 release came off without a hitch, but I did wait a while before installing that one too. I am still waiting for the dust to settle before upgrading to the 2015 package. I've lived without Dehaze and B&W sliders in the localized adjustment panels up to now and my photos tell me I can keep waiting. Don't need the aggravation - stress control is key to maintaining good health and good health is useful for making good photographs.
-
What bothers me a lot more than any security risks - perhaps because (rightly or wrongly) I don't perceive them having that high a probability of occurrence - is what looks to be, emerging quite recently, a sheer lack of adequate product QC and process bullet-proofing before they release new updates; this is a concern, because I expect resulting impacts to have a much higher probability of occurrence that will affect me. Thom's article is very pointed on this matter and deserves attention in Adobe. Looking from the outside in, one gets the impression that the finance managers and marketing folks are fully in control there, while the developers/engineers are doing their level best pushing the leading edge of very complex software, but gasping for breath. Technically, LR remains a brilliant application. Again, this would appear to be less of a specific CC matter - rather more a broader corporate problem manifesting itself in various ways, including the management of the latest CC release. That said, I found the 2014 release came off without a hitch, but I did wait a while before installing that one too. I am still waiting for the dust to settle before upgrading to the 2015 package. I've lived without Dehaze and B&W sliders in the localized adjustment panels up to now and my photos tell me I can keep waiting. Don't need the aggravation - stress control is key to maintaining good health and good health is useful for making good photographs.
+ 1 well said. For sure the 2015 upgrade could have been handled a bit better.
Paul
-
Yes. Photoshop Elements 13 required a patch right away to correct issues after it was released.
-
Looking from the outside in, one gets the impression that the finance managers and marketing folks are fully in control there, while the developers/engineers are doing their level best pushing the leading edge of very complex software, but gasping for breath.
Adobe is a for profit corporation that MUST meet Wall Street expectations or be skewered. Quarterly results are the measurements from Wall Street. Their market cap is $40B. Of course, they are ruled by finance and marketing as is every other publicly held company with the possible exception of Google and Apple.
Look through the list of executives and tell me who is responsible for software development and security.
https://www.adobe.com/leaders.html
Adobe has 12.5K employees with 2.2K working in application development according to this site.
https://www.macroaxis.com/invest/ratio/ADBE--Number-of-Employees
This is NOT a huge corporation with unlimited resources.
-
I have absolutely no problem with Adobe being very profitable; on the whole they produce excellent software that underlies just about everything we do with digital imaging, and we are where we are in large measure because of the ingenuity and dedication of thousands of their staff the world over. Let us not lose sight of that. The ship just needs to be steered a bit in the direction of a bit more caution to avoid the headwinds, and I think they are eminently capable of doing what their customers obviously expect of them. There isn't a company I know of that doesn't dig itself into the occasional pothole. It isn't the end of life as we know it and problems will be cured having learned a thing or two. So let's keep it all in perspective.
-
The only totally secure computer is one that is not connected to a network, has no users and is not powered on.
Indeed. Or as Bob Morris (senior) put it—some of the old-timers here with IT backgrounds will know who he was—"The three golden rules to ensure computer security are: do not own a computer; do not power it on; and do not use it."
-
As a photographer that's a great solution if you want to revert to the chemical darkroom - tanks, liquids, enlargers, trays, washers, dryers - remember all that? Enjoy :-)
-
As a photographer that's a great solution if you want to revert to the chemical darkroom - tanks, liquids, enlargers, trays, washers, dryers - remember all that? Enjoy :-)
Sigh. The fumes are indelibly burned into my olfactory memory.
-
Well indeed, there you have it. We'll just need a more targeted approach to the security and reliability issues while we continue to be creative in our clouds. :-)
-
Look through the list of executives and tell me who is responsible for software development and security.
https://www.adobe.com/leaders.html
Actually, from what I know, none of them. The closest "leader" would be Bryan Lamkin but he's not really part of product management. The fellow that has the most influence over engineering is Winston Hendrickson who is in charge of DI engineering (which includes all of the CC apps).
Most people have no clue how Adobe is organized (and truth be told, it changes from time to time). There are two "competing" entities when it comes to actual products...engineering and product management.
The engineers report to engineering management (Winston) while product management report to different executive management. Depending on the product, the weight of engineering or product management outweighs the other. Take ACR, Camera Raw is lead by Thomas Knoll (an engineer) and he pretty much totally controls what his team does. Take LR and the tide goes more to product management (ironically, the same "product manager").
Marketing managers struggle for relevance (and usually fail) on all Adobe products. The upper executive level managers really don't have much direct influence over product features...they dictate schedules and goals like sales, but upper management doesn't get involved in what features are released when. That's engineering and product management's responsibilities.
-
i can only imagine how difficult it is to get decent software out of the house at Adobe. We used to get hints of it from the Adobe engineer who frequently visited the Adobe photoshop users forum. I haven't visited there in several years so I don't remember his name, but he was one of he principals. Just specifying what is needed is a beeyotch Here is a hardware example from a major weapon system. The DOD wanted to have a common missile safeing arming and fusing system, so they decreed "make it so". Naturally there were thirteen of them in the end. But they forgot to say "must not move on impact". We began finding warheads sitting on the target unexploded. The SAF unit would slide forward and cut its own cables. I know how hard it is to integrate hardware and software when you have just one product, and Adobe has products that complement and interact with one another that run on every kludge imaginable. Whew. Not to mention the range of users. Not sure how they stay sane.
-
Take LR and the tide goes more to product management (ironically, the same "product manager").
Maybe that's one contributing reason why the LR CC and LR 6 code bases are now split, which from a software engineering perspective is a pain in the butt when there is no compelling reason for it. Patches now need to be applied to at least two different code bases. That takes valuable engineering time, and inevitably means a less reliable application. The only "compelling reason" for it in this instance is the management driven demand that LR 6 be differentiated from LR CC due to the subscription model push. I'd love to be wrong but that's very much how it looks from the outside looking in.
-
........... The upper executive level managers really don't have much direct influence over product features...they dictate schedules and goals like sales, but upper management doesn't get involved in what features are released when. That's engineering and product management's responsibilities.
This sounds completely credible and sensible to me Jeff, but the evidence of the problems associated with the latest upgrades indicates that somewhere in Adobe they have management issues that need to be sorted out between these streams. The fundamental source of the problem could be lodged in exactly what you say above: "executive level managers...............dictate schedules and goals like sales.....". Anyhow, one way or another surely they've heard the community and they'll sort it all out. My take on all this is "don't fuss - just wait".
-
Let me set the record straight on a couple of points:
1. I experienced an intrusion into one of my computers the first of this year in which I lost "all" of my raw image files. So now I am sensitive to security.
2. I do not believe that Adobe's CC played a part in this breach.
3. With regard to CC, I am only referring to Photoshop and Lightroom which is now part of CC. After the subscription program, I only subscribed to what I need.
4. I confirmed with Adobe that if my computer is log onto the internet I must log into CC to use these CC products.
5. I was the had of a large IT department for a retail company.
6. It is unthinkable to allow a software vendor to delete version releases from ones own computer. Large production shops must have a different agreement with Adobe for product upgrades.
7. I do not question the intent of Adobe with their required CC log-in. I was informed they need this to fight piracy, but pretend for a moment that Adobe was our Federal Government and every-time you opened your computer you had to log into their system. Would that be acceptable?
8. I am not anti Adobe, I still use and value their products and I did use the CC products mentioned above. But it is not what they implied it would be so I am out.
9. I should not have used the term "cool-aid" but there are issues in today's world that people need to open their eyes about.
Earl
-
Earl, these are very helpful clarifications. The combination of your points 1 and 2 suggests we can disentangle security issues from CC issues. Your point 4 would appear to apply only once every 30 days according to Adobe's stated policy and statement of procedure on their website. I agree with your point 6, but that said, they do offer an option to retain the previous version when you commence the update procedure. Re your # 7, I fail to see what we learn by raising hypothetical and irrelevant analogies. Your #8 where you say "it is not what they implied it would be" begs 2 questions in my mind: (1) Did they imply anything - I think a sales policy deals in explicit provisions, not implications, and (2) in what respects is CC not what you think they meant it to be?
-
4. I confirmed with Adobe that if my computer is log onto the internet I must log into CC to use these CC products.
This is scary, if true. This potentially cripples one's organization if internet connection is disrupted (and these things always happen with a deadline in sight). A cable being torn up by a local contractor, a power outage, even a DDOS attack addressed at the 'right' address would shut down large numbers of people who's livelihood may depend on it. Such vulnerability should not be part of any process/design, without providing alternatives.
6. It is unthinkable to allow a software vendor to delete version releases from ones own computer. Large production shops must have a different agreement with Adobe for product upgrades.
Again, if true, unacceptable.
7. I do not question the intent of Adobe with their required CC log-in. I was informed they need this to fight piracy, but pretend for a moment that Adobe was our Federal Government and every-time you opened your computer you had to log into their system. Would that be acceptable?
The piracy argument is bogus, CC is only about locking people in for more money than it would have cost them otherwise. But I understand why they want to lead people into believing the anti-piracy angle. I remember the day that the new CC was launched, a number of cracks were already available.
BTW, people who use an illegal version, are not the same people who would have bought/subscribed anyway, so no revenue is lost. In fact, these people may promote the product so someone else may indeed purchase a licence, and that's a revenue increase.
I think the security issue is one of weighing one's risk versus the benefits. For non-pros there is little risk and the access is a benefit. For Pros the risks are potentially catastrophic, the benefits are then of no importance at such a time. It would be wise to create a plan-B scenario if one relies on a single solution too much.
Cheers,
Bart
-
4. I confirmed with Adobe that if my computer is log onto the internet I must log into CC to use these CC products.
To test this, I just closed the CC app on my computer, so I'm no longer logged into CC. I then went into task manager just to make sure that there were no CC processes running in the background that I was unaware of. Once I was sure of this, I opened and used Photoshop CC 2015 on my computer, which is clearly logged into the Internet, since I'm writing and sending this message at the same time, but is not logged into CC. Photoshop works fine under these conditions, consistent with the intermittent (30-day) license check that Adobe reports and not consistent with the claim that, if you are connected to the Internet, you have to be logged into CC in order to use CC products.
-
6. It is unthinkable to allow a software vendor to delete version releases from ones own computer. Large production shops must have a different agreement with Adobe for product upgrades.
You failed to read the dialog box - as did I. There is an option to retain the old version.
However, you've been very selective about which of Adobe's "good number of marketing assertions with which to convince us to sign on" you chose to judge them by. One assertion you've not quoted was that with CC there would no longer be versions like PS CS7, CS8 etc but that there would just be Photoshop CC. One can interpret removing the previous year's code in exactly that way. In other words, there are many, many "assertions" that one can quote and twist to bolster one's argument.
John
-
To test this, I just closed the CC app on my computer, so I'm no longer logged into CC.
So it would seem, as far as identified Adobe services are concerned. But how about other processes? I've read about reports of some verification services that Adobe apparently outsourced to other parties (and I'm not talking about Amazon who host the cloud storage, which is another topic).
I then went into task manager just to make sure that there were no CC processes running in the background that I was unaware of. Once I was sure of this, I opened and used Photoshop CC 2015 on my computer, which is clearly logged into the Internet, since I'm writing and sending this message at the same time, but is not logged into CC.
And what if you are not connected to the internet?
Cheers,
Bart
-
So it would seem, as far as identified Adobe services are concerned. But how about other processes? I've read about reports of some verification services that Adobe apparently outsourced to other parties (and I'm not talking about Amazon who host the cloud storage, which is another topic).
And what if you are not connected to the internet?
Cheers,
Bart
I've used CC with my Internet connection down without any issues. Just seems like a pile of misinformation swirling around the net as facts.
-
Let me set the record straight on a couple of points:
4. I confirmed with Adobe that if my computer is log onto the internet I must log into CC to use these CC products.
Earl
This is nonsense. Just examine the "Preferences" for the Adobe Creative Cloud desktop app.
-
I've used CC with my Internet connection down without any issues. Just seems like a pile of misinformation swirling around the net as facts.
Agreed! That's exactly my experience as well. No issues running with out net access.
-
I've used CC with my Internet connection down without any issues. Just seems like a pile of misinformation swirling around the net as facts.
Yes, obviously all those who experience problems (https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1301923) are just lying, because you have not been affected.
Cheers,
Bart
-
OP...that is the way...the American way of greed. It is in all areas of our life. One day the software firms decided they don't want to spend 30 cents for a DVD so they make us download now. The fruit we buy in the store looks like fruit, but tastes like rubber...or worse rots before it is ripe. Lots of our products have a built in self-destruct time. Sad, but that is our world. I'm lucky, I am not that smart to use PS. I am happy with LR 3,4 and 5!
Good luck!
-
Yes, obviously all those who experience problems (https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1301923) are just lying, because you have not been affected.
It's just the way of these things - those who do hit problems are disproportionately more vocal than those who don't. I don't think any outsiders have a real sense of whether recent releases are any more buggy or if QC has indeed been decimated by rampant bean counters.
-
I don't think any outsiders have a real sense ..........
Instead of "thinking", it could be researched: check the same forums archives for say after the two previous releases of Adobe updates to see whether your hypothesis holds up to the evidence. That in fact could be an interesting exercise, just to sort out fact from impression. I wouldn't be spending my time doing this by the way, as I have confidence that whatever application-based problems exist Adobe will get sorted out or post fixes in due course. At the same time, I suggest it's important to sort out which problems are sheer "pilot error" versus application-based. That would probably narrow the scope of the issues.
-
And what if you are not connected to the internet?
Cheers,
Bart
If I totally disconnect my computer from the Internet, Photoshop CC 2015 works fine.
If I connect my computer to the Internet, but don't log into CC and don't have CC-designated tasks running, Photoshop CC 2015 still works fine.
-
If I totally disconnect my computer from the Internet, Photoshop CC 2015 works fine.
If I connect my computer to the Internet, but don't log into CC and don't have CC-designated tasks running, Photoshop CC 2015 still works fine.
That's reassuring.
Cheers,
Bart
-
That's reassuring.
But not surprising! At least to those of us that have tested this over the years and more recently due to the alarmists in the area. The same is true of Lightroom CC of course.
-
To add to the confusion, Photoshop Elements uses a sign-in method of activation. You have to sign in to what Adobe calls a free Cloud membership to make it work (after the trial period). If you sign out it doesn't work anymore. This is a nice feature to be able to use it different computers.
-
But not surprising! At least to those of us that have tested this over the years and more recently due to the alarmists in the area. The same is true of Lightroom CC of course.
Past Performance is No Guarantee of Future Results ..., so reassuring yes, guarantee, no.
I also spoke with a colleague (who is very computer savvy ), with a LR6 perpetual license for crying out loud, who got locked out of Lightroom LR6 because his firewall blocked Adobe(?) from checking for ..., updates? So I'd say, count your blessings, but do not take them for granted if your livelihood depends on it.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Past Performance is No Guarantee of Future Results ..., so reassuring yes, guarantee, no.
The only guarantee's are death and taxes.
-
The only guarantee's are death and taxes.
Especially the latter, because they have been known to keep collecting them even from the deceased. :-)
-
I work on location in a city about three days a week. I shoot tethered to a Mac laptop. I never bother to log on to my various clients wifi networks. It's facto difficult getting the IT departments to set it up, paranoia rules. I useLR and PS CC. These suit is I work for days at a time with no internet connection. Never had a single problem
In the past year I have shot in a number of remote wilderness locations for weeks at a time. Lesotho, Namibia, and and three national parks in South Africa. In most of them I didn't even have electricity. I use solar and investors to keep everything charged. Absolutely no connectivity at all. Never had a single problem.
Just lucky I guess. For me it always works out exactly as Adobe says it will. Not saying anyone is lying of course. Just saying that there are several narratives.
-
I also spoke with a colleague (who is very computer savvy ), with a LR6 perpetual license for crying out loud, who got locked out of Lightroom LR6 because his firewall blocked Adobe(?) from checking for ..., updates?
I experienced a similar phenomenon. LR 6.0 on perpetual license worked like a charm after installing. Then, due to a problem at my ISP, I had no internet connection whatsoever, and I could not get LR to work for a couple of days. It would start but became unresponsive right off the bat. As soon as the ISP fixed their problem and connectivity was restored, LR was functioning normally again. So yes, even the non-CC version in its default configuration seems to phone home (for updates?), and in a way that functionality is crippled if it can't do so. There has been a short discussion thread regarding this topic here on the LuLa forum.
I don't mind the app 'phoning home' but functionality of the perpetual version must not be affected.
Haven't tested again after upgrading to 6.1. If it's still there, it needs to be fixed.
Christian
-
Preferences , General, untick Automatically Check for Updates
-
Preferences , General, untick Automatically Check for Updates
Hi John,
That may be a work-around for an issue that shouldn't exist in the first place. There's nothing wrong with checking for updates, if the user chooses to allow that. But when the application cannot connect to the mother-ship, it should just try another hour/day, and not cripple the application. There's no justification for that, unless something else is going on.
Cheers,
Bart
-
An excellent final comment for this discussion!
Congratulations, I apparently missed the announcement of you being appointed to moderator ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi John,
That may be a work-around for an issue that shouldn't exist in the first place. There's nothing wrong with checking for updates, if the user chooses to allow that. But when the application cannot connect to the mother-ship, it should just try another hour/day, and not cripple the application. There's no justification for that, unless something else is going on.
Cheers,
Bart
Bart,
Could this lack of response actually just be a delay caused by the time-out whilst waiting for a response from the Adobe server? If the option John mentioned is unticked and the lack of response disappears, then this may be the case.
Anthony.
-
Bart,
Could this lack of response actually just be a delay caused by the time-out whilst waiting for a response from the Adobe server? If the option John mentioned is unticked and the lack of response disappears, then this may be the case.
Hi Anthony,
I suppose that's what John is assuming(?), but I don't know if anybody knows for sure. But even if it were, then it would require a very very poorly written polling routine tot bring a powerful machine to it's knees. That's why I have a hard time believing that that is the real reason, so at best it's a kludge to reduce the system stress, if it works.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Preferences , General, untick Automatically Check for Updates
Hi John,
That may be a work-around for an issue that shouldn't exist in the first place. There's nothing wrong with checking for updates, if the user chooses to allow that. But when the application cannot connect to the mother-ship, it should just try another hour/day, and not cripple the application. There's no justification for that, unless something else is going on.
Cheers,
Bart
Thanks for the tip John which helps as a workaround but I'm with Bart here on this issue. And btw, you can't change the setting when you are faceing the problem, since the app gets unresponsive right after starting up.
Cheers
Christian
-
as one of the few Americans who do no have a credit card..I've run into the brick wall in terms of paying the massive 9.95....a month for the Lightroom Photoshop combination plan.
I can not use a mastercard nor visa branded retail-available" cards available nationwide at supermarkets and elsewhere..so Ive been reduced to begging the use of a friend's card in return for the cash value of the "rental involved".