How do you feel about the 365 Program?

[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

[charliescoffee]

Underwhelmed? I think it's the worst idea Xara has ever come up with.

[browj2]

Underwhelmed? I think it's the worst idea Xara has ever come up with.

Why?

[TXAlba]

Thinking at the time that 365 was a marketing attempt to provide the company more revenue; and not necessarily to provide a better system, I struggled to commit to the 365 upgrade on its release but decided to take the leap of faith as having low expectations i could always go back to the previous version i had purchased.

I do not agree with 'variants' as a form or responsive design and in a recent customer survey undertaken, my prospective and existing clients said that responsive, interactive design was high on their agenda. Losing 2 existing clients with Xara Web Designer sites in 2016 purely down to this, and then losing a further 4 new contracts because of variants proved for me that assessment of working practices was essential.

Web Designer continues to be a very capable application for anyone wishing to administer their own website and who see it staying within a 70 page limit. I have found that above this I have to use external ftp solutions to cater for the maintenance of sites or split the site. I have developed sites with WordPress as alternatives for clients but I was not so impressed from a development perspective, because although it does provide a capable CMS and whos templates can be responsive, the actual design is in no way as versatile as Xara Web Designer and there is a substantial learning curve for the client. Currently I am training on Joomla to see if the CMS they provide is any better, on first install it would seem to be but time will tell.

In 2017 my decision is not yet made but it is highly unlikely that I will extend my 5 years with Xara Web Designer