Why has Adobe made Acrobat a useless program with no professional features.

[Sahajah]

Acrobat today is designed by children.  Why can i not cut a part of one page and insert it into another page.  You know something professionals do every day.  It is like Adobe let thier infant children decide what the program should be.

[Test Screen Name]

That's not what people do with PDFs. Even though they might wish to. 

[Sahajah]

It used to be what you could do with it.  If they want to make another program then make another program.  It is nothing but corporate arrogance and pontless medling with no benefit.  It will never stop.  Next year they will make another temporary decision for no purpose.

[Sahajah · Accepted solution]

Why would I ever pay for a program that has no persistance or intelligent and relational evolution.  They are commiting self destruction and nothing more.

[try67]

How did you use to do it in the past? I don't like the new design, either, but AFAIK no actual features have been removed from Acrobat.

[Sahajah]

Since we can not archive a version or stay with the version we like it is really hard to tell.  I am pretty sure that last week i could right click and take a 'snapshit' which was not even a proper clip and it was scaled to the curent view.  Today that was not on the right clic and I could not paste a snapshit into another file. 

Why do i ned to activate a whole group of tools to use one?  If they did not use chips for the tools that are as big as my thumb i bet they could just list all the tools in a logical library.  Why can i not just clip and paste something ( a graphic image clip or a clip in pdf format or a copy of the extents of whatever object i select) between files or even within a file?  Why do I need to save a clip as a file and then import it ?  Why can I not insert one pdf into another (not inserting a page a clip).  Why do any of the 3 or 4 ways to supposedly copy somethng not actually copy anything in a usable way?  The other day i was trying to learn how to snap two objects into the same scale or at least the same dimensions. The grips were not even at the corners and they would not snap together and you could not force uniform or selected axis proportions. That is nothing other than intentional dysfunction or a decision that should be thougoghly embarrasing to whoever designed it.

It is just coders creating work for themselves.  It is in no way an improvement it is just different and without any legacy in the past or the future.  This is not evolution i have watched technology evolve for 40 years.  It is just people with the worst traits of arrogance and  narcissism demanding that it be done thier way with no concern for the legacy of users.  To make it worse there is no professional documentation.  Why is the critical path for using a tool not imbeded in the tool as an on demand tip?  Why do i need to chase some idiots mouse on a YouTube video about thier opinion on how to do something after suffering through thier self promotion and discursive rambling about what they had for lunch?  That should be produced by Adobe and be a click to advance sequence of the critical path with fully articulated descriptions of what it is doing, where it is in the path, and where that exact sequence is published in the manual.  This is 20fucing23.and we are still forced to watch home movies of how to use technology.  How did these forums ever get accepted as a replacement for complete documentation by a company of its products?  Why are the best solutions from the forums not extracted, simplified and vetted by the company and put into an authorized super-maual?  Bleah

Please tell me if you tink it is all fine and how it should be used and learned?  I am not in any way stuck in one method.  All i have ever done is learn new methods for using technology.  This is the worst it has ever been.

Bleah

[Sahajah]

p.s. we used to look forward to new releases because it meant they had solved problems.  Now it means they have over designed and fragmented excellent tools or replaced them with something that can only be described as incoherent.