Printable View
I have to admit today is the first i've ever heard anything about Xara Xtreme.
I COULD read up on the features of the program, but i wanted to get some testimonials and opinions from real people on why I would consider using Xara over any of the alternatives.
Enlighten me please.
Welcome to Talkgraphics.
Xara Xtreme and Xtreme Pro are the most intuitive vector graphics applications available.
No need to quess how your fill will look when applied to your vector object. Simply apply it directly to the object and see it update immediately on screen as you make modifications. Same applies to any object, fill, transparency you can think of doing. Everything updates live.
If you are an experienced user of some of the other vector applications out there you may have to overcome the learned behavior and think of how it should have been all along. Everyone that has thought Xara Xtreme has some limitations or is wrong, actually have accepted learned behavior over the naturally perceived behavior of an application.
If you are more experienced with bitmap editors (Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro, PhotoPaint, etc), you may experience withdrawal of not having an erasor tool to rely upon. Vectors objects can be selected and deleted and/or modified without erasing. The use of an erasor tool is learned behavior because of the static behavior of pixel based (bitmapped images).
You may perceive that many people have asked similar questions over the years and some automatic responses (learned behavior :) ) have been included in my answer.
Downloading the trial version of Xara Xtreme or Xara Xtreme Pro is actually the best way to find out what makes Xara an excellent choice for any Graphics toolset.
Ill take a look at it.
Thanks for the information. That was very helpful.
A Xara Xtreme Pro vs. Illustrator thread? :)
Xara X, X¹, Xtreme, Xtreme Pro have all been compared to Illustrator as they were released. Doing a search on the forum would probably return more results than you would want to read through.
General concensus is that Illustrator is very slow in relation to the speed of any Xara Group Ltd product. Also, fewer menus and pop-ups are required in Xara's programs.
If you are primarily into printed media, there are some print houses that stubbornly insist on an Illustrator or Photoshop output before they will print.
People are predjudiced and are name droppers. They fail to recognize the good work they see in front of their eyes. Of much of the work I've done lately, I'd have to say, would be impossible to achieve similar results using any other software, including Illustrator. I have drawn cars in Illustrator. One car could take two weeks, and that is lots of hours dedicated to that pursuit. Even the longest of my drawings in Xara, far more detailed I might add than I was ever able to achieve in Illustrator, has never taken that long. Always under a week. And now the more I use it, can cut that time in half, then in half again. The more you use it, the faster it goes.
It isn't until you work in the competitors' software that you see the hype in the graphics industry for Photoshop and Illustrator. I see it more than most because I work for a professional printer. And it took my boss months of seeing work I generated in Xara for her to think it was just "okay" to use Xara on some of my projects. Predjudice is difficult to overcome and some people just become set in their ways and can see nothing but their own point of view. Just because people work in Illustrator on a MAC doed not assure good work for print and the same is true of InDesign. People make mistakes no matter what program they may use. Most work however is coming in a .pdf now. Since Xara makes good .pdf, there is no reason not to use it. The only area still lacking in Xara is a full implementation of spot color, named colors don't solve everything, and certain paragraph editing and layers palette functions. But the plusses of Xara into my work flow in terms of creativity are bar none.
All the programs we use are tools to the artist, they do not create the artistic mind. However, all human beings are latent artists to the extent if they receive some training, they can function in many aspects as graphic artist: they can set type, apply bevels, etc. More advanced illustration skills: have to admit that the continued use of Xara develops amazing skills in hobbyist users, both young and old.
Xara is unique though because much of what I consider to be a part of the program is TaklGraphics itself. TG is such a fine tool for self-development. It is down to earth and helpful to all members irregardless of level of skill or if they have a "prove me wrong" attitude when they arrive. They either find out the truth and stick around or just don't want their apple cart upset and move on.
The one who is a maverick artist, looks at the tools, the interface and then at the level of sophistication of the renderings which are achieved by using Xara. The interface seems by far too simple, that is what peeked my curiousity. How can something so simple do anything so well? But it does.
Xara was built from the ground up making sense all the way as it goes. For now, in order for Adobe Illustrator to "catch up" to the level of a Xara sophistication, it would need a rework from the ground up. It takes forever to load and much time is spent entering values off screen, and the trial and error method takes a lot more time, Xara is first time right every time -- no trial and error. There are types of gradients and transparency in Xara that Illustrator cannot produce and it is all interactive and live. The tools are simple, the power comes in really knowing how to use them, you have to rethink illustration, if you are an illustrator user. I went from Illustrator to CorelDRAW and Xara. Had to learn CorelDRAW for business purposes. Hated it at first. Now much prefer it to Illustrator. But if I had to choose just one program to use for full-graphics, I'd pick Xara. For print graphics, CorelDRAW. Photoshop is a great photo editor. But Adobe should rethink Illustrator.
A good post Sally - says it all.