ACDSee Pro 3

I am impressed!

• 

  BansheeHand
  Member

  Greetings, ACDSee Pro team

  I just gave ACDSee Pro 3 a whirl...

  I am impressed. Good job. You seem to have done a lovely job.

  Still, I can't say I'm not disappointed at certain aspects of the job. The old bug of ACDSee locking a file itself, not being able to release it and nagging that another program is using it still exists. File format support seems to have seen very little improvements. Most importantly, I still consider ACDSee Pro 3 as not supporting Unicode.

  I am impressed, yes, but I don't think I'm buying it.

  I am impressed, not only by ACDSee Pro 3 but also by its competitors that are threatening to supersede it. Your application looks good, ACDSee team, so its time to go under the hood.

  Why do I keep posting here if I'm not an ACDSee user? I guess because I used to be and old habit die hard. Maybe I'm expecting ACDSee to catch up with my expectations once again.

  Posted On October 8, 2009 - 10:51 PM (1 month ago) (Permalink to this post)
• 

  BrettB
  Member

  Why do I keep posting here if I'm not an ACDSee user?

  As an ACDSee user I think anyone who is prepared to add comments that suggest improvements that would matter to them is making a valuable contribution.

  Unicode - I haven't got a clue. It doesn't seem to affect my use of the program that it's not supported, but if it would widen the use and market then I get a more secure program in the sense that it's commercial viability becomes stronger. And it may be there's other additions I would find useful if they were there.

  The locking of files I have had, but not only with ACDSee - I'd assumed it was a Windows issue - sometimes Windows just doesn't want to let go - but maybe not.

  So far I haven't found another program that does what I want (management wise) as ACDSee, and it would have to be exceptional to warrant a change, and the development of the processing side means I am using it more and more for that as well.

  Maybe I'm expecting ACDSee to catch up with my expectations once again.

  What other features would match your expectations and what do you value in the competitors?

  Posted On October 9, 2009 - 06:06 AM (1 month ago) (Permalink to this post)
• 

  lenferink
  Member

  I am impressed to. I just downloaded the trial version of 3 a few days ago. As a user of 2.5, this version behaves so much more stable. Up to now there were no crashes. Also RAW processing is so much faster. 2.5 took ages (a minute or so) to process a file, whereas 3 only takes a few seconds.

  But there is one thing, which is a big disappointing. I miss a tool to correct chromatic aberration. I need it perhaps 50% on my RAW files. I do not understand why an otherwise such a good product, misses such a key feature. 

   

  Posted On October 11, 2009 - 07:49 PM (1 month ago) (Permalink to this post)
• 

  John Radcliffe
  Member

  BansheeHand said:

  Most importantly, I still consider ACDSee Pro 3 as not supporting Unicode.

  Would you (or someone else) like to enlarge on what you mean?

  Personally, Unicode support isn't important for me: I don't use "non-ascii" characters in either (1) my file or folder names or (2) my captions, keywords, etc. However, I understood that the reason why support for Win2k was removed with v2.5 was because Unicode support had been introduced. I know I had to amend the procedures I wrote to process text file data exports to take Unicode into account, so I had assumed ACDSee now did support it. Or is the problem that is allows Unicode data in the database, but still has problems with file and folder names?

  I'd hate to think that my losing the ability to run a version of ACDSee Pro later than v2 on this computer had all been in vain. I had assumed that my loss was at least someone else's gain.

  Posted On October 12, 2009 - 12:52 PM (1 month ago) (Permalink to this post)

Subscribe to this topic via RSS

Reply

You must log in to post.