How do you feel about the 365 Program?

[wizard509]

Personally I like it, yes we do get updates to the program and there have been several. It takes time to implement a new feature and testing would the new version anyway to make sure the program still performs well. I use it for everything, granted I have problems using certain features but that is just me and in no way reflects on the program. I commend the devs I'm sure their job isn't easy, I know I couldn't do it. For awhile I was not keen on the 365 idea and in some ways I'm still not but in the long run as long as I can I would buy the new version anyway, this way we don't have to wait a year for the updates.

[Albacore]

Just think if you were doing web design just think how much time you would save using the "Online Content Catalogue" that must be worth quite a lot to the majority of users here. It goes against the grain to say this as I am a vector user but the improvements in the bitmap filters and the online stuff has made this type of upgrade worth while. I see so few members saying great thanks for the upgrade in November. Is it because the ones that use TG and reply to topics are the more established TG members and like me we use it as a drawing programme?

[mwenz]

...I see so few members saying great thanks for the upgrade in November. Is it because the ones that use TG and reply to topics are the more established TG members and like me we use it as a drawing programme?

I have an use one (or more) of 3 different image editors on any given day. So the November update wasn't something I would have written home about as that function (image editing) was about the only thing that would have benefited print design. How bitmaps are edited in XDP is fairly non-intuitive to me. How the effects work is slow and fiddly in my opinion as well.

As regards bitmaps, I would have shouted praise from the rooftops had Xara finally did something with utilizing true grayscale images in XDP.

As regards print design work, rolling LCMS would have been praise worthy enough I might take out an ad in the newspaper. One of the first issues I raised with Xara with version 6 (my first version) was Print on All Plates doesn't work on spot color plates—I would have praised Xara for that. I could go on all day.

But bitmap effect filters? Nah. Don't use them by and large. Removing backgrounds on images, something I do a fair amount of? Xara is not as easy nor as effective in use with the types of images I need to do this with. So the bitmap capabilities go unused by me. There are reasons why these things are good to have in Xara applications, but they do not meet my needs.

To the last part of your (probably rhetorical) question, yes. I believe the vast majority of users of any software never grace a forum—whether it would benefit them or not. And even those that do, they typically will not rock the boat like I may choose to do and/or stay out of topics that can be controversial. Most users simply read and or search a forum for answers and go away and get about their business. I have zero life, so I inhabit forums where I think I can help and that are of interest to me.

Mike

[zumwalt]

I think the reality is a maturing software industry is looking for ways to sustain its existence. Pricing schemes are as much about marketing than actually delivering new features. Expectations by consumers must be adjusted . . . and prices from vendors must be, too. Frankly, I'm to the point where I must make choices about what I can afford and use . . . I'm being choked by literally hundreds, approaching thousands of dollars in "subscriptions." Less is becoming more.

[hoja]

It goes against the grain to say this as I am a vector user but the improvements in the bitmap filters and the online stuff
has made this type of upgrade worth while. I see so few members saying great thanks for the upgrade in November. Is it because the ones that use TG
and reply to topics are the more established TG members and like me we use it as a drawing programme?

In addition to what mwenz said: Xara in all what it does is limited to 8 bit colour depth per channel.

That limits the usefulness of its Vector tools for certain purposes (which for instance require very smooth gradients).
But its it's an even greater and ubiquitous restraint of its bitmap editing capacities. Regardless what tools are added,
output quality on principle can not come close to what can get done with dedicated Image Editors.

Those who really need image editing therefore likely use other tools for this kind of work.

[mwenz]

In addition to what mwenz said: Xara in all what it does is limited to 8 bit colour depth per channel.
...

It's going to be an 8-bit image in a PDF if the intent is for print no matter what is used. N-color is partially supported (spot colors) but not completely in place. 16-bit RIPs are near non-existent and upper-end pro-consumer 16-bit printers offer zero advantage in the overall print. As far as I know, 16-bit image support on the web isn't there yet and really would simply serve to clog-up bandwidth if it were. None of that bothers me.

Gradients are exported as Smooth Shade objects, so at least for print that ensures the best possible result from a RIPS capable of processing smooth shade gradients.

But there are fundamental things that are required to earn the "Pro" moniker. I had high hopes once upon a time. As well, the pricing structure versus capabilities was fine once upon a time. That time has pretty moved ahead while XDP has not.

XDP is still my drawing tool of choice. I can still work faster in it than anything else. But I am moving more and more of what I make through another software package or two in order to use features that XDP has lagged behind in. For a while, if I needed something that used OpenType Features I would use one of those other applications to create what was needed, convert the type to curves and bring it into XDP. Now I am using XDP more to begin a design and simply finish working in those other applications. I do not feel it ought to be this way and so naturally feel let down by Xara/Magix for this.

If it was not possible for me to "know" what the colors were going to be like at output, or didn't have Acrobat to spot check if unsure, I would have even less a compelling reason to stay with XDP. As well, Xara simply has to update export filters so they can stay relevant in print design--if it cannot play nice with other applications as they change, XDP becomes a sandbox design environment.

Mike

[hoja]

It's going to be an 8-bit image in a PDF if the intent is for print no matter what is used.

You are correct with all your statements on printing but I was talking of image editing.

Even when the output goal is printing and the final image gets downsampled having a bitdepth
headroom is still highly vital for editing. When bringing a RAW file into Xara, greater portions or its
colour information are discarded at import time already. Many people prefer this not to happen.

But not everything in the world is printing...
There are other areas of content creation where high bitdepth images are input data. 32 bit images
store lighting information for raytracing and bitmaps required to simulate surface structures (again
in rendering) should have >8 bit per channel as well.
This is no nerdy stuff but daily business in Advertising and Film, industrial Design and Architecture.
And can't get done with Xara's image editing tools.

[haakoo]

Though clipart and templates seem to be free,it's paid for in the total pricing,isn't it?
Things people like to have seen during this period of the current model are;
Better font features,real print color support and image/color meshtool and a better bitmaptracer.
In this field xara is surpassed by many free and paid programs

Hans

[digitalphaser]

...But there are fundamental things that are required to earn the "Pro" moniker. I had high hopes once upon a time. As well, the pricing structure versus capabilities was fine once upon a time. That time has pretty moved ahead while XDP has not.

XDP is still my drawing tool of choice. I can still work faster in it than anything else. But I am moving more and more of what I make through another software package or two in order to use features that XDP has lagged behind in. For a while, if I needed something that used OpenType Features I would use one of those other applications to create what was needed, convert the type to curves and bring it into XDP. Now I am using XDP more to begin a design and simply finish working in those other applications. I do not feel it ought to be this way and so naturally feel let down by Xara/Magix for this.

If it was not possible for me to "know" what the colors were going to be like at output, or didn't have Acrobat to spot check if unsure, I would have even less a compelling reason to stay with XDP. As well, Xara simply has to update export filters so they can stay relevant in print design--if it cannot play nice with other applications as they change, XDP becomes a sandbox design environment.

Mike

Bull's-eye!!!

[haakoo]

And like Mike and Steve and others have stated,xara is a fast drawing,image tool.
But we still need to use other programs to make it a good finished product.

Hans