Interview with Charles Moir

[Gare]

I don't believe it's any sort of consolation that, "Oh, you think it's bad, just look at Adobe!..."

That mindset reminds me of Microsoft's bumper stickers after Apple did some unusually, above average, trashy commercials. The bumper sticker? "We suck less."

Once I'm done laughing about it, I'm left pretty empty and wondering what ever happened to the pursuit of excellence.

My Best,

gary

[handrawn]

I use CS5 photoshop

I have yet to discover anything as basically crass as this - if you have examples [windows - I don't use mac] I'd love to be forewarned..

[mwenz]

Gare, I didn't mean to express a caviler attitude about the state of software today (or any other day). It isn't any consolation, I know that and didn't mean it in a conciliatory way, either.

I guess all I was meaning to express is that Xara is not alone in having faults, and that it is not a "professional" versus "consumer" software/user issue. Plus I suppose I was reacting to the phrase "nobody in the true professional market is going to put up with c**p like this...".

It is amazing what the "true professional" market puts up with every day regardless of the vendor. I find issues I need to work around on a too consistent basis with Corel, Xara, Adobe CS products (ID, PS, Flash, DW), Serif, PhotoLine, etc. They all should fix the stuff.

Heck, I just posted a message regarding a long-time Xara user asking about exports of JPEGs at 150 dpi not being the same dimensions as the file. What one needs to do to obtain their desired results shouldn't need to happen, either.

I want all the software that I use fixed to the point of being accurate according to what it says on the tin. Being the pessimist (or perhaps realist) that is not going to happen.

In handrawn's example of the copy/paste across multiple layers cropping up in the 7 series, I think the software just wasn't vetted during its beta phase in all scenarios. Some of the people on this board have likely done some complex programming. I have. After making changes in code, especially extensive changes, it is darn easy to overlook something being broken that wasn't previously broken.

Please note that I am not trying to make excuses for Xara. I can find plenty of faults with how Xara makes decisions and how that affects the software (aside from bugs and regressions)--I already posted some of my opinion in this thread.

Take care, Mike

[handrawn]

1} the 150 dpi 'issue' is one of the prerson concerned not understanding how xara software works - for you to to say that shouldn't happen is to rather imply you don't either [no offence]

2} but that a software company cannot even get a basic cut and paste operation to work without loosing user data beggers belief - what is more fundamental than this? [[handrawn has done some programming too ]

apologies to Antony - we are drifting....

[Gare]

[Gary raises hand to confess he, too, is going O/T]

Didn't mean to cast aspersions, Mike.

I think we took our passion about the product, and turned Charles' interview into a Feature BitchFest because we're human, designers tend to get as passionate about our tools as our craft, and forums are natural targets for "differences of opinion".

My Best,

Gary

[mwenz]

1} the 150 dpi 'issue' is one of the prerson concerned not understanding how xara software works - for you to to say that shouldn't happen is to rather imply you don't either [no offence]...

No offense taken.

Here's the thing in my opinion--and I knew how to answer the OP because I guess I do understand how Xara software works. If Xara allows me to define a pixel "blank photo" page based on pixels, then I don't think it should change those dimensions when I opt to up the dpi resolution of said "page." While math isn't my strong suit, I can run a calculator. I just don't think I should need to if I am offered to create a pixel-based page size.

I understand that Xara is at its base a vector, pixel-independent, application. And so in that way, it makes sense that it doesn't take into account any intentions on my part about the eventual export of said pixel-based "page." However, like an image manipulation program such as PhotoLine or PhotoShop, perhaps it would be more intelligent for the resolution to be needed when one chooses "blank photo" or one of the other image-based pixel dimensioned options. Then like any other pixel-based editor, perhaps it would create a file of those dimensions at that resolution.

And your point #2? Nothing is lost per se. An operation didn't work in the expected manner--which because it works in previous versions as expected, is a regression. Have you made Xara aware via the support ticket system? I suspect you have because you work in this manner and need it fixed. But they are not going to magically fix something they may not even be aware of.

Best regards. I'm done with the thread.

Mike

[handrawn]

Hi Mike

I am not getting at you, sorry if it seems that way..

on import, xara displays all bitmaps in the page/paste-board area at 'print-size' [relative to imported dpi] - its as simple as that

the only reason to have a page [area] was for print in the days before HTML export and 'blank photo' document type

maybe these days that should change in some respects - but it is not a defect, it is actually a very useful feature and really simple to work with once this basic fact is understood - and yes, you do need to know the maths of ratio, but working with bitmaps generally this is so I think

The Cut and Paste issue - well I put it in the Dear Xara thread - I am sure Xara are well aware of it, I'm just 'bumping' it because it recently caused me a significant degredation of workflow

Perhaps my take on it is a bit strong, but remember if you cut and paste in this fashion, forgetting it does not work, you could indeed loose things -and mess things up good and proper - when you are pasting across layers you cannot always see the result of the paste straight away, this could really trip someone up


perhaps these last posts should be split into a seperate thread?

[jon404]

I'm with Mike's suggestions above. When I read this quote, " "MAGIX are very good at the whole marketing and distribution thing... that's one of the good fits because we are strong on engineering and technology side"... I think, what? I live in California and never HEARD of Magix before it bought Xara.

About Xara -- it's a very good program. But I went nuts getting it approved for my workgroup at a major US corporation. As a manager, I wanted the production speed Xara delivers. But it wasn't on the company's 'approved' purchasing list (all Adobe products were), and my workers didn't want it, because it would move them off the Adobe upgrade track and make them less employable if laid off.

Magix: focus on Illustrator. PDFs and ebooks, as Mike suggested. Simple sound for Flash... Flash isn't going away... take the time to look at HTML 5 and you'll understand how absolutely useless it is for interactive simulations. Go after elearning, particularly DOD simple military simulations. Approved-supplier time! And go after the $141 BILLION/YEAR US advertising industry. If you're in the game, play to win!

[AntonyF]

I'm with Mike's suggestions above. When I read this quote, " "MAGIX are very good at the whole marketing and distribution thing... that's one of the good fits because we are strong on engineering and technology side"... I think, what? I live in California and never HEARD of Magix before it bought Xara.

I think if instead of "very good" he'd have said "a lot better" that would have been fairer.

[Soquili]

From my view point (limited as it is) Xara seems to be doing a better job of marketing MAGIX products. I receive emails promoting MAGIX photo apps and movie editors from Xara on a regular basis. I've been on MAGIX email listings since 2007 and have not received any promotional emails for a Xara product.