The very first thread

[Availor]

Oh and by the way, one thing is that I can't draw I never learned to draw and all I know is how to trace a photo. So that also takes the will out of me doing something.

[RedWombat]

I don't think its as easy as jumping from the Sax to the clarinet.

I started out in the Arts then went into Graphic Design and Publishing, then on to Web Design and Development. Along the way I've learned all the apps you mention.

I've been a DRAW user since ver 2, Freehand since it was owned by Aldus - Boy that dates back - And learned Illustrator at ver 7.

Illustrator was by far the most illogical of the three. Simple things I took for granted in DRAW were hard to figure out the first time in Illustrator. I had a much easier time with Freehand, although I don't use it much anymore.

A language analogy would work better for me. Knowing one language helps to find the answers in another, i.e. a Line or Stroke, Node or Anchor Point. But it doesn't keep me from pulling my hair out trying to figure out the way those objects behave in each program. Another simple example is the Line again. In DRAW it's really simple put the line behind the fill - In Xtreme, yikes, what a pain. Then Flash is another story. It's very simple to work with vectors and such, but it behaves so differently from the others, that you almost can't put it in the same box.

With that said, it has been extremely handy to know each of those programs. Many times I have had to work in each or several to get a project done. A client might have a legacy Illustrator design or a PageMaker file with linked graphics. I feel for designers that go through that initial hair pulling trying to translate an apps features to figure out what another can and can't do for them.

I don't dislike Illustrator, it has some nice features and as I said I do use it frequently. Maybe it's a Right Brain struggle, but I do have to agree with Sally, Adobe 's logic is unfathomable at times.

[sallybode]

Availor, I think you misunderstood what I said. I learned Illustrator at version 8, once they brought in transparency with 9, the stability was not there, it was easier to use 8 and simulate transparency.

I can draw very well in Illustrator. I have done some really fine work, and as far as one person or another using a program, I am probably faster than most users at the program, however, it is, because of its interface, slower to use. The length of time spent in a dialogue box added to the adjustments that you have to do to the drawing itself such as with the gradient tool is one example and irregardless of the number of years that Adobe has known this, they ignore it, because "Illustrator is program of choice for the Industry". If you need conical gradients, you use blends, and that is done in a dialogue box as well. Using blends is much slower than using a gradient.

Photoshop has lots of different gradients, so Adobe knows that these gradients exist, they just haven't seen to it that Illustrator has them. In both cases the means of applying the gradient, is trial and error.

Transparency is another point, it isn't very easy unless it is flat transparency. And the use of masks is supposed to be superior. If you had graduated transparency, the need of a mask is superfluous. It can take fifteen minutes or more setting up a linear transparency in a mask whereas the competitors, have drawn the same thing inside of one minute and have moved on to drawing other things.

So the consequences is this when under a deadline: you can do the same design in various programs, but the Illustrator design will be the simplest, more basic, relying on design and not effects. Just because you draw with another drawing program doesn't mean that you don't have a good design, but now if you want to pull in other elements, you have time to do it. Now you can look polished, you can gleem, shine, etc. Or you can look like rounded tinker toys. Now which would you choose? One of our clients, an Illustrator user, designed a marketing scheme in Illustrator based on stick figures. How exciting! I am glad I didn't have to put a stick figure with a sash on the front of their beauty pageant booklet. Everyone who is involved with this project hates it. True, not everyone who is a graphic designer can draw, but what a pity when there are so many who are out there who can draw and paint and the job goes to the one with the most retro design. Life is more than the symbols on restroom doors.

Illustrator does have nice brushes, and I do use them at times, but when I am racing the clock, I use Illustrator for what it is good for and go back to DRAW or Xara and complete my artwork.

As far as 3D, it is nothing in comparison to what can be achieved in Xara 3D. And then the cost involved is still more with Illustrator.

InDesign is rather built to be frustrating, but in comparison to using Quark, it is an improvement. I haven't used the new Quark which is supposed to be worlds better. InDesign has drawing tools which work just like Illustrator. One thing I like is that text wrap is based on object transparency and a clipping path does not need to be present. So you can get some cool effects with imported bitmaps with softer edges over clipping paths. The support of spot color is really good, however, don't make a mistake with spot color because it can live to haunt you. You can get it off your palette, you can make your .pdf, and it shows up irregardless. CS did this and it is still happening in CS2. The main trouble is that people can find the exact color they want with the Pantone swatches and don't change it to the CMYK equivalents, so now the spot channel is there, zeroed out and it fails preflight for CMYK. Of course there is no additional plate, but it will now cost you more or more time to furnish a new .pdf which has been remade. Part of my job is making plates, and I don't have to run plates that I know are blank, it is just a way to charge more money.

The added expense means that it is harder to afford the expensive and frequent upgrades. For the price, you think you'd get at least as much as what the competitors are offering for decidedly less money.

With gaseoline predicted to push past $4.00 a gallon in the U.S., these added expenses make it much harder on businesses to make a profit. Software is only one of the expenses of a print business.

Yes, if you learn one software, it makes it easier to learn the next. I have played violin, except for reading music, it didn't help whatsoever with the fingering on the flute, although flute helped with learning saxophone and oboe and even clarinet, and learning the piano was differnt from all of the above, except for the upper clef. So it gives greater music appreciation. And no, just as instruments are different, it doesn't make you as good at all instruments. A person with a wider spread of fingers has more of an advantage at playing some pieces. Yours is a comparison of apples and oranges, all software is not indeed created equally, they do not function the same.

With the high price of upgrade on Adobe products, there are a lot of people not waiting to chomp at the bit for the next upgrade. And that price is no where near the legal price of the full version, heaven help you if you don't purchase it with a student discount.

[Availor]

Hey sally you learned to play so many instruments? Wow I only play three... guitare, sax and a recorder... oh and I can play very well with one's nerves that's for sure

Anyway, RedWombat kind of got my point about apps but for me it's still easier to learn other software if I've already learned one. I kinda understand the logic behind it.

About Illustrator and adobe programs in general. There are disadvantages and advantages of their own. Illustrator is an industrial software, and as being such you can reuse objects. Something you cannot do in Xara.

Macromedia is working with objects, which is terrific, since if I'm working on a book for example, I can use the same object over and over again.

In adobe programs you can create layouts. So maybe it will take more time to really make the gradient you want, but then you can store it and reuse it. I've rarely seen a layout that needs to be very original. All magazines and books, flyers and such has all the same concept, so I can create a symbol or a style depending on a program, and then reuse it.

I think that Xara lacks few things that still puts it behind:

1. Multipages
2. Styles/symbols
3. better text handeling.

These three things will improve greatly Xara's usage. For me anyway.
Xara is meant for drawing. It's great at what it's supposed to do. But that's not what I need mostly. So I use either freehand or Illustrator. Preferably Freehand since it's the most common software to use in here, and because it has multipages.

[sallybode]

Where are the multiple pages in Illustrator? That's InDesign and more money.

Comparing one to the other, Xara is the "mouse that roared".

Yes, Xara is for drawing, for page layout at a reasonable price, there is CorelDRAW. It does most of InDesign, most of Illustrator, most of Photoshop including PhotoPaint. Except for books, of course, the memory management isn't up to that. But it doesn't claim to be either.

For short publications, it is very good. Good print preview.

But Illustrator is getting better.

But I root for the underdog.

[RedWombat]

I've always been partial to DRAW myself. A lot of Bang for the Buck!

Multiple pages are possible in Illustrator, but they don't refer to it that way. You have to change the page spread with the printer driver. DRAW is much more intuitive in that respect. Click the little +, and Walla Walla Washington, you have a new page. I always found DRAW very nice to use and very versatile, that is except in the early days. I always had crashing issues back then. . The later versions are much more stable. I liked it enough to buy stock in the company back when they were public.

DRAW never got their just kudos that's for sure.

I do find myself jumping between apps because I find that each can do something better than the other, making my design life that much better.

I do agree with Sally though. Adobe's prices are sky high! I'm fortunate to have CS2, but that will be the last update I do for awhile.

You know, I feel the need to come up with a cool tag line like you guys have for my signature.

[remi]

I think, it depends on the point of view:

• If you want to write a book, Xara Xtreme and Adobe Illustrator aren't the correct programs.
• If you want to create a vector drawing, Indesign or Quark aren't the first choice.
• If you want to draw easy and fast, Adobe Illustrator is a pain and Xara Xtreme is excellent.
• If you want to alter digitial images extensively, a vector graphics editor is not the first choice.
• If you want to create high-value 3D graphics, Xara 3D isn't the correct program.

It's the same old question, as with operating systems: Which is the best one? Windows, Mac, Linux, ...? The answer is: It depends on your requirements, your individual taste and your purse.

There is no software package, which beats the competition in all points. But it's fine, that there are several programs available. Perhaps, someday Illustrator is faster and easier than Xara Xtreme or cheaper than Corel Draw. In the meantime, I use Adobe Illustrator reluctantly.

Remi