you are entitled to think what you like john - I do...
let me give you a quote from this very thread [post #222 webmaster aka kate moir], the bold is my emphasis:
Quote:
Originally Posted by webmaster
Printable View
you are entitled to think what you like john - I do...
let me give you a quote from this very thread [post #222 webmaster aka kate moir], the bold is my emphasis:
Quote:
Originally Posted by webmaster
@browj2: John the trick is looking at the full release version numbering. It is all automatic and has to be a cascade down from the master (XPDX) to the sub-clones (the rest) as this type of numbering is generated each time a developer inserts their error-free code for a continuous integration cycle. Testing will probably all be automated overnight. All the sub-clones are applications with the User Interface pared back to remove "functionality" (actually your access to the functionality is removed). Access to the On-line Content Catalogue is similarly constrained across applications. I believe this as otherwise the sub-clone applications would have to contain viewer-only code of the functionality, which has been removed; XAR/WEB files are mainly agnostic to their generating application. You can create a page in XDPX and it will be read into almost all the others without change, you just cannot edit everything.
I have included the above in this Thread as it is what I do not like about the "365 Program".
Bug fixes and new functionality are all rolled in together. When you therefore expire your 365 renewal you may end up with a design that no longer has the edit functionality you made it with and all the bug fixes vanish. This will only occur if you have to re-install your application from a Xara/Magix download and are required to re-register. But hey, that'll never happen.
I believe I have paid for a year's worth of bug fixes that in the end I may not retain as all Xara is guaranteeing is the version that I purchased, buggy or not.
Acorn
Ok, I understand. Xara DPX is the master, the others are just the same program with disabled features. This makes sense. Magix does the same thing with the video editors, Movie Edit Pro (MEP) and Video Pro X (VPX). MEP is just VPX with disabled features, which is why MEP comes out with new features usually many months before VPX gets those features. Hmmm. Similar thing to Xara. DPX comes out about a month or so after P&GD and WDP with the features that came already came out in P&GD and WDP - but not always. So why does this occur? DPX should come out with all new features first, no?
I went through the lists of "What's new in Xara...." and compiled an overall list for comparison. They are all over the place and some features I can't determine when they came out. Sometimes new features come out in the sub-product first, other times they come out in DPX first.
Link to Dropbox pdf file: https://www.dropbox.com/s/zojrfqei38...01802.pdf?dl=0
The question that I have raised a few times now, is what is in DPX that is not in the other 3 programs?
See the link below for the comparison table supplied by Xara. I don't see what may be in DPX only, but we are sure that there are some. It would be nice of Xara to tell us what.
http://www.magix.com/ca/xara-designe...rison/#c715672
Only DPX and P&GD are compared. Can one assume that everything that is DPX only is covered by the other 2 products? I did not attempt this.
Yes, the main outstanding question is how to get bug fixes if you don't renew. This question has been there for a very long time now.
John, i use http://www.xara.com/uk/designer-pro/compare/.Quote:
Originally Posted by browj2
First off, only XDPX, XWDP and XP&GD offer 64-bit. This is all but essential for modern use with images and web design so don't buy XWD or XP&LD11 (this seems moribund anyhow).
Second, only XDPX and XP&GD offer mult-core processor use.
XWD and XP&LD11 have next to no photo tools; XWDP adds a titbit for no known reason.
When you look at what is in or out you can clearly see it is Marketing gone mad.
Especially when you look at the bloat offered in design templates: change the theme colour to tranquil green and a few teeth shots --> dentist!
Your analysis is more extensive than the one I have but Xara could simply state with every release: Function - Date - Products applicable and similarly for Bug Fixes.
We would then be able to see the potential impact of not renewing without running straight to the cliff edge.
Acorn
@Acorn,
Thanks for the link; I should have also looked there.
Looking at the list and where there are 3 x's for the individual products, I see:
- Advanced Panorama Studio
- Auto Table of Contents Creation
- Keep with next paragraph, keep lines together
That's it?
No, it's more than those 3. The last two on your mini-list would be enough for others here that do books.
Lack of Pantone support is enough for me. Not to mention other things.
But there are both more things on that list that are missing in P&GD and items not even on the list to compare. Do you think those lists are comprehensive feature lists in the first place? I don't.
Look. It's pretty simple. Everything that XDP has minus web is what would get me to change.
I see from this list that customisable shortcut keys have been migrated from XPro to P&G which is goodQuote:
one thing about this list though is that it is broadbrush
for example, it does not tell you about different implementations in different programs - in another TG thread the font gallery was mentioned and how the gallery search facilities in one program were different to another - there is no public list of this sort of thing AFAIK, and it is very important to workflow, it is feature
spot on; no more need be saidQuote:
Look. It's pretty simple. Everything that XDP has minus web is what would get me to change
Chiming back in on this thread. I still don't like having my programs report back to base at all. I find it intrusive, but it's industry standard now. Did anyone ask the users about this in the 'industry' or was that just a way for the 'industry' to agree regardless of customer desires? Most people I know (all 3 or 4 of them! lol) don't really care for automagic updates for one reason or another. Sometimes they're so frequent, it actually eats into productivity waiting for updates to download and reinstall themselves and such. Other times, updates go out that haven't been fully tested, breaking once-pristine software, etc.
I just find it a really terrible way of doing business and I personally think it should be outlawed. :p However regarding 365, it's not as intrusive as it *could* be so I'm grateful that it allows me to pick when it updates (unlike it's main competitor...Adobe's practices would not ever be tolerated today if they were a newcomer, much less 'professional standard'...but I digress...). I'm still not a fan of it, and would prefer they have less and more significant updates and licenses work for a full version cycle starting at the .x number. This is the license I've had for Renoise and it's just been sooooooo good. You buy in at, say, 2.3 and you get up until 3.3. However, again, this means that version numbers ALSO need to be *significant* changes and features. In the afore mentioned ReNoise, I originally bought a license at 1.8, and 2.8 didn't come out for another 5 years, and upgrades weren't manditory; they have a 'backstage' section where your purchases are, so you're still given access to all versions within that span.
Also, they do something else that's far more convenient for users (and also stops piracy) than anything I've seen so far; when you download from the 'backstage' area, a server side script patches your copy with all of your information...meaning, you see your name on the splash screen of the installer, no need to keep serials handy or anything. It also means if you 'share' with people, and it gets out anywhere, your name puts you on their 'cancelled' list and you lose all download privileges immediately.
I think Magix should look into this because it's both a good protection of the software vendor and it's infinitely more convenient than serial numbers. Renoise doesn't even supply you with one; your forum account IS your serial number! :) i.e. if you forget your password, you can retrieve it any old way and the vendor site knows what you've paid for. It's a really good system and so far the best solution I've seen, better than hardware dongles, online activation junk,etc. Sure, someone super smart can hack that out, but serials are hacked all the time and tend to give away their algorithm anyway. I'm not sure of the details 'under the hood', but I've not heard of people 'pirating' that software either. Xara on the other hand....
EDIT: Additionally, I never appreciated downloading a mini-file that downloads more files. Again, this seems to be more of a convenience for the business/devs, not the customer. "YAY! DOWNLOADED!" *double click* "Oh, more downloading. yay........I guess...."
... how do they handle people with the same name?Quote:
your name puts you on their 'cancelled' list and you lose all download privileges immediately
I use ableton.... but that is off topic to this thread; just thought i'd mention it ;)
I don't know how they handle it, but it's in the purchasing agreement "If we see your name on a copy floating around, you're banned!"Quote:
Originally Posted by handrawn
Heh...I never got along with Abelton and am I'm an oldskooler tracker guy, so Renoise and I were sorta destined to be together. :p
EDIT: And it's not your REAL name, it's your forum user login name (not your display name either). So mine still has me listed as what I put in a LOOOOONG time ago (and a bit embarrassing too! lol That's one reason I'd never let my copy get out either...for that reason! )