Actually Gimp is pretty good once you figure out where to find resources to customize it and figure out how to work with the GUI it's nearly a clone to PS if you can find the right tools to add to it. Another one I like and have used for years was Graphic Converter from lismore which was great for creating animated gif files the free version is fully functional but you have to wait for the timeout window to finish (about 30 seconds) at start up before doing anything.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
You know what I hate about Adobe? Pretty much everything. Post alternatives!
- Thread starter dopey220
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Actually Gimp is pretty good once you figure out where to find resources to customize it and figure out how to work with the GUI it's nearly a clone to PS if you can find the right tools to add to it. Another one I like and have used for years was Graphic Converter from lismore which was great for creating animated gif files the free version is fully functional but you have to wait for the timeout window to finish (about 30 seconds) at start up before doing anything.
Adobe desperately needs a "Standards Czar" (hey Adobe, I wouldn't mind relocating!)
For example, drawing a star in Illustrator, Photoshop, InDesign Flash, and Fireworks is done differently (Fireworks has the best method: a primitive shape that can have the number of points altered after the fact).
With the exception of Coda for Dreamweaver, I haven't heard of anything I'd consider over the rest of the Creative Suite....
For example, drawing a star in Illustrator, Photoshop, InDesign Flash, and Fireworks is done differently (Fireworks has the best method: a primitive shape that can have the number of points altered after the fact).
With the exception of Coda for Dreamweaver, I haven't heard of anything I'd consider over the rest of the Creative Suite....
I do graphic design so maybe I don't see much of a point for it. I would rather just use the free transform tool though rather than learning a whole new dialogue box. I can't imagine a time when I would specifically need that tool though.
I've stopped using Dreamweaver due to its annoying bugs.. But overall there are some very good options out there depending on your usage.
Photoshop (although it is still king..)
- GIMP
- Pixelmator
- Acorn
- Picturesque (great for fast "Web 2.0")
Illustrator/InDesign
- Inkscape
- Pages
- Quark
Web
- Coda
- CSSEdit
- Espresso (I use this now)
- Rapidweaver
- Textwrangler
- Wordpress
Video - AE, Premiere
- FCP
- Motion
- Combustion
Photoshop (although it is still king..)
- GIMP
- Pixelmator
- Acorn
- Picturesque (great for fast "Web 2.0")
Illustrator/InDesign
- Inkscape
- Pages
- Quark
Web
- Coda
- CSSEdit
- Espresso (I use this now)
- Rapidweaver
- Textwrangler
- Wordpress
Video - AE, Premiere
- FCP
- Motion
- Combustion
For web if it's anything simple Firefox has an extension that can handle HTML or there is the Mozilla standalone called Seamonkey, for anything more advanced both Gimp and Photo shop are capable of doing great things if you take the time to learn the special tricks involved. I am still exploring those features on Gimp and learning my way around it though.
I've been using Adobes products for years, and although I have had my share or problems with them on both Mac and Windows, I still love all of them.. well, the ones I use anyway which is the production suite.
The one thing I do hate is that with current versions of Premiere it seems Adobe are being a tad lazy and not really caring about the Mac version, and I know why and most of you who use it may know as well. It's because Apple have Final Cut so Adobe figure let us Mac users just use that instead! Premiere is a great application but it could be MUCH better. Im hoping they improve a lot within CS5.
After Effects most know counterpart would probably be Motion, but in all honesty I hate motion, it just has an odd feel to it and to me it doesn't produce nearly the same results as After Effects. Please bare in mind though guys this is personal preference though, if you like Motion over After Effects thats great, why not pop on iChat or Skype and show me a thing or too? ha ha.
Finally, Photoshop. The best alternative if you own a Mac is Pixelmator, hands down. I worked CLOSELY with them for a while on tutorials and heard a few things from the grapevine regarding the application, all good now mind you! It may cost money over the free alternative Gimp, but Pixelmator is worth every penny. And in future versions? Your going to say "WOW I get ALL this for $60?! Adobe Charges over $1000!". Pixelmator looks great, preforms great, and has a great price tag. You cannot go wrong, and where it is a lot like Photoshop methods you learned and used IN Photoshop can easily be taken over to Pixelmator.
The one thing I do hate is that with current versions of Premiere it seems Adobe are being a tad lazy and not really caring about the Mac version, and I know why and most of you who use it may know as well. It's because Apple have Final Cut so Adobe figure let us Mac users just use that instead! Premiere is a great application but it could be MUCH better. Im hoping they improve a lot within CS5.
After Effects most know counterpart would probably be Motion, but in all honesty I hate motion, it just has an odd feel to it and to me it doesn't produce nearly the same results as After Effects. Please bare in mind though guys this is personal preference though, if you like Motion over After Effects thats great, why not pop on iChat or Skype and show me a thing or too? ha ha.
Finally, Photoshop. The best alternative if you own a Mac is Pixelmator, hands down. I worked CLOSELY with them for a while on tutorials and heard a few things from the grapevine regarding the application, all good now mind you! It may cost money over the free alternative Gimp, but Pixelmator is worth every penny. And in future versions? Your going to say "WOW I get ALL this for $60?! Adobe Charges over $1000!". Pixelmator looks great, preforms great, and has a great price tag. You cannot go wrong, and where it is a lot like Photoshop methods you learned and used IN Photoshop can easily be taken over to Pixelmator.
I'd like to step back and touch upon the Dreamweaver debate again.
My work deals largely with static web pages. If there are any dynamic elements, I usually pass that along to one of our programmers and they do their magic from behind the curtain.
However, I recently upgraded to CS4, and this Live View / Live Code feature really seems to help correct a big issue with Dreamweaver. Are any of you using these features to work on dynamic web pages? It seems like a good step in the right direction for DW, imo.
My work deals largely with static web pages. If there are any dynamic elements, I usually pass that along to one of our programmers and they do their magic from behind the curtain.
However, I recently upgraded to CS4, and this Live View / Live Code feature really seems to help correct a big issue with Dreamweaver. Are any of you using these features to work on dynamic web pages? It seems like a good step in the right direction for DW, imo.
used to love Adobe, notsomuch anymore...
Adobe pricing has gotten out of whack, their products have had extensive useless feature creep to justify annual "upgrades", their upgrade pricing is outrageous... and they constantly shuffle the suite packages so they don't quite match up, forcing you to pay more.
Lastly, they have turned their backs on the Apple users that they built their business on. Upgrades and compatibility issues are always tackled last, and down the line from their PC users.
So, while I already have the full line of products, I have began migrating to alternatives.
InDesign? Sorry, have it, but never stopped using Quark. Quark which used to be the MOST hated tech company, known for its arrogance, distrust for even their own paying customers, and just all around nasty folks to deal with... has shockingly changed. While the program still has some issues & quirks (the version 7 is slowwwwwww) the newer version is much more stable. Oddly, InDesign had a number of issues creating full-res PDFs, so much so, that many printers refused to RIP their files (as in print houses, not what is on your desk). I am sure they have that worked out by now, but after many years working/thinking in Quark I am too efficient to make the switch. A gripe about Quark, is that they hobbled the PS/PDF options, making it difficult /impossible to export in single pages (without printing each file one at a time). I use Badia ExporTools to get around that, and it works PERFECT (for an additional $119).
Photoshop. Used to think it was the best thing since sliced bread, and it was.
I do a huge of imaging, and for over a year now 90% of my work now is done in Aperture + the NIK suite of tools. It was a revolutionary shift for me, and the results are amazing. Plus, the tools are WAY more accessible to the average bear. I could teach basic working skills to a professional in about a week for pshop... Aperture? In less than a day. Really. NIKs control point technology was a game changer in how images are corrected, and gives you access to areas of an image quickly, areas that used to be only accessible through complex selections and elaborate masking techniques.
Apertures batch processing "lift/stamp" approach blows the doors off VCR-like recording for pshop Actions. What is pshop still good for? Layers, type, cmyk/mode conversion & sizing (that is about 5-10% of my imaging workload).
Dreamweaver? I was a GoLive person, I chose poorly. I switched to DW when the pillow was put over GL, but never quite liked it. The interface was clunky, and simple things to accomplish in GL were a pain in the ass, or at the least, unintuitive within DW. DW is not a text editor, it is a powerful web creation tool, but I hate it, and hated working on online projects with it. I switched from DW to RapidWeaver two years ago. RW was a joy to use, deceptively simple, but deep enough for many uses/users. It is cheap, extensible with third party tools/themes, stable, & fast to work with. Great online support community with worldwide users too. Downside? Proprietary website formats (sitewise, not pagewise), clunky to transfer work from desktop to laptop and back again. Biggest plus? It makes the web fun again. Plus I come from a magazine/quark background, the notion of themes & templates for pages & sites is a familiar one to work in...
Also, I use CCSedit, TextMate & TextSoap for other web & text editing tasks.
cheers,
michael
Adobe pricing has gotten out of whack, their products have had extensive useless feature creep to justify annual "upgrades", their upgrade pricing is outrageous... and they constantly shuffle the suite packages so they don't quite match up, forcing you to pay more.
Lastly, they have turned their backs on the Apple users that they built their business on. Upgrades and compatibility issues are always tackled last, and down the line from their PC users.
So, while I already have the full line of products, I have began migrating to alternatives.
InDesign? Sorry, have it, but never stopped using Quark. Quark which used to be the MOST hated tech company, known for its arrogance, distrust for even their own paying customers, and just all around nasty folks to deal with... has shockingly changed. While the program still has some issues & quirks (the version 7 is slowwwwwww) the newer version is much more stable. Oddly, InDesign had a number of issues creating full-res PDFs, so much so, that many printers refused to RIP their files (as in print houses, not what is on your desk). I am sure they have that worked out by now, but after many years working/thinking in Quark I am too efficient to make the switch. A gripe about Quark, is that they hobbled the PS/PDF options, making it difficult /impossible to export in single pages (without printing each file one at a time). I use Badia ExporTools to get around that, and it works PERFECT (for an additional $119).
Photoshop. Used to think it was the best thing since sliced bread, and it was.
I do a huge of imaging, and for over a year now 90% of my work now is done in Aperture + the NIK suite of tools. It was a revolutionary shift for me, and the results are amazing. Plus, the tools are WAY more accessible to the average bear. I could teach basic working skills to a professional in about a week for pshop... Aperture? In less than a day. Really. NIKs control point technology was a game changer in how images are corrected, and gives you access to areas of an image quickly, areas that used to be only accessible through complex selections and elaborate masking techniques.
Apertures batch processing "lift/stamp" approach blows the doors off VCR-like recording for pshop Actions. What is pshop still good for? Layers, type, cmyk/mode conversion & sizing (that is about 5-10% of my imaging workload).
Dreamweaver? I was a GoLive person, I chose poorly. I switched to DW when the pillow was put over GL, but never quite liked it. The interface was clunky, and simple things to accomplish in GL were a pain in the ass, or at the least, unintuitive within DW. DW is not a text editor, it is a powerful web creation tool, but I hate it, and hated working on online projects with it. I switched from DW to RapidWeaver two years ago. RW was a joy to use, deceptively simple, but deep enough for many uses/users. It is cheap, extensible with third party tools/themes, stable, & fast to work with. Great online support community with worldwide users too. Downside? Proprietary website formats (sitewise, not pagewise), clunky to transfer work from desktop to laptop and back again. Biggest plus? It makes the web fun again. Plus I come from a magazine/quark background, the notion of themes & templates for pages & sites is a familiar one to work in...
Also, I use CCSedit, TextMate & TextSoap for other web & text editing tasks.
cheers,
michael
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.
You summarise it better than I could ever do.
Price is a long-standing issue, but now even more low-cost software circulate, so it makes Adobe even more out of touch.
Secondly, they have these packages where they try to integrate everything that they can. But that makes each appications suffer in small ways.
My path has kind of followed yours. I was a GoLive user, and still do use it for the sites I designed in it. I have given Dreamweaver several legit tries, but I just don't like using it. I know it's an adjustment to switch programs and you need to give it a chance, but I just think GoLive (pre version 9) was a much nicer program to use with a better interface and less bloat. Someone pointed out 'if you don't like the features don't use them'. That's true, but with all the feature overkill (for my needs) I don't find making my way around the program very intuitive. Plus I hate how some things work in it like it's CSS editor.
The user who posted this kind of summarized my 'level' of design:
I guess I wish Adobe had something 'between' Dreamweaver and some of the other options out there like Coda. I am not mainly a 'web developer' and still require a WYSIWYG program for some stuff. But I also don't need a fraction of the features Dreamweaver has. And I don't really want to pay the money they charge for that feature set that I don't need. To me, GoLive was kind of between Dreamweaver and some of the straight editors (at least up to version 9 which was kind of a mess).
I have been playing around with Rapidweaver lately. I had tried in the past, but found it to be pretty restrictive. The program has come a LONG way though. On the surface it's like a more advanced iWeb. But if you have any knowledge of css and html, it's amazing how much you can actually do with the program. Plus some of the plug-ins are fantastic (I really like Formloom). As you pointed out, it's actually nice to use. For someone with my needs, it's a good alternative.
I don't know if it's been mentioned, but Flux is also am emerging alternative to Dreamweaver. I played around with previous version, but have never had the time to give the newer versions a try. I have followed the progress though, and it seems to be getting a pretty cool feature set.
I am still using Adobe software that my employer purchased. But I think I am going to try some of the suggestions in this thread and free myself from as much Adobe software as I can. I did still like InDesign and Illustrator up to CS3, but I don't even really like them very much in CS4.
Thanks for the useful thread.
P.s., I looked into Inkscape after reading about it in this thread and it doesn't appear to have been updated on MacUpdate since November 2009. Is it still being worked on?
I believe Adobe doesn't want to spend too much time with Mac development. Windows side is very the money is so they have to put more resources there.
Dreamweaver and Coda are not exactly the same programs.
Dreamweaver has many features which ables non-coders to connect databases , make query , form verification and lots of other things spry frame work.
Obviously all of these can be done using coda + any javascript library if you have the KNOWLEDGE.
Dreamweaver gives you the ability to create modern interactive database driven ( to some extent ) websites with minimal knowledge.
Dreamweaver and Coda are not exactly the same programs.
Dreamweaver has many features which ables non-coders to connect databases , make query , form verification and lots of other things spry frame work.
Obviously all of these can be done using coda + any javascript library if you have the KNOWLEDGE.
Dreamweaver gives you the ability to create modern interactive database driven ( to some extent ) websites with minimal knowledge.
There is no alternative to Photoshop, and it's an excellent program.
Bridge CS3 has quite a few bugs (Bridge CS4 is much better, so I heard - I am still using CS3), but Photoshop itself hasn't. The complexity of Photoshop is also it's advantage. Every process you need to do you can do in many ways. And there's infinite room to create your own processes. There are no limits what you can do with this wonderful application.
It also connect effortless to a wide range of other software like 3D software or video editing software, etc.
On top of this, there is also a plug-in for pretty much any special need you might have.
Photoshop has a steep learning curve. Expect to more ruin than improve your images for quite a long time and spend many, many hours on it. People who complain about Photoshop are usually those who don't know how to use it and who don't want to put in the considerable effort to learn it. Posting misinformation about an excellent application will not help anybody, and even the emotional relief for the OP will only be temporary. Nobody forces anybody to use Photoshop, and nobody cares if you don't.
But if you want to learn, there are many books out there, and many professionals that will support your learning process if you aren't a self-starter.
I recommend lynda.com's tutorials. They are excellent.
I never used Dreamweaver as I don't like WYSIWYG applications. It is known that the downside of Dreamweaver is the not so clean code it is writing (But if you want to see really ugly code, try iWeb).
For HTML, CSS and Javascript text editing I recommend Text Wrangler. It's an excellent text editor, and it's free.
Bridge CS3 has quite a few bugs (Bridge CS4 is much better, so I heard - I am still using CS3), but Photoshop itself hasn't. The complexity of Photoshop is also it's advantage. Every process you need to do you can do in many ways. And there's infinite room to create your own processes. There are no limits what you can do with this wonderful application.
It also connect effortless to a wide range of other software like 3D software or video editing software, etc.
On top of this, there is also a plug-in for pretty much any special need you might have.
Photoshop has a steep learning curve. Expect to more ruin than improve your images for quite a long time and spend many, many hours on it. People who complain about Photoshop are usually those who don't know how to use it and who don't want to put in the considerable effort to learn it. Posting misinformation about an excellent application will not help anybody, and even the emotional relief for the OP will only be temporary. Nobody forces anybody to use Photoshop, and nobody cares if you don't.
But if you want to learn, there are many books out there, and many professionals that will support your learning process if you aren't a self-starter.
I recommend lynda.com's tutorials. They are excellent.
I never used Dreamweaver as I don't like WYSIWYG applications. It is known that the downside of Dreamweaver is the not so clean code it is writing (But if you want to see really ugly code, try iWeb).
For HTML, CSS and Javascript text editing I recommend Text Wrangler. It's an excellent text editor, and it's free.
I disagree. Coda has plain code view, and also lets you edits directly in place on the server, manages projects, has snippets for reusable chunks of code, has a checkout system for updates, and colour-codes your markup, etc etc - things that don't interfere with your work but make related tasks so much easier.
Coda is way better than plain text.
Torn, stick it out with Rapidweaver. Once you learn the ins & outs (it doesn't take long, and you can learn on the fly building "real" sites), you will discover how much depth is there. While a LOT of the extensibility seems to be headed in the "Stacks" development, there are lots of great themes coming out all the time. The themes (most of them are third-party) are not as restrictive much as you would think, but hugely malleable (so much so that the results are stunningly different). Think of them more for navigational choices over style. The fairly easy access and ability to use custom CSS (even if you aren't a code cruncher at heart) is great. Google Analytics integration sitewide with one-click, killer.
The forums at RealMac are one of the best features, and the folks there need to get real lives (but fortunately for us they are crazy helpful and always willing to chime in with help, advice, and even custom code fixes). I have become friendly with folks from all over the globe using RW... designers, programmers, and even the software/theme developers. There is nothing like it anywhere else...
I have used it for a bunch of smaller sites, and a few pretty big ones as well. RW made the work fun again. Only real gripe is that it is a pain to work on files on multiple machines, it is doable... but almost not worth the effort it takes.
cheers,
michael