I'm going to skip Photoshop for an entirely different reason.

All Adobe products gradually became classical bloatware over the past years. One or two minor features, or otherwise just a couple of crappy-buzzword-features and you get a binary twice as bigger as the previous one.

When you realize they are doing that just because they need to improve sales, you feel betrayed. So honestly, today I feel betrayed by Adobe and I'm going to dump Photoshop, Dreamweaver and Acrobat for something else, forever. Amen.

I could maybe see this argument holding up a few years prior, but I think CS3 has had a remarkable influence on my workflow (compared to say, CS2). Having run the last 2 versions on the same Intel machine, there was immediate differences to note with the workspace and rendering times. I mean just compare the time it takes to load Photoshop and it justifies the upgrade.

I will be curious to see how lean the product stays when as the updates continue to roll in.

I've used every version of Photoshop since 2.5 (thats back in the day before layers existed!), and I've consistently been more happy with each version that comes out.

Often, it's very simple subtle things that improve my workflow, like layer folders or improved styles or non-destructive layers.

I think you probably can be classified as a fanboi. I don't mean it in the insulting way; simply you have been using it for so long, that you are used to it totally, and comfortable with it, and any other alternative would be considered non good enough.

People that have been using it just for a while, and used a lot of other tools, can give a more balanced opinion to it.

For me, I have CS2 in my computer, and I almost never use it. Fireworks has been enough for %90 of my needs.

I've been using it since the 2.5 days as well, when it came on two floppies and a stone tablet. I agree, mostly, but 5.0, 5.5 and 6.0 Win were crap.

What will you use instead?

Fireworks: vector based, built for websites and web apps. Unfortunately it's from Adobe now too, so you deal with bloat that Macromedia wasn't very fond of.

I still use Fireworks 8. Works like a champ.

Most advanced features of Photoshop, are better left to the professional designers. If you are using them, then you probably are wasting too much time prototyping.

Fireworks (or Gimp, or paint.net), or Visio are good enough.

There's GIMP, but I don't see a lot of enthusiasm on the Net about it. I think I'll try to find something small and simple that suits preliminary web site modeling and is capable of producing web formats - png, jpeg and gif - out of the slices of the basic graphical model. In fact GIMP may be OK for doing just that.

For prototyping, you might want to try something more focused on vector drawings than just pixels, i.e. Illustrator vs. Photoshop. I've not found any great open source vector image editors yet though. In the market for one though.

Inkscape's the big one.

Agreed. I have a few features in Photoshop that I use regularly, everything else I use sparingly if at all. Chances are they won't change my favorite features and the ones they add won't improve my work as a web designer.

Photoshop CS3 was a nice improvement because it was a universal binary, but I doubt i will be upgrading to CS4 when it is released.

What if CS4 is GPU-accelerated and offers the same (or more) performance as the jump to universal binary? Would that be an incentive to buy the upgrade?

I'm curious about how slow people feel Photoshop is; it works really quickly for me doing web-based stuff at 1 or 2 megapixels. Does it slow down working with 90 megapixel 300dpi images?

On the app side, I'm not sure if HTML/CSS always wins.

Between Yahoo's stencils (and some of my own), I can get some clear ideas in play that look like a web page in Photoshop in an hour or two, assuming I don't get tempted by pixel-perfection. This is slower than sketching, but I think just about always causes the audience to consider the prototype more thoroughly, uncovering problems and potential that a sketch usually won't.

Rails is fast, but it's still cheaper to tweak a Photoshop doc with your team looking over your shoulder.

Yes, I totally agree with this. I typically use Illustrator instead of Photoshop, just because I think it's easier to mock things up quickly and make edits quickly.

I will usually get to a stable design, and then bring the whole team in and put the design up on the projector. We then discuss, critique, and dissect the design. The whole time, I can rapidly make new versions and forks of the design based on suggestions. This is just something that you can't do in HTML/CSS, at least not in realtime.

There's just something about HTML/CSS that constrains you to think in a box. With Illustrator or some other design tool, it's easier to get your ideas out. For me, getting to a pixel perfect design after planning in Illustrator is trivial.

The hard part is getting the actual design down.

I think this whole thread has too many hackers that are either scared of using design tools like Photoshop, against them because they are expensive or bloated, or deem them unnecessary because HTML/CSS is "good enough". I guarantee you that I'm able to iterate on designs faster and more efficiently using design tools rather than hand coding.

Everybody has a a different creative process, and the only important metric to judge it by is: does it work for you, and does it work in the context of your team members?

the easiest way to stumble into a wrong approach is to blindly adopt somebody else's approach without tailoring it to the particulars of how YOU work and think.

For the most part, Mr. Croft and 37signals work in too different arenas (as he points out). Bottom line: if you're designing a webpage, its still ok to start in photoshop. If you're designing an app with buttons and forms, start with HTML/CSS.

I think his point is if "You are only designing web apps that your will own and operate or are in a family of web apps that will have a similar look" then it is ok to skip photo shop

I agree. I think, like it's been said, that 37Signals is a special case. I believe in the field we all work in, it is wise to assume a graphic mockup as a step in the progress and then carefully decide whether or not it's a neutral step based on the history of projects you've completed. In other words, there is no bottom line.

I don't think 37signals is necessarily a special case - there are plenty of customer oriented websites out there that have a look and feel, and don't require client buy-in.

I know tons of designers and developers who prefer a wireframe before starting to work on a web app.

Omnigraffle and Visio both have great stencils for wireframing forms, buttons, and different UI elements.

Mr. Croft could have spent more time working on the colors for his own website. I can barely read the top menus and the last paragraph. I had to highlight the last paragraph in order to even see it. Its just a good thing it was a live website and not a photoshop image that I couldn't interact with.

Why I voted this up: because the author suggests that there is not just one correct way to do something. Which is not what 37signals usually suggests.

I don't think they ever suggest that their way is the only way. There's nothing wrong with saying how you do something and making a case for it; you don't have to add a disclaimer to everything you write about doing business.

It's your choice to read their blog. The fact that you take their arguments seriously means that they're probably on to something.

I don't take their arguments seriously. I am merely annoyed by their posturing.

Compelling writing often forces one to take a strong position.

I'm going to reply again just to say: bullshit. Compelling writing doesn't need anything to back it up. You either have a point or you don't. Acting like an asshole just means you don't have much of anything to say.

Agreed. My point is just that 37signals doesn't have to go as far as they do. A somewhat milder position would aid their message.

Actually it almost certainly wouldn't, unless you mean specifically for you.

They're constantly in the press, they generate conversations on sites like this, and they've spawned a legion of (number)(noun) imitators. It's one of the basic principles of copywriting and social media marketing that it pays to be bold and occasionally controversial.

Pissing people off garners attention, sure. I'm not sure it's good business in the long run, though.

I don't want to say that nice guys finish last, but certainly a big slice of the people at the "top" of the tech world aren't taking the middle ground. Pissing people off seems to correlate with success.

Um, they're proving otherwise. They've pissed off a whole boatload of people, and their customer based is still growing.

It's that old, "it nobody hates you, you aren't doing anything worthwhile".

Or, maybe their bullshit hasn't caught up with them yet.

I agree, but...maybe it is good in the long term. I can conceive of that being the case.