|
kevs
|
 |
« on: April 27, 2009, 02:52:12 PM » |
 Reply
|
Does anyone have a direct contact for Adoble for becoming a certified Beta tester? I called a few Adobe numbers and talk to a few people with very thick Indian accents, it's a nightmare. If someone is in the know and can provide the accurate direct email or phone number, I would greatly appreciate it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Imac 27"
10.6.8
CS5
|
|
|
|
Schewe
|
|
« Reply #1 on: April 27, 2009, 04:05:19 PM » |
Reply
|
Sorry, you don't become a beta tester by applying for the position...one is named a beta tester because you've shown a substantial ability to use (and abuse) the applications and you've met the various product or engineering managers and have been invited. Some people do indeed have inside access and can get people added as testers...but that only happens in unusual cases. Oh, there's something else...there is no such thing as a "certified Beta tester"...there is no test or certification process.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 28, 2009, 01:14:03 AM by Schewe »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
kevs
|
|
« Reply #2 on: April 27, 2009, 10:26:22 PM » |
Reply
|
Jeff, thanks,
for many softwares, plug ins for example, one can write the company, and if they like your work/ websites will invite you to beta test. There is no way with Adobe -- it's all word of mouth then, "don't call us we'll call you..."
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Imac 27"
10.6.8
CS5
|
|
|
|
Schewe
|
|
« Reply #3 on: April 28, 2009, 01:18:54 AM » |
Reply
|
it's all word of mouth then, "don't call us we'll call you..." Not entirely but primarily, yes....I've known of people, who by shear force of effort, have become testers but that is not the normal course. You really need to have something special to offer Adobe to become "beta tester" but that really not all that special as by the time beta testing starts, things are pretty locked in. The real impact is done by the alpha testers who get access to the engineers BEFORE stuff is actually built (and therefore locked in stone). Seriously, not much fun being a beta tester for Adobe. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
kevs
|
|
« Reply #4 on: April 28, 2009, 11:06:19 AM » |
Reply
|
Thanks Jeff for the insight!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Imac 27"
10.6.8
CS5
|
|
|
|
Doyle Yoder
|
|
« Reply #5 on: April 30, 2009, 07:33:57 AM » |
Reply
|
Or you can become a paying beta tester like the rest of us.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
gerk
|
|
« Reply #6 on: April 30, 2009, 01:32:54 PM » |
Reply
|
Seriously, not much fun being a beta tester for Adobe. You mean you don't like to constantly install and uninstall software that may or may not do what you need in a production environment? Or jumping through hoops to recreate/document the steps to reproduce the bugs that you triggered? Filing bug tracking software reports is fun, no? (useful ones, not "This doesn't work" reports) Regressing the bugs on all subsequent updates is fun too Or the best part .. when you install a piece of beta software that manages to muck up your system so badly you have to format and reinstall the whole setup and then reload all your data from backups to get life back to normal? Oooh the glamour of it all! Seriously though, lots of people think "I'd like to beta test _____" ... it sounds glamorous to have early access to things and to help test, but having done a large amount of beta (and alpha) testing (not for adobe, but other large companies) I can say with certainty that Jeff is right ... No, you DON'T want to be a beta tester .. not unless you really like the punishment, have a lot of free time on your hands to install/reinstall/uninstall/chase things down, love to be really frustrated when no one can reproduce the errors you can easily reproduce and have your bugs marked as invalid, spend lots of time to get yourself back to a working state ... and last but not least, never EVER test this stuff on a production machine! You will want to have some "extra" hardware around to do your testing with if you rely on your computer setup in any way/shape/form |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Doyle Yoder
|
|
« Reply #7 on: April 30, 2009, 04:59:06 PM » |
Reply
|
You mean you don't like to constantly install and uninstall software that may or may not do what you need in a production environment? Or jumping through hoops to recreate/document the steps to reproduce the bugs that you triggered? Filing bug tracking software reports is fun, no? (useful ones, not "This doesn't work" reports) Regressing the bugs on all subsequent updates is fun too Or the best part .. when you install a piece of beta software that manages to muck up your system so badly you have to format and reinstall the whole setup and then reload all your data from backups to get life back to normal? Oooh the glamour of it all!
Seriously though, lots of people think "I'd like to beta test _____" ... it sounds glamorous to have early access to things and to help test, but having done a large amount of beta (and alpha) testing (not for adobe, but other large companies) I can say with certainty that Jeff is right ...
No, you DON'T want to be a beta tester .. not unless you really like the punishment, have a lot of free time on your hands to install/reinstall/uninstall/chase things down, love to be really frustrated when no one can reproduce the errors you can easily reproduce and have your bugs marked as invalid, spend lots of time to get yourself back to a working state ... and last but not least, never EVER test this stuff on a production machine! You will want to have some "extra" hardware around to do your testing with if you rely on your computer setup in any way/shape/form Really it is not that bad. I always keep a couple of boot partitions going at the same time even for installing and testing none beta software although over the years I have beta tested software as well. And you can always make disc images of working partitions that you can go back to. Properly done there is no reason to fear installing and testing beta or even alpha software. You can also do a restore to a new partition if you want to test something. If it screws something up go back to to your original partition. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 30, 2009, 04:59:48 PM by DYP »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jjj
|
|
« Reply #8 on: April 30, 2009, 10:31:32 PM » |
Reply
|
Even so, Beta/Alpha testing is hard work and not glamourous.
Adobe does put out feelers for fresh blood on occasions and if you do a good job, then you get asked back to earlier on in the programme.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John Camp
|
|
« Reply #9 on: April 30, 2009, 10:40:46 PM » |
Reply
|
Why in God's name would anyone want to be a beta tester? This is a serious question. I think it's silly even to be an early adopter (gamma tester?) I think it's usually best to wait until the x.2 iteration...
JC
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Doyle Yoder
|
|
« Reply #10 on: May 01, 2009, 09:59:38 AM » |
Reply
|
Why in God's name would anyone want to be a beta tester? This is a serious question. I think it's silly even to be an early adopter (gamma tester?) I think it's usually best to wait until the x.2 iteration...
JC Well for one I would much rather beta test a product before I bought it than after. But seriously I enjoy beta testing. My biggest problem of late is finding the time to do it. I do enjoy trying to find all the bugs I can, but keep in mind that what I want is to make sure a program works as it is intended to do and if I can find ways to enhance it. I produce a wide variety of graphic arts related products so what I look for is a logical and the best and least time consuming workflow to achieve the end product. Where roadblocks are thrown in the way or where the programmers do not seem to understand the real world of getting the final product to a customer, I find many times that I can help them achieve a much better product. Doyle PS: I will add that I would not want to beta test products for the Windows OS. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 01, 2009, 10:01:25 AM by DYP »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jjj
|
|
« Reply #11 on: May 04, 2009, 10:26:57 PM » |
Reply
|
PS: I will add that I would not want to beta test products for the Windows OS. Why? I've tested products on both platforms and the Win stuff happened to be better. In fact it crashed less than the final release of the Mac software. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 04, 2009, 10:27:26 PM by jjj »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ben Rubinstein
|
|
« Reply #12 on: May 05, 2009, 02:37:29 AM » |
Reply
|
Lightroom was originally released to the public as beta. So was LR 2 wasn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
madmanchan
|
|
« Reply #13 on: May 05, 2009, 07:32:14 AM » |
Reply
|
Yes there have been public beta programs for LR 1 and LR 2 (following the private/internal beta programs, of course).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
CatOne
|
|
« Reply #14 on: May 05, 2009, 10:07:14 PM » |
Reply
|
Why?
I've tested products on both platforms and the Win stuff happened to be better. In fact it crashed less than the final release of the Mac software. I doubt this is the case with Lightroom ;-) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
sniper
|
|
« Reply #15 on: May 06, 2009, 01:20:26 AM » |
Reply
|
Yeah beta testing can be a right pain, if memory serves me right CS2? beta had to have a special un-installer before you could install the "proper" full working version, took me ages to get rid of it. Half the time the beta versions of things don't have all the features, and often doesn't work properly. Wayne
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 06, 2009, 01:21:21 AM by sniper »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jjj
|
|
« Reply #16 on: May 06, 2009, 06:07:19 AM » |
Reply
|
I doubt this is the case with Lightroom ;-) Actually, it's not been any more reliable on the Mac, maybe buggy OSX may be more to blame. Though PC version of LR was painfully slow, with autowriting changes to XMP enabled until 1.3 and there's no way I'd use it otherwise - leaving settings in the catalogue and not with files that is. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
dwood
|
|
« Reply #17 on: May 06, 2009, 01:25:07 PM » |
Reply
|
I just hope Beta testing is now in progress for v3.0.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Schewe
|
|
« Reply #18 on: May 06, 2009, 04:22:26 PM » |
Reply
|
I just hope Beta testing is now in progress for v3.0. Not beta...alpha. It'll be a while before it's in shape to let beta testers play. It should also be noted that the "public beta" of Lightroom both before the first release and of beta 2 were not really "beta testing" versions...there were a lot of internal versions that lead up to those preview versions. Also note that while some people thought the public preview of Lightroom was a response to Aperture, it wasn't. Adobe had always planned on testing the waters with a preview version. Also, the public beta of Photoshop CS3 prolly will never be repeated. It was needed and useful at the time for Mac users because we needed a MacIntel native version which Adobe made available early...but that wasn't really a beta version per se either. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
joedecker
|
|
« Reply #19 on: May 06, 2009, 05:39:17 PM » |
Reply
|
Why in God's name would anyone want to be a beta tester? This is a serious question. I think it's silly even to be an early adopter (gamma tester?) I think it's usually best to wait until the x.2 iteration... Depends, of course. For some products, being a beta tester has put me in a better position, when the software is eventually publicly released, to start teaching on it. I teach Lightroom, I'm not an LR beta tester but if I had the opportunity I might go for it for that reason alone. I think there's also a personality quirk, it's fun to break software. I've sent Adobe a couple Lightroom bug reports, like the black and white conversion/stairstep bug, just because it's an interesting process to find, diagnose and dissect software problems, it's a puzzle thing. But when I beta I always keep a stable version around, too. Testing is fun, but too much of a good thing.... --j |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
