Reviews of ACDSee - Fileforum

Reviewer

Version

Review

camfrog123	Jun 17, 2009	11.0.113	4 out of 5	ninjeratu is (in my unpaid opinion) is being a little hard on a $39.99 product - I have used ACDSee since version 5 and I have loved the changes that it has brought (however 6 was an absolute disaster and was probably one of the worst software downloads I have ever paid for) ACDSee is unfairly compared to Photoshop - which it isnt, and it shouldnt be either - its a photo manager - not a photo editor... the beauty of this product is the fact that it can rate scale and search images / batch processing and many many more features that honestly you cant get with a free product like Picassa or Gimp. Yes this product has some bloat Yes it could be streamlined down a bit But its a solid product for the price and has some great features that allows me to sync with my Flicr account + much more I would like to see the PowerPack come back though - I would like to have FotoSlate back with ACDSee again

ninjeratu	Feb 24, 2009	11.0.113	1 out of 5	No, I'm sorry. The paid 5-star reviewers (quite a few of them here on FileForum nowadays) make a fatal flaw. They assume no one else try the latest versions and want to write their opinions. And the duped people who bought the latest versions will rate it 5 stars just beause they bought it and doesn't want to look like they've made a mistake. The latest incarnations of ACDSee are not worth 5 stars. It's a terrible editing and Photoshop wannabe, and at the same time a slow and horribly bloated browser. What's worth 5 stars with that? GIMP or Paint.NET are free if you want to manipulate or edit pictures - and they're good at it. XnView or a million other quick and light picture browsers are also free. Who in their right mind would pay for something that is just bad at both? ACDSee fell into that software trap so many other great products have fallen into .. Product's working so good they can't improve it. So they just add more and more features to attract customers (or so they think) and make sure the programmers have something to do beside drinking lattes... This might sound like "added value" - but it's not in this case. It started out as a software to browse pictures and was, hands down, the best. Version 5 is still one of the best picture browsers ever made. Fast, light and with enough features to make it a Must Have software. After that they just added more eye candy, more features and - let's face it - more bloat. ACDSee takes so long to load nowadays they had to add a new "quick" browsing mode to try and quiet their own paid customers who complained! I'm sorry, but this is not Photoshop but at the same time it is not a simple picture browser either. It's something in between and unfortunately neither is any good anymore. One is too limited to be useful, the other is too bloated and slow. But the GUI is pretty.

uberfly	Feb 24, 2009	11.0.113	5 out of 5	Fantastic for what it's built to do (which is SO much more than a file viewer). Better than all the freeware apps - just so much more polished and complete.

csb.milky	Jun 6, 2008	10.0.238	5 out of 5	The tag handling could be a bit more elegant but after all it's a great and fast tool to organize huge photo collections.

wickedfeel	Nov 30, 2007	10.0.238	5 out of 5	I think most of the idiots on here haven't tried versions 9-10. If they had, they would know how much the software has improved by reverting back to speed as the primary focus. I will rate the software for what it is, a powerful tool for professionals or people who have MANY photographs to manipulate, organize and keep track of. In my opinion, it is too expensive for what I need, so I stick with XNView (which I give a 5/5). But everything ACDSee is supposed to do (which is most everything), it does quite well. 4.5/5 stars here.

undervas	Nov 28, 2007	10.0.238	3 out of 5	@BB88 Cool, it takes only few years and 7 versions to do again what was supposed to do.... I predict that version 23 will be able to load images again that fast.

Howell	Nov 28, 2007	10.0.238	1 out of 5	Used to be a reference software but grew to a bloated one... Prefer XnView and lots of other FREEWARES !

guti	Nov 27, 2007	10.0.238	3 out of 5	Good, but Xnview is same or better, and freeware.

analphatester	Nov 27, 2007	10.0.238	1 out of 5	Not working on 9x at all. Not before and not after then wickedfeel think everybody idiot NOT WORKING understand it ??? NOT WORKING I think you dont try never. Who say that working on 9x an idiot. wickedfeel is an idiot

ninjeratu	Nov 27, 2007	10.0.238	2 out of 5	Bloatware, unfortunately. It's decoding fast and the image quality is acceptable. The interface is nice and customizable. But the program loading and footprint is not acceptable. (Ever since version 8(?) they even include a "Quick image viewer" front-end to the main program. That says a lot about the loading and bloat.) They just keep bumping the version numbers to make people upgrade their licenses without adding anything really useful and worthy of the main version number increases. They're adding features for the sake of adding features, which in some cases add value. But in ACDSee's case it's just degrading performance. Small IS better but ACDSee is just desperately trying to keep the few paying customers they've got left. Ugh.

BB88	Nov 27, 2007	10.0.238	5 out of 5	@brusco: Have you ever tried the new version 10? It now opens images as fast as version 3.

Death-Axe	Nov 27, 2007	10.0.238	5 out of 5	Very nice software. View your images, edit tem and all sorts of things. Fast too. Has the best gui of all the image viewing apps out there.

munga42	Nov 27, 2007	10.0.238	5 out of 5	Free doesnt make it better, only cheaper. This is the best of the best

brusco	Nov 27, 2007	10.0.238	1 out of 5	Ever since version 3 this software has been on a high calorie/high fat diet. It is a slow image viewer with many features that nobody uses. Try something like irfan view. Free and fast.

zridling	Oct 1, 2007	10.0.219	5 out of 5	Lots of enhancements already found in the XYplorer File Manager like pop-up previews, and not only faster, but well integrated with the Vista UI now. Upgrade price is only $35, too. Installation's easy, and registration isn't a hassle. I freaking love it. Thanks to the dedicated ACDSee Beta testers for all their hard work on version 10. As a long-term user, I'm grateful.

comeoffit	Apr 25, 2007	9.0.108	4 out of 5	Ignore the dieselsoft.com spam--and that's just what it is, spam. You'll find the same lies on other software titles here. And the discounts are fake. I would love to buy and use ACDSee, but I always end up finding bugs I just can't live with. Usually, they're crashes, which I have zero tolerance for. This version is no exception.

stisev	Mar 15, 2007	9.0.108	1 out of 5	Anyone who gives this program more than a 1 doesn't really appreciate light, bloat-free software. v2.43 of ACDSee is unarguably the last usable version. v2.43 is actually pretty damn good, so I'll give ACDSee credit for that. Shame for ruining such a good program.

Lug	Mar 13, 2007	9.0.108	5 out of 5	Ukrainian localization of ACDSee 9.0.108 http://www.ukrlocal.info...ads/ACDSee90108_ukr.rar (438 Kb) Translation is my.

cricri_pingouin	Mar 13, 2007	9.0.108	3 out of 5	Clearly, most people that reviewed this latest version didn't even try it. No, I didn't like ACDSee versions after 3 either, and yes, I did switch to XnView some time ago. But at least, I didn't comment on versions I didn't try, assuming that I knew all about it because I'm so clever and clairvoyant. Now that I tried this version, let me state some facts (as opposed to assumptions pulled out off my hat): yes, you can select the modules you want to install. Sure, my installation takes around 30MB, but then XnView did take 15MB. Yes, there is a customised Yahoo toolbar. But yes, you can choose not to install it. Finally, performance: I've got some pics up to 32MB, and they opened much much faster than with XnView, nevermind Faststone. The memory footprint when browsing this folder was also lower than XnView, nevermind Faststone again (which uses 4 times ish what ACDSee uses). Overall, it's an excellent viewer, much better than XnView. I'm very happy with it, which is a nice surprise since I didn't touch ACDSee for years, and I've been bragging about XnView as well (but not about Faststone because it's slow and memory hungry). Only drawback: quality doesn't come cheap, especially in this case. EDIT I originally rated it a 5, but cut the score down to 3 after uninstalling: it left keys in both software sections of HKCU and HKLM, files in Program files, Common files, user\Application data, all users\app data, and user\local setting\app data. Overall, a pathetic amount of leftovers. If they can't even bother making minimal efforts into the uninstalling, that's back to a 3 from me.

ahjefri	Mar 13, 2007	9.0.108	3 out of 5	Last version 2.43 was excellent so fast,, ACDsee should think of lite version ,, Currently I am using imagine Total commander plugins and stand alone,, so fast and has a lot of feature all of that in less than 500K..

coolticker	Mar 13, 2007	9.0.108	3 out of 5	ACDSee became bloatware since long time, last good version was 3.1, small and fast. But since some months I discovered some freeware tools that are small and has more features like FastStone Image Viewer, IrfanView and XnView. FastStone is my choice, really the best I found with extra features I love like the side-by-side image comparator (very good when you take multiple shots of same scene and want to keep the best one). But is may not be the fastest.

uberfly	Mar 13, 2007	9.0.108	5 out of 5	I don't know how anyone can use this and not like it. It's evolved WAY beyond a simple image viewer, and does everything it's set out to do extremely well. There is a quick-view module that rockets open for just simple image viewing, and TONS more under the hood for organizing and manipulation. No more bloated than any other high-end app. Rating this down because there are little-brother freeware alternatives is mis-placed. Rate this on its own merit. utomo - thanks for the mumbling spam link.

armpit	Mar 13, 2007	9.0.108	1 out of 5	Last good version was 2.43 (AcdSee Classic). It had eveything I needed. I've tested version 4,5,6,7 and 8 and each time it has become more bloated and unstable. How about a minimal compact install without all the fluff? Faststone Image viewer has everything i need and it's free.

Defcon79	Mar 13, 2007	9.0.108	3 out of 5	AcdSee is meant for a different segment than just an image viewer like XnView. Its supposed to be an organizer that will let you manage your pic collection. The most imp aspect of this is proper support for image metadata and making a UI that lets you filter/tag based on that, and here both this product and Acdsee Pro manager fall short, because they don't have any support for IPTC core (IPTC4XMP). Instead, Acd persists in stubbornly using their internal database, which doesn't sync the picture metadata and is cumbersome. There are a million freeware apps to view images but only a handful to properly tag them, and nothing really decent.

utomo	Mar 12, 2007	9.0.108	4 out of 5	Great software for Images viewer. some people feel it is too bloated. so acdsee need to give options for simple views/ install. But for advanced user can choose full install to get all the features. acdsee also need to add picture editing to hold the adobe lightroom move :) ----------------------------------------------- http://www.software-asli.com

Blaxima	Mar 12, 2007	9.0.108	4 out of 5	More and more I see just how cheap people are. Rating something poorly because there are free programs that make you happy is not objective or helpfull at all. 3.1 Sr still is the best version The versions since then have become more and more bloated. HOWEVER, the latest ACDSee comes in a pro version a Photo Manager version. I use the Manager one and find that it has all the features I'm used to and is far less bloated than previous versions. It's still not as quick as 3.1 but its better than any version since then and certainly better than the freeware alternatives. I use XNview's shell plugin to see thumbnails in my right click menu and just like the veiwer its buggy. Doesn't render all my images properly. I would use XNview but they need to correct the annoying bugs and anyone who tells you that its a better product than ACDSee right now is just cheap! @hardgiant Directory Opus is an explorer style file manager, not an image suite so the 2 don't compare

yowasuphomeboy	Mar 12, 2007	9.0.108	5 out of 5	ACDSee 9 is awesome. Far from bloated. The Quick View mode allows me to see my photos onscreen instantly & the Shadow/Highlight tool saves my photos that I would’ve otherwise deleted... 5 out of 5 !

hardgiant	Mar 12, 2007	9.0.108	2 out of 5	ACDsee 3.1 was the best version of this software and the rest have been sad bloated and generally un-needed. That said I use Directory Opus now and have no need for the software at all.

ninjeratu	Mar 12, 2007	9.0.108	3 out of 5	I have mixed feelings about version 9. It's certainly bloated and slow compared to other viewers, and some of the functions are quite useless or just not very good compared to other programs you might already have. On the other hand the interface is polished, functional and .. unfortunately .. I can make it exactly the way I like it. XnView is the program I want to get better, but it still feels 'cheap' (not in the money kind of way) and like a beta they'll fix "any-day-now". ACDSee is expensive. More expensive than it should be, really. Just to point out something .. There are two versions out now. The version here is not the one for "professionals". That version is at 8.xx and is called, you guessed it, ACDSee Pro. So the argument that this program, ACDSee 9, is for professionals is not quite true (even though they share many functions). Bloat and price makes it a 1, but since it's still the best viewer it gets a 3.

Point Zero	Mar 12, 2007	9.0.108	1 out of 5	40 dollars of pure garbage.

Amrit	Sep 20, 2006	9.0.55	5 out of 5	If you're looking for something simpler then ACDsee then there are several free and very good programs like Faststone, Irfanview, XnView, GQview etc etc. Or just continue using ACDsee 3.1, whatever. I do have reservations about the (high) pricing of ACDsee's products, especially considering the freeware competition. But it's a very good piece of software, no doubt about that. And to be able to ask for money at all, ACDsee will have to add features and try to stay ahead of the competition. And thus the program will become more and more advanced. Try yourself if it's worth it.

..::][Ben][::..	Sep 19, 2006	9.0.55	1 out of 5	I use(ed) it since the beginning, and sadly i saw how its geting more and more bloated and worse. Today iv tryed the new version and simply have to laugh... what a big piece of crap. BIG thx to "bid" for his brilliant alternative, im about to test it, but allready love it !

Carlospr	Sep 16, 2006	9.0.55	3 out of 5	Unfortunately ACDSee join the "non Pro" and "Pro" versions club. I just hate that. They include in a Pro features that my wife finds easier to handle some family pictures (like "tag" which is great). In addition, reading ACDSee forum I saw at least one version 8 feature was removed from 9 to let it just for the PRO one. Pro should mean strong color/print management, powerful support for RAW or whatever is the pro format nowadays. Pro should mean internet services that fits professional needs. Things like these that in fact Home users don't need at all. But no, for ACDsee a simple way to mark a picture (using a checkbox) is pro. Home users don't need that. Come on! It's just an interface detail wich should be a great version 9 new! ShowCase? It's a joke. There are some nice skinnable freeware that does that for a long time. Now they release a new version but don't update the PRO one. Of course, too much work to maintain two versions! ACDsee is a great product. I use it all the time. However, the company is not showing respect to their consumers. They think like a kid urging to get some easy money. They don't have a solid criterion to say what's pro what's not. But that's my fault too because I'm still using ACDSee although I'm very, very disappointed with the company itself. My question is: when will ACDSee act like a big and serious company? Not just big... By the way, QuickView is quick but for some reason the toolbar icons are not in high resolution. They could at least release a consistent application which is not since version 5. All in all 9 should be another update.

zridling	Sep 15, 2006	9.0.55	5 out of 5	bid, you're obviously trolling and haven't tried ACDSee 9. The very last thing you find is "bloat." With its new QuickView feature, it opens any file instantaneously and for only $29.99 upgrade ($39.99 full version), ACDSee 9 is the best image viewer ever. All those who raved about ACDSee 5, check out 9 and go nuts all over again.

uberfly	Sep 14, 2006	9.0.55	5 out of 5	There definitely are free alternatives out there, but none of them even come close to ACDSee's polished and well "seasoned" tools. This is the long-developed app all the free alternatives have copied (or tried to at least). The bloat gripe however is true. All these nice features come with a price. I wish companies such as this would make the installation of their programs much more modular so if for instance you just want the viewer portion, you could just install it and have a very fast and lean application. Updated 9/15 (based on zridling's comments above). Yes, quickview is SOOO nice. When viewing just a single image, it DOES just launch a new lean viewer I was wishing for above. This alone makes v9 well worth it. Nice addition.

bid	Sep 14, 2006	9.0.55	2 out of 5	It had it's features. But it's just getting so bloated. Not to mention that it's not free. If you are used to ACDSee, then XnView is a easy switch. Free and light, just the way I like it.

milesharrison	Sep 14, 2006	9.0.55	5 out of 5	I still love (and use) ACDsee Classic 2.43 (lost it and then found it on oldversion.com). It is brilliant, so quick. It is probably the only old version of software i use, running vista now, i like the latest versions, patches and updates to all of my software to make sure that i am getting the most out of it, i only use acdsee to view images so 2.43 is perfect.

asellus	Apr 26, 2006	8.1.98	4 out of 5	Fast Stone Image viewer handles 10K images easily, support RAW (and other formats) images, tagging, has a database of all images you have, brightness/contrast edting, resizing etc. Only UNICODE support and camera support are lacking. Which can be offset by the speed of Fast Stone and also less bloat. Minus one point for being not free.

extremely well	Apr 26, 2006	8.1.98	5 out of 5	I'm with zridling on the fact that ACDSee 8 (Pro in my case) is simply amazing. Yeah, it's much slower than the others but if you need a serious image manager (with its own database on your images) this is the best (better than Picasa and better than $400+ solutions). If the basics are good enough for you (organizing by folders -- not tags, seeing tiny thumbnails -- not clear "palmnails", no need for rapid brightness changes and print-scaled cropping, etc etc) then many other faster apps will do just fine for you. HOWEVER, if you need to RAPIDLY sort through MASSIVE amounts of pics, then you'd already know to ignore the naysayers here and elsewhere and use this software after a brief research on the net... Picasa CRAPS at 10K images and doesn't support Unicode too well, for example. But you wouldn't know it if you haven't seriously evaluated all the image managers in the market today, now would ya...

Dreimanis	Apr 26, 2006	8.1.98	1 out of 5	so... unusable

hardgiant	Apr 26, 2006	8.1.98	2 out of 5	They just add a bunch of useless features to keep adding version numbers but this app reached it's pinnacle with ACDsee 3.1, it launched fast and has all the features you need for a Image viewer. There are better image editors on the market and better image browser on the market as well but I have still not found a faster image viewer then ACDsee 3.1 !

mufdvr3669	Apr 26, 2006	8.1.98	2 out of 5	zridling: it's called bloatware. Some people actually like their software to not slow their system down to a crawl while using it. Make it run faster and if they have to disable a few features, but it's unbearingly slow in certain tasks.

zridling	Apr 25, 2006	8.1.98	5 out of 5	Your versions 2 and 5 won't do 1/10th what version 8 does, nor will handle as many files. If you've never used or evaluated version 8, why keep carping on how great your versions 2, 3, and 5 are? Let me guess, DOS 4.1 was good for you and you're still using it, too? Besides, there's a new invention in town, called digital photography. Stop me if you've heard about it. Yea, and if you bought a camera, any camera, ACDSee and ACDSee Pro 8.x has you covered.

alanpalmer	Apr 25, 2006	8.1.98	3 out of 5	Rather bloated for its main purpose. There is quite a lot of freeware and cheaper shareware around that does almost as much. If your camera uses an obscure format it might be worth using, but even then there is often free software available specialising in that.

benZin	Apr 25, 2006	8.1.98	4 out of 5	I've ACDSee Classic 2.44. A good ACDSee. But it's too bad that the 8 isn't so light.

leor	Apr 25, 2006	8.1.98	2 out of 5	I have been using ACDsee from the moment I began downloading pictures from the net... I have tried all versions and the best and F A S T E S T viewer is ACDSee v3.1! From v6 and up, ACDSee has lost its touch. I prefer PICASA2 for managing pictures and ACDSee v3.1 for fast viewing!

guti	Apr 25, 2006	8.1.98	4 out of 5	Changelog (8.0 build 67 to 8.1 build 99) : ● Additional Camera RAW format support for the following camera models: - Nikon D200 - Nikon D2Hs - Konica Minolta DiMAGE A200 - Canon EOS 30D - Olympus SP-500 UZ - Olympus E330 - Fujifilm FinePix E900 - Fujifilm FinePix S5500 ● Images open faster in the RAW Processor. ● ACDSee Pro now supports viewing the full exif information from all currently supported Olympus RAW camera models. ● New file list filter allows filtering of THM files. ● The associated working color space in RAW Processor will be automatically embedded in the RIP and used when the RIP is viewed in the viewer and edit mode. ● In all custom white balance panels, the selected color value ( R, G, B ) dynamically updates when the color picker is moved around the image. ● In Batch Processor, the watermark position now defaults to using percent offsets, which will correct watermark placement in batch operations that include portrait and landscape. ● In Batch Processor, the watermark horizontal default is now % from left and vertical default is % from bottom. ● Full Screen View: Header and Footer info updates when scrolling the image list. ● Blue color cast on some RIP images is no longer created by the raw processing filter. ● The midtone slider for levels and raw processing has changed to decrease the gamma value when you move the slider to the right and increase when you move it to the left. ● When converting an image's color profile and preserving the last-modified date, the profile has been applied and now specifies it is using the new color profile. ● Viewer now opens "full screen" when the "full screen" option is enabled in the Options dialog. ● HTML Album Generator - Save Settings no longer saves Header and Footer's Dates when checkboxes are unchecked. ● "Always exclude CD/DVD drives" option in the Excluded Folder Settings no longer displays inconsistent behavior. ● Customization of the location for 'My Documents' no longer disrupts the Folder Tree Display. ● Now includes full support for preserving metadata in JPEG and TIFFs converted from RAW

ranasrule	Apr 25, 2006	8.1.98	1 out of 5	version 5 is and was the best

munga42	Feb 10, 2006	8.0.39	5 out of 5	Funny, most newbies here havent even tried ver 8. Still they know all about it somehow. But v6 and v7 wasnt that great though. I must say that once loaded, v8 is lightning fast and have many useful features

Thomas01	Oct 13, 2005	8.0.39	1 out of 5	I have used ACDSee v3 for years. Terrific program. 7000 plus photographs in and described. I ask for Marine (name of road I lived in) and 384 thumbnails appear in 8 secs. Then I bought v7 Same action produces only 381 of which about 50 refuse to appear as thumbnails. I found the export and import functions did not work. Neither did the back up command which simply deleted weeks of hard work off the original files. In some areas (scanning) v7 is excellent but it really is not fit for production yet. Even their web site admits difficulty putting the photogrpahs in another location.

donce	Sep 18, 2005	8.0.39	2 out of 5	i liked acdsee till version 8. But acdsee 8 is so slow that i don't like to use it anymore!

Ward574	Sep 9, 2005	8.0.39	1 out of 5	This review is based upon past experience with versions 5,6 and 7. The features set ACDSee apart from its competition. When the program works, it is far superior to anything else. From version 5 onwards, the program became increasingly slow and unresponsive. I quickly discovered that the databasing was responsible so I set it to ignore files on my local HDs. This helped immensely. However, stability which remains an issue, is exceedingly poor. If more than 4 ACDSee windows are open, chances are you'll experience a freeze within the hour which will kill all ACDSee instances. Moving to ACDSee 7, the program became even slower, even with the database barred from indexing files. The final straw for me was when I started getting JPEG plugin problems. Everytime I started the program, it would complain that a file was causing plugin problems and whether I wanted to add that file to the quarantine. Trouble was, this occured for every JPEG in the folder. A picture viewer which can't view JPEGS! ACDSee would do well to fire its prgrammers.

zridling	Sep 9, 2005	8.0.39	5 out of 5	I know all you freeware guys hate ACDSee, but stop lying about this product. ACDSee 8 is fast, stable, doesn't hog memory, and gives the user control over every part — even whether to install parts of the program. NO freeware app has the features ACDSee brings, from contact sheet creation to its Photo Editor to duplicate finder to slideshow creation. It's all fast. My only gripe is that the Options settings overlap and are difficult to set without going back and forth. But once they're set, they're memorized and stay that way as long as you want. Also, price is down $30 from two versions ago.

photonboy	Sep 9, 2005	8.0.39	5 out of 5	If you use enough of the features it is worth the money. There are free alternatives that are worthwhile if they suit your needs. I'm not sure what "bloatware" means. If a product runs fast enough and is stable there should be no other considerations. For crying out loud, this program takes less than 50MB and most people now have many Gigabytes of pictures anyway. I have used every version ever made and I think the program is well thought out, feature-rich, user friendly and has never, never failed me.

hardgiant	Sep 8, 2005	8.0.39	3 out of 5	Despite what people say below it is Version 3.1 that is the sweet spot. Launches fast and yet has just enough features. Version 4.0 was where ACDsee went downhill, they choose to change the program and have not gone back to the idea that a picture viewer should launch quick and display images quickly as well. This version 8.0 adds some improvement over 7.0 but truthfully it's kinda of a pain when you want to look at pictures in a folder. If Windows XP picture viewer wasn't so poorly designed then it would be perfect. Either way Xnview is improving everyday.

Neoprimal	Sep 8, 2005	8.0.39	5 out of 5	Then use something else you stupid silly people. There are MANY alternatives. This is a review site. Stop talking about filesize and features YOU don't want and start talking about the program itself. Stupid 'bloat' heads who don't know what 'bloat' is. 'BLOAT' in software is unecessary software. If ACDsee also let you chat online, then yes...THAT is bloat. The software ACDSee provides is necessary to a photo editing ALL IN ONE application, which is what ACDSee strives to be. So please, take your asinine comments to another program you consider 'bloated'. Bigger filesize simply means more features - more features means you'll need to run it on a faster computer. So if you're still running windows 2000 or XP SP1 on a P3, go get a job and buy a faster PC and stop spending your time giving good programs bad ratings because you have nothing better to do. I found that 8 loads slightly faster and finds and optimizes my photo database faster than 7 - noticeably faster. It's a good program to invest in if you want everything under one roof and if you're buying it for the first time. I wouldn't recommend however, that you buy 8 as an upgrade, since it's not significant. There are some interesting additions in this version however. Video slideshows with sound, the ability to backup your pictures on the regular from the program and also a repair tool that actually works to remove scratches or blemishes in your pics. There's myriad options added also that I suspect a dedicated picaddict would utilize. I take maybe 200-300 digital photos a year, nothing CLOSE to people who LOVE pictures take. This is an invaluable tool for those kinds of people. Also, for those who are like myself who don't do that much picture/video editing, you can get many key ACDSee features in Google's Picasa2 and another free program called Fastone Image Editor. But really, once you go ACDSee, you stay ACDSee.

sanawar	Sep 8, 2005	8.0.39	3 out of 5	kashin: Do you mind letting us know what "freeware alternatives" you are referring to. Sometimes, people criticize something without stating what they think is a better alternative and why which I think is not fair. Sanawar

Klusternisse	Sep 8, 2005	8.0.39	1 out of 5	this version should be stopped at version 2.43 classic. to bloated right now

bigsexy022870	Sep 8, 2005	8.0.39	4 out of 5	I love version 7. especially since they improved the speed dramtically over version 6. Yes it has gotten bloated over the years but it had to offer more and more features. And i have liked the features. I worry about version 8. Because i so much like version 7. I don't want to be disapointed like i was with 6.

kashin	Sep 8, 2005	8.0.39	1 out of 5	I agree with the comments before me, ACDSee used to be a sweet application. ACDSee Classic (which I think was v2.41) was the best one and since then, it's been getting more and more bloated. Every year they bump the version number once or twice and increase the bloat. The install file is up to 12+ megs now, compared to ACDSee Classic which was under 1 meg if I'm not mistaken. If you need a good image viewer, try one of the free alternatives, which are way better than this overpriced, bloated piece of junk.

elopez17	Aug 9, 2005	7.0.102	1 out of 5	I'm a great fan of ACDSee, and still using it, since their beginning up to ver. 4 I use 2 program that are compliment of ACDSee "Pica View" "ImageFoX" none of this program work well since ver. 5 I agree with earache " ACDSee used to be a kick-ass application. Mark my words: USED TO BE" and with mrc " hough i think the classic version is better, they just added more unnecessary functions to the new one's"

benZin	Jul 9, 2005	7.0.102	4 out of 5	Good but shareware! Fast browser now.

earache	Jun 26, 2005	7.0.102	1 out of 5	Let me put it this way: Acdsee 7 is a complete memory hog! it hangs, locks up, freezes and it's totally unstable. Do NOT buy this piece of software without testing it. Acdsee used to be a kick-ass application. Mark my words: USED TO BE.

mrc	Jun 17, 2005	7.0.102	2 out of 5	Hi, i'm a big fan of acdsee system's acdsee. Though i think the classic version is better, they just added more unnessesary functions to the new one's.

joe2005	May 19, 2005	7.0.102	1 out of 5	a lot of crashing, and low low.... :-(

jaelanicu	Apr 8, 2005	7.0.102	3 out of 5	It's a solid application but it's getting slower and slower since version 5. They should separate the thumbnail database and make it optional.

JeRrYFaR	Mar 25, 2005	7.0.102	5 out of 5	I would rate ACDSee very high, however I will not go any further than 2.42 as to me it has always been the most stable version and it it lightning fast. Try comparing 7 to 2.42 and verify for yourself: 2.42 can be found here: http://www.oldversion.com

otheos	Mar 25, 2005	7.0.102	1 out of 5	It keeps crashing as it always has (eversince ver.3.1). Great features but poor implementation. Don't buy it.

zridling	Mar 25, 2005	7.0.102	5 out of 5	You seem to be confusing ACDSee 7 with version 6.02. Version 7 is blazingly fast and the rudimentary FastStone Image Viewer is hideously slow and lacks many basic features. Right now, ACDSee rules the image viewing, image management landscape, whether you like it or not.

yokozuna	Mar 25, 2005	7.0.102	2 out of 5	ACDSee is synonymous to "bloatware". Contrary to some beliefs it does not produce better images and works pretty slow. I dare say more - it is one of the least intuitive graphic tools I know. Of course, if someone wants to spend his money on it ACDSee he can. The rest should try the combination of FastStone Image Viewer (www.faststone.org) and PhotoFiltre (www.photofiltre.com). There are some other tools that which can do the job (and they are free for home users!). They are not so integrated as ACDSee, but I want a set of good tools, not one which is the most integrated one but with so-so features, speed and stability.

uberfly	Mar 25, 2005	7.0.102	5 out of 5	ACDSee continues to lead the pack in what it has evolved to be - a viewer / image collection cataloger / basic editor. It is VERY well polished and the authors do a good job addressing the needs of its user base. Is it free? No, but well worth its price and well beyond it's freeware counterparts. Been using it since the mid 90's.

jafo818	Mar 24, 2005	7.0.102	5 out of 5	The installer fails to find my 7.0.62 Powerpack install. :(

poostain	Mar 24, 2005	7.0.102	4 out of 5	@ M3wThr33 jpeg2000 is supported

Pixelsmack	Mar 24, 2005	7.0.102	5 out of 5	If you're looking for fast and quick browsing, then ACD Classic is the way to go. If you don't mind a minor speed hit, the powerful features of even a stripped down ACD 7.0 install is well worth it. 7.0s support for RAW and 48bit data (with Photo Pro option) is most welcome. Being able to perform color initial corrections in ACD using these modes is very cool. Categorizing and adding keywords/ratings is stupidly simple and makes finding images in my archives painless. Plus it doesn this very fast and it's easy to modify. As for thumnbnail speed, once you generate your database, it's very fast. 7.0s preview time for large pixel formats as well as RAW is the fastest I've seen. I can bring up 8.2mp RAWs in about one second! (P4 2.6c). The GUI is not the sexiest for sure, but it's functional and does not get in the way. Take the time to configure it to only display images and turn off the movie and compression support options and it's a speedy browser. Most people stopped looking at ACD after 2.4 and 3.1. That's a shame. 5.0 and 6.0 were not much better, but 7.0 has really improved. You just need to learn all the features it has and work with them. They will only help you navigate and organize your files all for the better. I am a semi-professional digital photographer and ACD along with Photoshop CS are two indispensable tools in my arsenal.

hardgiant	Mar 24, 2005	7.0.102	2 out of 5	ACDsee 3.1 was the pinnacle for this application. It launched faster then the newer builds and had most of the features anybody would want. All the versions that came after, 4.x,5.x,6.x and 7.x were slower and didn't really add many features that were neccessary for image viewing.

Athena	Mar 24, 2005	7.0.102	2 out of 5	For the use I have of such a tool, I have to say that faststone does the same job, and picasa, and xnview, and for free.

etrigan63	Mar 24, 2005	7.0.102	4 out of 5	They did fix the printing bug that causes it to crash when you change print settings. Also the print dialog no longer fills the entire screen.

M3wThr33	Mar 24, 2005	7.0.102	5 out of 5	Gotta counteract my review. I do see jpeg2000 support. Color me surprised!

myusername	Feb 1, 2005	7.0.61	1 out of 5	For years I have used Acdsee and always recommended it until Version 6! I even tried Version 7. Nothing but bloatware and borderline phonehome spyware. Whoever dreamed up this release has significant issues with what made ACDSee popular in the first place. A day doesn't go by that it doesn't lock up and crash at least every 2 to 3 hours regardless of OS. Add onto that the fact that their customer support pretends like there are no issues with the software and tricky pricing schemes. Well, you get the picture. If ACDSee had a brain it would give the unfortunate version 6 owners, version 7. It will be years before I trust this company again, if ever. I don't know who these people are that rate this software high, however, they either have a vested interest or they don't have a clue. I'm trying xnview.

betabetabeta	Dec 25, 2004	7.0.61	2 out of 5	First and foremost....Slightly faster loading than v6. But then everything else still sucks. I always compare newer versions of ACDSee to the 2.4 Classic verion. I still use it for all my "image management" purposes. I import by images from my Sony Digital Cam using JUST the Sony USB driver and manage them using ACDsee Classic. Who needs further versions of this bloated interface. Give me 1 substantial feature of newer versions over the Classic version. Things I still love about ACDSee Classic: 1. Best Interface 2. Compact thumbnail cache ADVICE TO AUTHORS: Start working on the Acdsee CLassic 2.4 interface and build newer/ALTERNATIVE versions on this. Even Winamp3 with its much hyped fresh code flopped. I guess even ACDSee is not confident of its newer versions....No wonder the pricing is as below: ACDSee™ Classic – English $34.95 USD ACDSee™ 7 – English $49.99 USD

lilmegz	Dec 13, 2004	7.0.61	2 out of 5	BAD Release of the 7.0 build. I keep getting error message (the same one) everytime I close it :(

pilotmi80	Dec 10, 2004	7.0.61	2 out of 5	I agree with the other reviews : it tries to do too many things. They realized this and made it a bit more customizable by letting the user enable/disable plugins to save resources. Great, I disable almost everything and it keeps on consuming resources. It has also lost a functionnality I used to like : useexplorer context menu to let me access my renaming program while in acdsee. So I stick with v5 (altough idbsrv.exe runs often out of control, this version is acceptable)

kashin	Dec 9, 2004	7.0.61	1 out of 5	The problem with this program is that it tries to be too many things it's not. I used to be a huge fan of this piece of software, but that was back when the install file was ~2 megs, not 14 megs and didn't include everything but the kitchen sink. It did one thing and did it extremely well, and that one thing was viewing images. I still have v2.43 (aka. ACDSee Classic) and use it ocassionally. (My file manager has a built in image viewer and I use Paint Shop Pro for editing, printing, etc.) I've tried all the new major releases such as 5, 6 and 7, and have been dissapointed/disgusted each time. Like the person before me, I recommend you avoid this at all costs and try a free alternative such as XnView.

blackcherry	Dec 9, 2004	7.0.61	1 out of 5	teh interface is too busy...... plus it looks like something windows 95 ppl would use..... im so friggen sick of lazy programmers not updating teh interfaces of their programs!!! avoid at ALL COSTS.

Floodland	Dec 9, 2004	7.0.61	2 out of 5	If you want a fast picture viewing your choice is irfanview. Not only better and faster than acdsee but also free. ACDsee was the best, but that was long ago. Things change over time.

zridling	Dec 9, 2004	7.0.61	5 out of 5	Version 7 is fantastic! It's fast, works flawlessly, is completely customizable, and easy to use. Version 6's problems were a distinct diversion from the success of version 5, but ACDSee 7.x is the cream of the crop.

petiot	Dec 9, 2004	7.0.61	2 out of 5	Toooo big, bloated, disk space and memory hungry. XNview is better and if you dont need raw, FastStone image viwer is excellent too (2 meg only). Acdsee was good, now it is a joke.

hardgiant	Dec 9, 2004	7.0.61	4 out of 5	I'll admit 4, 5 and 6 were slow and heavy but 7 is pretty fast. As far as classic 2.43 is concerned I always thought that 3.1 was the best early version. Classic 2.43 is a little to stripped down for me to use.

fudgebrownie	Nov 15, 2004	7.0.47	5 out of 5	ACDSee 7.0 with PhotoPro Is the Way to go... Have been an ACDSee user for years within the Web Design / Graphic Design Community. I used Classic for years until 5 came out. I found 5 clunky when it came to Video / Audio 6 to be honest was a mistake and I am glad they had a 30-day trial so I could see all the bugs 7 Is excellent... I have a Fuji Camera that shoots Raw files and I needed to upgrade to the ACDSee Plug-in called, "Photo Pro" which supplies all sRGB support as well as manages my RAW file formats perfectly. ACDSee is my choice for image management but I find that they should stay away from managing Video + Audio files ... too clunky and they should keep the program lean and mean. You can see by the reviews below that people want a small and fast program for viewing images with or without all the bells and whistles... I myself require the advanced image management features ... but I appreciate the fact that others want it lean and mean. ACDSee 7 is well worth the money and a good product to have in your utility belt

Heineken	Oct 28, 2004	7.0.47	1 out of 5	i think ACDSee Classic v2.43 is the best version of it, very fast to open images and such things to view newer versions of ACDsee if very sucky

Curlytopz	Oct 24, 2004	7.0.47	1 out of 5	Yes I agree ACDSee 2.43 is far the best of all. All others are bloated and over rated.

zridling	Oct 23, 2004	7.0.47	5 out of 5	Wow, you're all wrong and obviously haven't used ACDSee much at all. Just as version 5 was a classic, this version is destined to be the same. The ACD folks actually removed features and rewrote the entire code to remove clutter and incompatibilities. I should know: I was was their biggest critic throughout version 6.x. If you get the PowerPack version, it comes with a Photo Editor second only to Photoshop. It's stunning. More than anything, ACDSee 7 is very fast.

Heffel	Oct 22, 2004	7.0.47	1 out of 5	Everything which came after ACDSee 2.43, also known as ACDSee Classic was bloated crap-ware. Staying with Irfanview

M3wThr33	Oct 22, 2004	7.0.47	3 out of 5	There program is fine as it is right now, but until they add Jpeg2000 support, nothing they do will raise their score.

LeXTeRiTY_X	Oct 22, 2004	7.0.47	3 out of 5	An ok image viewer, although nothing stands out much. I'll stay with IrfanView / SlowView for image management and Adobe Photoshop / PaintShop Pro if more image tweaking is needed.

Pixelsmack	Oct 22, 2004	7.0.47	3 out of 5	The improved RAW support is nice, but man I wish they would add HDR and OpenEXR support(with fstop control). I realize these are more "professional" and "industry" specific formats but there are a number of cheap or free viewers out there that do it. I use them but they are lacking in so many other areas compared to ACD. This latest ACD release(7.0), once again, does not warrant a "point release". There really hasn't been anything ground breakingly new in ACD since 3.0. Just minor add ons. Hardly a point release. I wish they'd focus more on image viewing tools and formats instead of all the gimicy crap.

Change	Oct 9, 2004	7.0	1 out of 5	I'll advise people to stay away from this version until they have released a patch. It will trash all (most?) file associations with files ACDSee can be associated with! My computer is almost useless when I double-click files now, opening in the wrong program or showing the "Open with" dialog with so many files. Users have even reported having to reinstall their video codecs and programs like Adobe Acrobat (Pro)... Was this release tested at all?! This is an amazingly serious bug!! I can't believe it got the label "Final"...

hardgiant	Oct 1, 2004	7.0	5 out of 5	It's great but the Intouch part is always down. They really need to have more then one address for updates and trial signups.

yokozuna	Oct 1, 2004	7.0	4 out of 5	I am nicely surprised by the new version, it is very fast and needs less memory than before. There are some bugs like this one that AcdSee 7.0 became the default viewer for my video files, however, I unchecked the fields. I had to correct it manually.

kenheyden	Sep 30, 2004	7.0	5 out of 5	Major improvement, this one is fast and worth the money.

Espique	Sep 30, 2004	7.0	4 out of 5	wow! I hatet every ACDSee release that came after 3.x. Too slow, too bloated. But this new 7.0 seems like a major improvement. Very cleaned up and uncluttered, very speedy (!) and a real pleasure to work with and look at. All those ACDSee classic lovers: It's time to give it a new chance! Very promising. Now let's just hope they don't use this all new version as a ground to reuild bloat. I had given it 5 stars, but the included online help sucks. Almost no info in it.

blackcherry	Sep 30, 2004	7.0	5 out of 5	why are betanews using such an old screenshot?

Carlospr	Sep 29, 2004	7.0	4 out of 5	I really like ACDSee. I'm a registered user for a long time. In fact, version 7.0 is really better. You can't customize all toolbars as the previous version, which is weird... FotoSlate and Photo Editor don't have the same interface of ACDSee, which makes the suite looks like something done without a logical and good production management. They could do a little more for a paid upgrade...

zridling	Sep 29, 2004	7.0	5 out of 5	ADDITION BY SUBTRACTION. ACD Systems is the comeback company of the year after ditching its version 6.x and rewriting its entire code for version 7.0, and they even made it cheaper. Many of the "kitchen sink" features that were slowing down the program have been tossed in favor of speed and file management. All new digital camera and video formats are included. ACDSee 7.0 is a big winner.

lilmegz	Mar 13, 2004	6.0.3	5 out of 5	AWESOME Update! This update DOES improve speed performance and also includes better memory management. I have installed it and noticed a significant difference in the startup/loadup speed!!! :)

	Mar 13, 2004	6.0.3	1 out of 5	Like almost everyone else has already said, this is just more slow, bloated crap from a company that wants to nickle and dime you to death and has crappy support to boot. I pointed out a bug in ACDSee 5 well over a year ago. They confirmed to me that other users had also reported the bug. I even told them exactly what had to be changed to correct the bug. They still haven't fixed it, and of course they never will. So they can KMA. If you use ACDSee--and even if you're happy with it--do yourself a favor and try a competitor's product. You'll be shocked at how much faster it is.

Zero-Point	Mar 12, 2004	6.0.3	4 out of 5	Who here has tried the new update? I have and ACDSystems has addressed speed issues the world has been complaining about. This was their prime goal in the new update. I never really complained about the speed issue w/ ACDSee because I don't like the way other programs handle the "viewing workflow".

bobad	Mar 12, 2004	6.0.3	1 out of 5	ACDSee has become a very bloated program, and no longer usable as an image viewer/quick editor. The combination of Firegraphic for viewing and PhotoFiltre for editing(both freeware) whip ACDSee like a rented mule.

speaker	Mar 12, 2004	6.0.3	3 out of 5	There's no denying that this app is a definite improvement over version 4, but it's just too slow to open files. One of the most important aspect of an image management application is it's latency period between opening and displaying a file. This is where version 3 excelled. Even keeping ACDSee in the taskbar (also in memory) doesn't speed it up. Overall this app is excellent, but I still decided to downgrade to version 3.1 (3+ years old) as many others here have done.

roj	Mar 12, 2004	6.0.3	3 out of 5	This was an absolutely terrific utility program until it hit version 3. At that point it became a bugfest. The program was eventually sanitized of bugs but then it became serious bloatware. For a freeware (better yet!) alternative that is what this program should have been and an excellent balance between functionality and slimness, check out XnView.

lachupa	Mar 12, 2004	6.0.3	3 out of 5	What people saying here is very true: ACDSEE is a great program but after v3.0 they implements more and more functions and the program requires more and more resources to run. Valid alternatives? Compupic by compuserve. I use it since ACDSee turned to 4.0 - a very good replacement for ACDSee.

BB88	Mar 12, 2004	6.0.3	4 out of 5	I know it becomes bloated and slow, but I'm sure it's more functional and feature-rich (useful ones) now. Good that my digicam has it in the software package so I don't have to pay for it.

LongDragon	Mar 12, 2004	6.0.3	1 out of 5	Its a crying shame how they completely wasted this once exellent viewer. I still only use the classic.

BoNeLeSS	Mar 12, 2004	6.0.3	2 out of 5	uh... this was a good program till version 3 or 4... but now is uberslow bloatware. Try classic 3.2 or other free progs like irfanview.

joske	Mar 12, 2004	6.0.3	1 out of 5	still using the 3.2 "edition" after that comes :look down: complete garbage and bloated software.

Stephan Schwartz	Feb 21, 2004	6.0.2	1 out of 5	Two Words: . Complete . Garbage

UziBeatle	Feb 3, 2004	6.0.2	1 out of 5	A well deserved one star from this old time user. I've used ACDSEE for years and recall when it was a wee file well below 1 megabyte in size. As of the 4.x series and above I gave up on them. Bloated beyond belief then and now with this monstrousity 6.x I'm unsre what to think of the people that run this company. Must be insane is all I can come up with. I run 3.1 to this day now and am quite happy with it. I highly recommend the 3.x and below versions if you can find them. I"d give 3.1 five stars today. A excellent upcomer freebie I'd recommend would be XnView. It's a bit slower than ACDsee 3.1 but does more or less the same job for those that just want to a good viewer.

Enamour	Jan 31, 2004	6.0.2	1 out of 5	ACDSee 5.1 is a great proggie. This version is bloated and actually lacking the options in 5.1. Not worth the $ when the previous version is so much better.

Forkboy2	Dec 9, 2003	6.0.2	5 out of 5	If all you want is to view JPGs, then ya, maybe ACDSee is too much. But if you have a large digital photo collection, it's a must have. The ability to sort everything by categories and date the photo was taken using EXIF data is a must. Plus they finally added the ability to modify EXIF data.

JolinFire	Dec 7, 2003	6.0.2	2 out of 5	Bloat ! Free software like IrfanView / XNView kills it. Too bad, I was so speedy and useful in version 3 and 4.

uNdisputed	Dec 6, 2003	6.0.2	1 out of 5	3.1 i do still use.. did try the further version`s..but alway`s came back to 3.1.. i think my starting to use the free and much better irfan view is a better option that upgrading acdsee 3.1 sorry i had to rate it 1 star....but do take it as a minus 5..

L337JasE	Dec 5, 2003	6.0.2	3 out of 5	I've been using this program since v3, and I agree that it has turned into bloatware - but v6 adds useful features and has a much better interface than v5. It seems a lot quicker too. HOWEVER, even with the latest update there seem to be bugs! After the v5 fiasco, I would have thought ACDSystems would have learnt their lesson and done proper beta-testing before realease.

Carlospr	Dec 5, 2003	6.0.2	5 out of 5	I understand those who miss the simple ACDSee Classic... However, I'm able to do almost everything with ACDSee 6... Clean interface, stable and great features. Support is also nice. I don't think that the memory usage is a problem, since it is a photo software related.

Joco	Dec 5, 2003	6.0.2	5 out of 5	ACDSee is bloated. The freeware IrfanView http://www.irfanview.com/ is much better.

bobad	Dec 5, 2003	6.0.2	1 out of 5	ACDSee has literally went from "first to worst". It tries to do everything, but does nothing well. There is actually Freeware to view and edit photos. ACDSee Classic is still the best pure picture viewer out there, but the Freeware programs are even beginning to overtake Classic.

yokozuna	Dec 5, 2003	6.0.2	2 out of 5	It used to be a good program. I used in the past (v.3.1), but now it is a horrible piece of bloatware. Moreover, it has problems with languages that do not use Latin fonts. I currently use Slowview (slowview.at, freeware). Ironically, SlowView, contrary to its name, is MUCH faster than ACDSee. Maybe the producer should consider custom installation? Who needs all the options?

Bludd	Dec 5, 2003	6.0.2	2 out of 5	This program tries to do too much. I still use ACDSee 2.43 or ACDSee Classic as the developer calls it, and it is an excellent picture viewer.

jubeix	Nov 23, 2003	6.0.0.0065	1 out of 5	Gay, why do two .exe's need to be open when I view a pic. On top of that, it takes up 40MB! I'm now a IrfanView convert. Program only uses under 5MB! + FREE.

NotSoSkilledUser	Oct 18, 2003	6.0.0.0065	1 out of 5	Killed ACDSee from taskbar (right click on its icon, then Exit) --- DBLocalServer keeps runnig and wasting 19.3 MB. What more can I say... Delete it immediately and re-install the old v2.43!

ranasrule	Oct 1, 2003	6.0.0.0065	1 out of 5	ok heres how ive seen it....the first version i used was 3.1 and it was awesome....version 4 sucked .... version 5(the version iam currently using personally) has everything u could ask for ,performance and feature wise... BUT I TRIED 6.0 LAST WEEK and IT SUCKS....and that might be an understatement,,,instead of adding features the dumba**es have done away with many and its slow as hell...in my humble opinion AVOID AT ALL COSTS !!!!

softssa	Oct 1, 2003	6.0.0.0065	3 out of 5	Great program, but unfortunately shareware. XnView and IrfanView are freeware. Why shouldn't I use one of these or why not both.

hAnsa	Apr 14, 2003	5.0.1	5 out of 5	5.0 is nice. however, the update won't install on my win2k pro saying it cannot find acdsee

Carlospr	Apr 13, 2003	5.0.1	5 out of 5	ACDSee 5 is really great! Of course, it could add fotoslate (or something like that) to menage the print function, because it is a basic feauture. In addition, ACDSee 5 should be an free upgrade for those who buy version 4, which was the worst of all ACDsees... Maybe ACDSystems is looking for profit no matter what!

future2003	Apr 12, 2003	5.0.1	5 out of 5	Simply the best!

shantanu	Apr 12, 2003	5.0.1	1 out of 5	How true, my sentiments exactly !!! Use ACDSee 2.43 (or even better use 2.41, 2.43 had a TIFF problem)

bobad	Apr 12, 2003	5.0.1	2 out of 5	ACDSee 4.X and 5.X are just bloatware. It's too slow, and tries to be too many things besides a picture viewer. When that's attempetd, it usually turns out that none of the functions are done well. This is the case with 5.0 and 5.1 upgrade. My advice is to use "ACDSee 2.43 Classic", which is lightning fast, and free from much unnecessary bloat. 2.43 Lt. is by far the best and snappiest picture viewer on the market, but a bit pricey. I'll never understand for the life of me WHY PICTURE VIEWERS THINK THEY NEED A BROWSER? Windows already HAS A BROWSER WITH THUMBNAILS! Sheesh! :-(((

xippon	Apr 12, 2003	5.0.1	2 out of 5	Sorry but good ACDSee stop at 3.x version. Lots of no need things and harder to navigate. Version 3.x was the best.. In that case i prefer Firegraphic XP...

drG	Apr 12, 2003	5.0.1	5 out of 5	ACDSee pretty much rules for image viewing.

thpetroff	Nov 25, 2002	5.0	5 out of 5	Very GOOD!

kmansuri	Nov 24, 2002	5.0	2 out of 5	Ugh, I'll give it 2 stars instead of 1 because its an alright image viewing software, and not terrible. Personally I recommend Firegraphic XP, which is also available on fileforum, and is easily the best viewing software I've ever used. Go download that instead :-)

ricsal	Oct 17, 2002	5.0	3 out of 5	very buggy

spiked	Oct 2, 2002	5.0	3 out of 5	I've been using 5.0 for a couple of days, but I spent the first 15 minutes just going through all the options and making it look and work as much like 2.4 as I possibly could. After doing that, it's definitely better than 3.1 (I skipped 4.x) and I'm willing to give it a fair shake.

ilasoft	Oct 1, 2002	5.0	5 out of 5	People that haven't even tried 5.0 try to review it and give it one star... Betanews IS getting worth as more and more "3l33t" lamers come here.../n Anyway, back to the topic- 5.0 is MUCH faster then all the previous versions while have ALL of the past features plus some really good fixes and additions. Overall, it is MUCH better then all of the previous versions summed together. Thank you, ACD Systems!

rkingkong	Oct 1, 2002	5.0	2 out of 5	as lots of you said, it becomes worse and worse. JPEG transform function did not found !!! lots of details are not interesting... i prefer acdsee3.0 version or 3.1 have tested acdsee powerpack 5.0 and all plugins

future2003	Oct 1, 2002	5.0	5 out of 5	I don't believe you, guys! ACDSee is on my must have software list. Version 5 is faster than 4.02. 5 megapixel images from my digital camera load in a fraction of second on AMD 1.4ghz. New users, don't get discouraged by these reviews, try it for yourself, you'll love it! People who say it's slow for you, make sure you defragment your hdd, have at least 30meg ram free for acdsee (takes about 20meg of ram while viewing 5mpixel images ) and it's time to upgrade that computer to more than 500mhz.

Cormac	Oct 1, 2002	5.0	1 out of 5	Bloated. I too vote for ACDSee Classic... Five stars for Classic, one for v5.0.

xippon	Oct 1, 2002	5.0	1 out of 5	On my computer (celeron 400 + 192ram) it is working very slow. All ACDSee 4 up to 5 are getting worse. Best browsing was on 3 version. I thought that in this version will be more changes... besides Firegraphic XP 5 is lighter and faster... :(

CycloneX	Oct 1, 2002	5.0	3 out of 5	Bloated and uses lots of ram... WinGrab is lighter.

bobad	Oct 1, 2002	5.0	1 out of 5	Total bloatware! It tries to do everything, but does nothing well. I prefer ACDSee Classic 2.43. It is slightly bloated, but is lightning fast and stable. It is the best picture viewer available right now, although SlowView is catching up.

grimson	Oct 1, 2002	5.0	1 out of 5	Did not review 5.x but I found that the internal XP photoviewer is better in quality !! .. when I resize to display my digital pics to whole screen, the XP viewer does this far more better !! really ! You must see for yourself :) (I mailed support, but they never gave me a decend reply, so I stick with the XP internal viewer for on screen vieuwing)

guti	Jul 3, 2002	4.0.2	2 out of 5	Since version 3.00 it is bloated and slow. Better try ACDSee Classic 2.43

brake	May 29, 2002	4.0.2	5 out of 5	Good...acdsee is a good picture viewer.

bobad	May 28, 2002	4.0.2	3 out of 5	ACDSee is...er...I dunno! Just read the review by Horst below. He nailed it. Version 2.43 is easily recognizable as a speedy graphics viewer. Version 4.X is a bloated genetic mutant monster whatzit that tries to be all things to all people. The result of this is, predictably, that it does no 1 function with excellence. Like the ponderous FBI, ACDSee 4.02 needs to be broken down into 2 or 3 smaller, quicker programs.(bobad@charter.net)

horst	May 28, 2002	4.0.2	4 out of 5	Version 4.02 had nothing to add for me. I've been using 4.0 servicepack 1 extensively. As a catalog for huge amounts of images, ACDSee is still my number one. No other product I've tested offers all these features. None other handles my picture pool without grinding to a halt or crashing. But for every day use ACDSee 2.43 is a much more handy image browser. ACDsee 2.43 has a clear profile. As for version 4.02 ... with all the extra's I'm no longer sure what the product is.

zzillezz	May 28, 2002	4.0.2	1 out of 5	It's slow, it uses lots of ram ... Just stick with Acdsee Classic (2.43) or go for Irfanview (a freeware image, video and sound viewer) ...

ditoa	May 28, 2002	4.0.2	1 out of 5	This program has loads of things that will NEVER be used, it is very slow and feels very bloated. I have now returned to version 2.43 (ACDSee32 Classic) as it is amazingly fast and uses very little memory.

notluf	May 27, 2002	4.0.2	1 out of 5	Horrible! Bloatware! That pretty much sums it up. Un-installed it and went back to version 2.42, the best version ever made. Each version after 2.42 went downhill from there, this version made "downhill" into a cliff.

quezako	Jan 22, 2002	4.0.1	1 out of 5	OOPS ! I mean 1 star !

Orbit	Jan 8, 2002	4.0.1	1 out of 5	I tried this from version 3.1, and I have to agree with all below.... this is extreme bloatware. Why do s/w companies do this? V3.1 is the apex of this series if you ask me. Seems it must be a natural evolution to take a good, clean, fast app and turn it into Moby d**. I don't want my Image Viewer to be Photoshop, that's why I have Photoshop. Like EZCD Creator - I just want an app that burns CD's not one that tries to be everything - or Norton, it used to be good, or even, cough* McAfee once upon a time was great. Natural evolution, I suppose.

notluf	Jan 7, 2002	4.0.1	1 out of 5	This program is way to slow, many of the functions require Internet connectivity while using it, and the many of the "extra buttons" on mice are now disabled. I'm sticking with version 2.42, best comiliation of source code ever for picture viewing software. The 2.4x series was simply the best. Rule #1, don't fix what isn't broken, don't try to enhance something that can't be enhanced.

meinhart	Jan 7, 2002	4.0.1	5 out of 5	WAY late on this one, Betanews. This one came out Dec. 13th. Way to stay on top of things. Lol. Still, it's a great image viewer and basic editor.

horst	Sep 29, 2001	4.0	2 out of 5	The trial version seems like a waste of time: 1. the desktop is completely cluttered, you need to be online for some functions, the advertisements take up a lot of space. 2. The program is actually slower and more sluggish than the previous version. 3. Some of the added features might be interesting ... I like the metadata. Conclusion: ACDSee is still the best browser/viewer on the windows platform ... but my advise for most would be to stick with 3.1.

mrzwiers	Sep 29, 2001	4.0	1 out of 5	What is this?? Did someone take over from the original programmers? I'm sticking to 2.43/classic. That's still the best version of this program.

ikss	Sep 29, 2001	4.0	3 out of 5	Wow... the reviews are horrible. I was going to try this new version, but I better stick with 2.43. It's good enough for me.

KingofNails	Sep 28, 2001	4.0	1 out of 5	This is a huge let down - non-configurable panes, key shortcuts changed, horrible icons - just plain nasty. Don't bother with it - stick with 3.1.

tim254	Sep 28, 2001	4.0	1 out of 5	What a waste of time downloading, installing, trying to get it to look like 3.1. I wanted the dual-pane interface that I normal use... filenames on the left and a preview window on the right in browse mode, which I couldn't figure out how to do in 4.0. It doesn't appear you can drag and drop panes to move them like in 3.1, so I'm back to 3.1.

askywalker	Sep 28, 2001	4.0	2 out of 5	Nice going! It seems I can't have both version 3 and 4 on the computer at the same time. Anyway version 4 is a bloated piece of cr*p. I can't even get some of the toolbars to go away to increase the viewing area of the picutre. Isn't that what a "picture viewer" is for? Stick with 3.1 for viewing and Photoshop / Paint Shop Pro for editng.

bobad	Sep 28, 2001	4.0	2 out of 5	Oh yes, and I forgot to mention: All modern versions of Windows have exellent photo cataloging and thumbnails built into the Explorer. Why do software developers think they must re-invent he Windows Explorer? It only turns out worse then the original. (bobad@charter.net)

ap1978	Sep 28, 2001	4.0	4 out of 5	Bloath... There are several small AND pretty fast freeware alternatives out there.

chali	Sep 28, 2001	4.0	3 out of 5	I'm agree with you oudoulj. Bigger program, slower program, and we don't want a slow program just to view pics.

oudoulj	Sep 28, 2001	4.0	3 out of 5	Version 4 is twice as big as version 3! What the hell! It's now bloated with tons of plugins nobody cares. I mean if you want to play around with your pics, you either use PSP or PhotoShop. All I wanna do with ACDSee is browse my pics quickly and easily... And what are those hideous new icons? Gosh! Can't they keep a program small and efficient nowadays??!!

aeon	Sep 28, 2001	4.0	3 out of 5	Only 3 stars for 1 simple reason: what's with all the bloat they add nowadays? Can't they (developers) make lean mean apps anymore?

mrbee	May 20, 2001	3.1 SR1	3 out of 5	Irfanview is just about as good (stronger in some areas) and 100% free.

dystopia	Sep 4, 2000	3.1	3 out of 5	Sure, ACD See is the easiest way to see pictures, but i'm not satisfied by the 3.x versions : It's become slow, heavy, and sometimes unstable However, the version 2.43, called now ACD See classic (available now), is perfect, and deserves the five stars.

voidx	Sep 4, 2000	3.1	5 out of 5	i gave it 5, im using acdsee for about 3 years, im still trying every image viewer i find on internet but no doubt - acdsee is the best - fast viewing, converting, very intuitive and user friendly moving, copying and sorting images, good maintance of thums database, acdsee has many great features that are saving my time, these feastures arent seen at first look - for example when you want to move or copy images to sort them to misc folders, acdsee has list of already used folders and you can move your images very quickly, detail but for me important. Its true that version 3.x is too robust, i dont know why include avi, mpeg viewing and editing features. Only editing feature i always missed in acdsee was good quality resizing, now its available, but if i want effects like emboss i install paintshop for example... plugins feature is cool idea, acdsee intouch too, i hope that acdsystems will hear voices of acdsee users and will remove useless crap like buggy avi playing and too many image editing features to make acdsee fast and stable...

Tril-	Sep 4, 2000	3.1	3 out of 5	i give it a 4.. it's ok..... i used to like it.. but now everytime i go into a directory that has a movie.. it just crashes trying to load it .. :( ... and i can't find a way to turn that off.. it's an image viewer don't try to load .avi , .mpg and other stuff

Endzeit	Jan 21, 2000	3.00	3 out of 5	I used to love version 2 and I actually wanted to order the new thingie until I d/lded the trial - it has become SLOOOW! I don't want ACDSee to be an image editor, it's supposed to be a simple viewer, but this new version is about a third slower!

bobad	Dec 15, 1999	3.00	4 out of 5	I gave this formerly excellent program a rating of 4, where it was a solid 5. ACDSee 2.x was hands-down the best image viewer out there, but version 3.x bloated up. All it needed were some print options to be perfect. It didn't need all the editing features. As a viewer, it's still about the best, but as an editor...well, just forget it. One thing I really miss is rotation on the right-click menu. Now you have to jump through hoops to simply rotate one picture. I wouldn't call that an improvement at all. I think I'll stick with version 2.4x. :(

Lo_Phat	Dec 10, 1999	3.00	5 out of 5	In my opinion, ACDSee has always been the BEST program to view images with. I've used it since it was in it's early beta stages and ACDSystems just won't quit throwing in options you wish you had! They're amazing.

Korgun	Dec 10, 1999	3.00	3 out of 5	i too was using that last version, i wish i could use the key i had with the last one on this, doesn't seem to be much of an improvement over the last one......the part that pisses me off is i come here to have the latest versions of those small applications which means i do want the latest...i'm probably not gonna pay for this one

dmarsh	Dec 9, 1999	3.00	5 out of 5	Have been using ACDSee for the past 2 years and it continues to do exactly what I want and expect from a file viewer/organiser.