Stay CS6? Or Upgrade to CC? What am I gaining?

[OADesign]

Happy Friday.

Thanks for all your commentary. Very interesting see some of your perspectives. I ended up spending the rest of the evening continuing to research. And what I found was, for both home hobby and shop income generating work + my current knowledge level, CS6 does what I need it to do. The sale I was looking at ended on 12/5. Yes there are tons of new(er) bells and whistles and more efficient ways to get from point A to B (Looking @ you The Vector Doctor). But what I can't do (quickly) in illustrator, I have a work around with Flexi (8.6) and other apps and vice versa. I'm like a mechanic with several tall red tool boxes at each end of the shop. I don't pull out the check book every time the Snap-On truck pulls up. I use what I have, or run over to the other toolbox. Yes. Far from the best way to get things done. But still. Stuff gets done. And again, yet another pin hole leak in the wallet doesn't make sense. And I got to thinking, It would make more sense to take those funds and put them towards the new PC hardware I've been eye balling. (New thread about computer stuff stewing in my gray matter as I type this). I will probably have to pull the trigger on some new software at that point.
*shrudders as the thought of Win7 EoL is knocking on the front door*

 

[ColoPrinthead]

My biggest complaint about CC is that in Illustrator there multipile issues with tabbing through pop-ups; so far I have found that when I am tabbing through the move object box to hit enter on copy and do, it moves it and doesn't copy - I have to use the mouse for that, it is the same when closing a file out and hitting enter on Don't Save - it prompts you to same and save the damn file.

 

[burgmurk]

My only complaint is i have to pay for premiere and after effects when i really don't need them for work. If i could get a reduced subscription price for just PS, AI, and ID i'd be a happy man.

 

[MH Art&Design]

By the way, there was no "CS7"

Yes, we know. I was talking about CS6.5 with all updates.
Industry standards are changing fast and Adobe thinks that it`s too big to fail. I would rather Donate to people who listen to their customers rather then paying monthly subscriptions to Corporations but to each it`s own.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

Industry standards are changing fast and Adobe thinks that it`s too big to fail.

Well, in a way, they are. A lot of people are still putting in money in the till, because a lot of people believe that they need Adobe software to succeed if they are in a related business field to where Adobe software usage is common.

For some users, that is true, for others it isn't but their belief is so strong that they truly think that it is. It really depends on the situation, as to which camp one falls under. I equate it to how there is a big demographic that thinks in order to make it in the graphics world you have to be on Macs as well. People can believe whatever they want, but that is a mentality of the customer base that's going around and that's what keeps Adobe going.

I would rather Donate to people who listen to their customers rather then paying monthly subscriptions to Corporations but to each it`s own.

I have been involved in the Open Source world for 10 yrs as a general user, tester and a contributor on Github, and having switched platforms from Windows in the last 5 years. This isn't always the case. It is more often then not, but there are still the outliers and some are very well known.

However, keep in mind, how many people didn't like the subscription only model that Adobe went to, but yet still paid Adobe for a subscription? Whining and moaning means squat if one still pays. There is less of a desire for Adobe to change their ways if they are still getting paid. Like with the general populace, if one wants to elicit change, have to hit them in the pocket book.

 

[Bobby H]

A lot of people are still putting in money in the till, because a lot of people believe that they need Adobe software to succeed if they are in a related business field to where Adobe software usage is common. For some users, that is true, for others it isn't but their belief is so strong that they truly think that it is. It really depends on the situation, as to which camp one falls under. I equate it to how there is a big demographic that thinks in order to make it in the graphics world you have to be on Macs as well. People can believe whatever they want, but that is a mentality of the customer base that's going around and that's what keeps Adobe going.

It's mostly about the user's own specific work flow and the files, assets, etc he or she has to handle in that work flow. That's going to determine if one really has to do something like subscribe to Adobe CC, buy a Mac or even switch from MacOS to Windows. For instance, the vast majority of sign shops are Windows-based because nearly all sign industry-specific software runs only on that platform.

If a user's work flow doesn't involve having to handle outside files made by other people, particularly corporate clients, then that would make it much easier for the user to avoid giving money to Adobe. It might even allow them to use whatever computing platform they prefer. Lots of amateurs, hobbyists and "one man operations" may fall into that latter camp. When the user needs truly accurate compatibility with certain applications, fonts, devices, peripherals, etc then choices get made for that user pretty quick.

However, keep in mind, how many people didn't like the subscription only model that Adobe went to, but yet still paid Adobe for a subscription? Whining and moaning means squat if one still pays. There is less of a desire for Adobe to change their ways if they are still getting paid. Like with the general populace, if one wants to elicit change, have to hit them in the pocket book.

The only practical way to "elicit change" regarding Adobe is for Adobe's rivals to "build a better mouse trap" and not charge a subscription fee for that "mouse trap." So far the rivals can't manage the "better mouse trap" part. Adobe doesn't have the leverage it has on the professional graphic design industry out of some perceived belief system and fanboy brand worship. Several applications Adobe sells are best of breed applications. While there are certain things I think could be improved in Adobe Illustrator's interface and tool set, I'd much rather use it than Inkscape.

 

[shoresigns]

The subscription model is great for software like Creative Cloud. I'd rather pay a small fee every month and get frequent updates, than pay a huge cost up front every year or two for major updates. Some people might pay a little more overall and some might pay less, but they've changed the pricing model so much that there's no way of comparing apples to apples.

My experience:

• Useful new features are introduced more frequently than before
• Bugs are relatively rare and tend to get fixed quickly
• Upgrades aren't forced and older versions are available, which gives plenty of time for 3rd party plugins to get updated
• The subscription model helps to enable services like Adobe Fonts (fka Typekit) and Cloud libraries, which I absolutely love and are mission-critical for us at this point
• We never have to worry about compatibility issues in receiving files from clients that were generated on a newer software version

The vocal minority constantly moaning about Adobe's subscription service is really getting old. I have yet to hear a really good argument against the subscription model.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

It's mostly about the user's own specific work flow and the files, assets, etc he or she has to handle in that work flow. That's going to determine if one really has to do something like subscribe to Adobe CC, buy a Mac or even switch from MacOS to Windows. For instance, the vast majority of sign shops are Windows-based because nearly all sign industry-specific software runs only on that platform.

If a user's work flow doesn't involve having to handle outside files made by other people, particularly corporate clients, then that would make it much easier for the user to avoid giving money to Adobe.

I'm pretty that's what I meant by this:

For some users, that is true, for others it isn't....

But I could be wrong by that. I hardly know what I mean anymore.

It might even allow them to use whatever computing platform they prefer. Lots of amateurs, hobbyists and "one man operations" may fall into that latter camp. When the user needs truly accurate compatibility with certain applications, fonts, devices, peripherals, etc then choices get made for that user pretty quick.

And that would be what I was talking about above.

Adobe doesn't have the leverage it has on the professional graphic design industry out of some perceived belief system and fanboy brand worship. Several applications Adobe sells are best of breed applications.

I think you underestimate that belief system. It's entrenched quite a bit. People also don't want to disrupt their pipelines that took them years to get setup right and become efficient with it. Not saying that that isn't a legit concern, but that doesn't mean that there hasn't been something new out there. This whole notion that something was true 20 yrs ago and still true, I don't know about that.

While there are certain things I think could be improved in Adobe Illustrator's interface and tool set, I'd much rather use it than Inkscape.

First off, that's a false dilemma, Inkscape isn't the only option out there. Secondly, since more often then not we are talking about printing. I wouldn't advise using something that is designed using a web standard format for a printing workflow unless one is willing to also use Scribus or use an extension for Inkscape that is design for a printing workflow. That alone would keep me from using it in this situation.

It's about options and constantly reevaluating your position and what your needs are. That's what I'm about. Any programs that I use, I make sure they can transfer if I have to do a new platform switch no matter what. Any PWAs that I've created as Electron apps, I make sure that I can build them for the other platform as well. I try to make it to where I'm as "mobile" as I can be. Some people are so locked into a software and/or platform that they can't do that, even if there are other options out there.

I have yet to hear a really good argument against the subscription model.

For me, it's all about the lack of control. Yes, I don't like the extra cost associated with less control, but lack of control is the biggest thing.

Anything that y'all like about what Adobe offers you can be gone at their discretion for any reason. Deprecated and removed and at some point, sooner then you would like, you'll have to deal with it due to their forced bleeding edge updating schema.

Bobby, you miss the Dolby blob that was once in Adobe products? When that hit the fan, there were a vocal crowd of Animate users that didn't like using an unrelated function due to having to be forced to update. I was a pretty big Flash user back in the day, so I could feel that plight. I have found something with a better interpolation engine (or tweening engine), but it waffles for me in the other areas.

Now, if you never have to deal with that, that's great, but that doesn't mean that that isn't a real concern.

Bleeding edge updating has other concerns, but I'll leave that for another time.

 

[shoresigns]

For me, it's all about the lack of control. Yes, I don't like the extra cost associated with less control, but lack of control is the biggest thing.

Anything that y'all like about what Adobe offers you can be gone at their discretion for any reason. Deprecated and removed and at some point, sooner then you would like, you'll have to deal with it due to their forced bleeding edge updating schema.

I get the argument about lack of control, but it's a minor one for me at least. However:

1. I've never been "forced" to update as long as I've been on Creative Cloud. Sometimes the options to re-install really old versions disappear, but that is not remotely equivalent to forcing an update.
2. If I recall correctly, CS6 and maybe some earlier versions had to be activated and would communicate with Adobe servers. If the Dolby scenario had happened back in the CS6 days, I think Adobe probably could have still forced most users to update, and perhaps would have done so.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

1. I've never been "forced" to update as long as I've been on Creative Cloud. Sometimes the options to re-install really old versions disappear, but that is not remotely equivalent to forcing an update.

There were some people that were running the versions of CC that were affected that said if you continued to use this version of XX, you open yourself up to a lawsuit from a 3rd party. Even though the reason for this pickle was not due to the user's doing.

Now, if you are one to always update, this won't affect you. However, if you depend on a functionality that is no longer available in the downloads that you are able to download, then yes, that is forcing to update. Or if you have computer systems that cannot handle the resources demanded for the versions that are available in the x-1, that is another forced updating.

If you are one that updates all the time, without much care over the ramifications of being "bleeding edge", then yes, this won't seem as being forced updating at all.

It also depends on how one values this type of situation, I get the impression that you don't value it much at all. And that's fine, nothing wrong with that. It ranks very high, especially if anything else that the subscription model brings to me can be easily taken away at their discretion and I'll have to find other means on a fairly quick notice, I have a hard time with the "extras".

2. If I recall correctly, CS6 and maybe some earlier versions had to be activated and would communicate with Adobe servers. If the Dolby scenario had happened back in the CS6 days, I think Adobe probably could have still forced most users to update, and perhaps would have done so.

You are correct in your recollection, unfortunately, not quite the same situation. Now 5.5 was the first version that required an account for the registration/activation as well. First off, the argument that Adobe gave as to why this pickle happened, wouldn't have happened (according to Adobe) with the other model as it was easier to audit what was or wasn't due.

Another issue is that once someone has activated a CS6 and whatever other licenses were affected by the blob, they can easily take that computer offline and use that program for as long as that computer is running. There is no perpetual internet connection to the servers. Now, if they were to try to reactivate it after said time period, then there may be an issue. Users of CC don't even have that.

Perpetually connected software is always pinging home for something. I cannot imagine that it would be all that hard to have something piggy back on any one of those pings that would make it harder for users with the CC software.

Again, if you are always updating, this shouldn't ever be a problem until (if it does happen) you get to a point to where they did remove something that you depend on and your time to use older versions that still had it are no longer there. That to me is the biggest fear. The issue of not being able to use newer versions due to hardware, I'm fairly quick with my hardware rotation, so that for the most part shouldn't be an issue even for me, but it would still affect some I'm sure and for them, it is a concern (or at least it would be for me if I was in that situation).

 

[Bobby H]

I think you underestimate that belief system. It's entrenched quite a bit. People also don't want to disrupt their pipelines that took them years to get setup right and become efficient with it. Not saying that that isn't a legit concern, but that doesn't mean that there hasn't been something new out there. This whole notion that something was true 20 yrs ago and still true, I don't know about that.

I can just as easily say being anti-Adobe or anti-paying for subscriptions or perpetual licenses for commercial software is a belief system as well. There is plenty of it on display in many forums and any Adobe-related news article with a comments section following it.

Regarding "pipeline disruption," if a new vector drawing application comes along with the goal to entice people to switch, one of the most basic, fundamental requirements of that rival software will be file interoperability with its leading competitors. If I have thousands of CorelDRAW files or thousands of Illustrator files in my archives and someone is trying to sell me on switching to a different drawing program, being able to open any of those AI or CDR files is going to be a very important requirement of the deal. No rivals to Adobe Illustrator can import late version AI files flawlessly. They're not batting 1.000 at importing CDR files accurately either.

Then there's the issue of productivity. The only thing I've seen from rivals to both Illustrator and CorelDRAW is that they're only cheaper or free. That's it. What else are they bringing to the table besides that? The perceived value of "cheap" or "free" loses its luster very fast if you have to fight the software due to a clunky, dated user interface, missing features or have to waste lots of time fixing imported artwork because its import filters aren't up to snuff. Ultimately one should only switch to using a new piece of graphics software if that new software does a better, more productive job.

First off, that's a false dilemma, Inkscape isn't the only option out there. Secondly, since more often then not we are talking about printing. I wouldn't advise using something that is designed using a web standard format for a printing workflow unless one is willing to also use Scribus or use an extension for Inkscape that is design for a printing workflow. That alone would keep me from using it in this situation.

Out of the free/open source vector-based drawing applications Inkscape is the best of what's available. If you know of something clearly better I'm all ears. Even on the commercial end Adobe Illustrator cannot be beaten across the board by anyone. CorelDRAW is better than Illustrator in some areas, but is inferior in some other areas.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

Regarding "pipeline disruption," if a new vector drawing application comes along with the goal to entice people to switch, one of the most basic, fundamental requirements of that rival software will be file interoperability with its leading competitors. If I have thousands of CorelDRAW files or thousands of Illustrator files in my archives and someone is trying to sell me on switching to a different drawing program, being able to open any of those AI or CDR files is going to be a very important requirement of the deal. No rivals to Adobe Illustrator can import late version AI files flawlessly. They're not batting 1.000 at importing CDR files accurately either.

So you expect 1:1 parity between closed sourced proprietary software file formats? That's just not going to happen at all. At best you might get partial implementation with older files, but do you really see companies like this sharing their file formats like they are skittles?

Come on, really? If that's the case, why would these companies be dealing with a closed file system? You may like to have 1:1 parity, but I am sorry, I just can't see that happening. To me, that's like expecting all bugs to be taken care of when a software is in beta, just not going to happen. Nice notion, but not practical.

Then there's the issue of productivity. The only thing I've seen from rivals to both Illustrator and CorelDRAW is that they're only cheaper or free. That's it. What else are they bringing to the table besides that? The perceived value of "cheap" or "free" loses its luster very fast if you have to fight the software due to a clunky, dated user interface, missing features or have to waste lots of time fixing imported artwork because its import filters aren't up to snuff. Ultimately one should only switch to using a new piece of graphics software if that new software does a better, more productive job.

Not knowing what features you are specifically talking about, I don't know if the rival application has those features just implemented in a different way (which is very common even when going from Adobe to Corel or vice versa, or say going from Windows to Mac and vice versa there as well) or if they are truly missing.

There is always going to be a learning curve, just because there is a learning curve doesn't mean in of itself the software is truly inferior or not.

Again, I don't disagree with only switching if it is in your best interested to do, but looking into what options are there, everyone should do from time to time.

I will say this, as it related to Inkscape, if one is creating vector artwork for JS manipulation, can't beat the XML docker. While my knowledge base of Ai ends at CS6 with regard to specific and X6 (even though I do have a copy of X8) for DRAW, to my knowledge they don't have something like that, especially not with regard to SVGs with JS manipulation. So for me, yes even the repugnant Inkscape (in your mind) does have some productivity advantage of Ai.

Actually there is one more productivity advantage with that XML docker compared to Ai/DRAW and this actually goes back to saving as Plain SVG versus Inkscape SVG that you were talking about awhile back. I can save production specific info in the XML markup for instance embroidery information (I can for my Roland Cutter as well). If I were to bring that into Ai/DRAW and get an SVG file from them, poof, all that extra info is gone.

So while you may not derive any production benefits from another option, doesn't mean that it isn't there for the next person, but one has to look to see if there is file for them and their situation to be sure.

As far as UI/UX, you do realize that you can change that quite a bit don't you? That is the joy of open source and even if you don't have the ability to code it yourself, there may be someone in the community that can do that for you.

You can get GIMP to look like Ps, real easy (there are people that have already done that and made the files available). You can script the hell out of GIMP and get a lot of functionality there that wasn't there before. I am not saying that that will take care of all that you may require, but one isn't limited to how the program is given to you in open source. Hell, Inkscape officially only now is going to have HiDPI support, yet that has been around via the community since .48 was still the latest version.

Now, I'm not saying that's still going to give you everything that you need, that will still depend on what your needs are, but open source isn't like closed source where you have to accept what they give you and just take it and hope there is a company that makes a plugin for it. Even if you don't have that ability or inclination, there may be someone that does out there.

But it does depend on how much time you want to put into it and that can be a killer, I can totally understand just wanting to get up and go. It does take a very strong desire to go through it. I know, I switched to unconventional programs on an unconventional platform with regard to related industries.

Out of the free/open source vector-based drawing applications Inkscape is the best of what's available. If you know of something clearly better I'm all ears.

I never imposed that limitation that it had to be free/open source. While I am a big advocate of open source (open source is not the same thing as free, a lot of people think that if it's open source it's free and that isn't the free that open source is all about, there are open source products that do have a price for pre compiled binaries) I don't limit myself to only open source tools. The biggest example of what closed source programs that I use is Substance Painter (which is now an Adobe product, which I would imagine that by the end of the year will no longer have Linux support, so off to Armor Paint it is (open source project that does cost for precompiled binaries). Oh and by the way Bobby, Substance Painter on Linux is distributed as an AppImage, akin to a DMG file, it doesn't matter what package manager one uses at all (even that doesn't really matter as your package files (DEB, RPM etc) are very much like zip and rar files and can be handled in the same manner, but I digress).

I am all about options. I don't have a problem with using closed source proprietary systems, but I can promise you, I make sure I keep my options open, to avoid this specific issue have not being able to go anywhere. If I have to go back to Windows and/or Adobe, I'm prepared for that and not opposed to that if that is the best option. It seems to me like you think I'm one of those it's all or nothing people and I'm really not. It just doesn't work out that way. I would like it to be, but it doesn't work out that way.

 

[Bobby H]

So you expect 1:1 parity between closed sourced proprietary software file formats?

That's exactly what I expect.

If some company comes along trying to sell me on abandoning the creative software I have been using for decades accurate file compatibility is an extremely important factor on making or breaking that deal. I have many thousands of files made over the past nearly 3 decades in "closed sourced proprietary software file formats." Plus I continue to receive plenty of files from clients in the same "closed" formats. Additionally, (and this one is really important), if I'm going to switch the "new" software needs to actually do a better job at producing graphics than the current software I use. That new software must bring something innovative and new to the table. Or it at least has to be faster, more accurate and/or more productive at doing the same tasks. Merely being cheap, free or "open source" is not good enough. It might be able to fly for an amateur or hobbyist on a tight budget, but it doesn't work so well in a commercial, professional environment.

Not knowing what features you are specifically talking about, I don't know if the rival application has those features just implemented in a different way (which is very common even when going from Adobe to Corel or vice versa, or say going from Windows to Mac and vice versa there as well) or if they are truly missing.

If you don't know the specifics of feature differences between Illustrator, CorelDRAW as well as the less expensive or free rivals then why are you constantly second guessing me on this topic? It's not like I haven't gone into detail about many of those specifics myself in many previous posts on this very topic. You're relentless with this obsession to convince people to get rid of the commercial software they're using. Never mind the fact that "ideology" or whatever you want to call it is completely impractical for people working at sign companies. Most of the people participating in this forum work at sign companies. You don't like Microsoft Windows, but the fact remains nearly all sign industry specific software runs only on Windows. You don't like Adobe, but the advertising industry and many large corporations use Adobe's software for graphics and brand creation. Out of mainstream graphics software, the stuff that's cheap or free is too clunky, limited in features and file compatibility to function as worthwhile replacements for an applications like Adobe Illustrator or even CorelDRAW for that matter.

I am all about options. I don't have a problem with using closed source proprietary systems, but I can promise you, I make sure I keep my options open, to avoid this specific issue have not being able to go anywhere. If I have to go back to Windows and/or Adobe, I'm prepared for that and not opposed to that if that is the best option. It seems to me like you think I'm one of those it's all or nothing people and I'm really not. It just doesn't work out that way. I would like it to be, but it doesn't work out that way.

What I think is you're selling some kind of belief system without providing any specific solutions to back it up. Every vinyl cutter, routing table and large format printer in my shop is run by industry-specific "closed source" commercial software running on MS Windows. All our design work is done using a variety of closed source software (again running on Windows). You talk hypothetically about keeping your options open, but provide little in the way of specifics. Worse, you browbeat me with this stuff but offer up nothing specific in terms of applications that could adequately replace the commercial, closed software commonly used in sign shops.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

That's exactly what I expect.

If some company comes along trying to sell me on abandoning the creative software I have been using for decades accurate file compatibility is an extremely important factor on making or breaking that deal. I have many thousands of files made over the past nearly 3 decades in "closed sourced proprietary software file formats." Plus I continue to receive plenty of files from clients in the same "closed" formats.

I don't see how you can expect that to work. I don't. That flies in the face of what it means to be closed source and proprietary. In my mind, that typically means something is unique to a specific company. But I dunno.

When I save files, I don't have the master file format by itself.

Also, I started back in '94, so I have files that go back that far, guess what though, I still have a much newer version of the same software (I beta tested for this software not long ago) and that software hasn't allowed for reading of those files since the mid aughts. So even if I was to continue to the next version, I still wouldn't have access to those master files unless I got a few versions in between and started saving them in those later formats all the way to were the newer versions could read them.

I learned early on to not keep only the master proprietary files. I think some got spoiled with how Adobe allows for far more of a range of opening those legacy files and that could change at the drop of a hat. There is no promise that that functionality would be there.

Or it at least has to be faster, more accurate and/or more productive at doing the same tasks. Merely being cheap, free or "open source" is not good enough.

Again, you are adding in that limitation of free/open source. I am not limiting it to just that. I don't know how many times I have to type that out.

However, I do have far more scripting ability as well as being able to come up with my own extension to enhance how/what I am able to do in those programs. That drastically increases what I'm able to do with the software.

It might be able to fly for an amateur or hobbyist on a tight budget, but it doesn't work so well in a commercial, professional environment.

I'm far from a fly by night, amateur/hobbyist operation. I deal with software that is far more niche and costlier then that. I do also use a mix of open source and closed sourced software.

I am not against a closed source piece of software, I am against the lack of control that some software vendors have given to users as of late. Adobe being one of them. I don't care if someone goes to Affinity or not. I could care less about that aspect of it.

This is also why I don't care for Windows all that much. I actually like both Windows and Adobe if that stuff was stripped away from them. I have said that numerous times as well.

If you don't know the specifics of feature differences between Illustrator, CorelDRAW as well as the less expensive or free rivals then why are you constantly second guessing me on this topic?

I said I didn't know what specific features that you were talking about. I don't know which ones that you are missing for your workflow if you were to switch or look for another program. Since I don't know which ones that you are thinking about, I don't know if those features are missing, implemented in a different way or could be solved with plugins/extensions/addons.

That's what I was talking about.


And I'm pretty sure that there are features in these programs, all of these programs that most people don't realize that are there. They focus on what they need to get the job done and that's it. Nothing wrong with that. At least I hope not, as I am guilty of that.

You don't like Microsoft Windows, but the fact remains nearly all sign industry specific software runs only on Windows. You don't like Adobe, but the advertising industry and many large corporations use Adobe's software for graphics and brand creation. Out of mainstream graphics software, the stuff that's cheap or free is too clunky, limited in features and file compatibility to function as worthwhile replacements for an applications like Adobe Illustrator or even CorelDRAW for that matter.

Not much different for me either. Less then a handful of the commercial products at there even run on Mac. Most are Windows as well. Although I am watching if one goes Mac as the program that it directly interfaces with (DRAW) has now gone Mac.

When you say missing features are they truly missing or just implemented in a different way? I have run across software that I thought didn't do x, y, or z and it turns out that they did. Just implemented in a vastly different way.

Every vinyl cutter, routing table and large format printer in my shop is run by industry-specific "closed source" commercial software running on MS Windows. All our design work is done using a variety of closed source software (again running on Windows).

Again, I don't have a total disregard if the software is closed or open. I do prefer open source, because you can fiddle with it and get far more out of it, if you are willing to do so or look to the community, but that isn't for everyone and I understand that and can appreciate that. I can script the hell out of Inkscape, Gimp, and Krita and get a lot more work down(at least the work that I need to get done) then point and clicking through the entire process with especially Ai. DRAW does have more functionality in that regard, a pretty good macro functionality.

Also, I must say, I never ran industry specific software for my cutters. It was always just Ai/DRAW/Inkscape.

Printing would have to be Caldera, there was an open source program from 2015 that was pretty good, but I can't even find that version on Sourceforge anymore.

You talk hypothetically about keeping your options open, but provide little in the way of specifics.

Everyone's specific needs are going to be different, not everyone here has matching needs with what you need. If I were to talk about specifics, it would be specifics as to my shop, which you would immediately call me out on as being specific to my shop.

I can do it though, if you want a master thesis on switching not only software, but also to a different platform (and no, I'm talking about going from Windows to Mac, that would be too easy) I can do it as it would apply to me.

Again, I'm not limiting it to open source software, as I said numerous times, I use a mixture of open and close source software. I just make sure to where I am using closed source, I don't only have that vendor's specific file format, because (as it is obviously apparent) I don't expect other vendors to ever support that file format fully (unless they buy out Adobe and then that's if they want to have that functionality in that new software). Which also is a specific way, albeit a small one, to help keep one's options open.

I am still baffled that one would think that a method of vendor lockin (proprietary file formats) would even possibly be able to be fully implemented by rival software vendors. That to me just goes against that type of approach. What would be the point?

 

[MGB_LE]

The thing about CC is that once that promo pricing runs out, you're stuck at $70/ x # of users, forever. There's been zero retention specials, long time customer appreciation specials, no price adjustments, no sales.

 

[Bobby H]

I don't see how you can expect that to work. I don't. That flies in the face of what it means to be closed source and proprietary. In my mind, that typically means something is unique to a specific company. But I dunno.

Most graphics applications have a slew of import and export filters. If a vendor comes along claiming he has a worthy replacement for Adobe Illustrator and wants to attract Illustrator users then the import and export filters of his "Illustrator-killer" must be on point. In order to sell to existing AI users he has to make the switch as painless as possible. That's on top of needing to deliver new bells and whistles to help users get their work done better, faster, etc. There's no point in switching at all if it's going to only be a step backwards or sideways.

Regarding saving work files in other formats than the master file format, which formats do sign makers choose? PDF is pretty tied to Adobe and Adobe-generated PDFs have their own quirks that can make them no different than saving a file in AI format. CorelDRAW layouts with large art boards don't export well to other formats, like PDF. The glitch I usually see is PDF file with no artwork in it. EPS has its own limitations.

I learned early on to not keep only the master proprietary files. I think some got spoiled with how Adobe allows for far more of a range of opening those legacy files and that could change at the drop of a hat. There is no promise that that functionality would be there.

Anyone could issue that warning about any piece of software. The thing is Adobe Illustrator and its AI format has been around for 32 years. It is very entrenched in the graphic design industry. Hypothetically, if Adobe changed Illustrator so it could only open recent version AI files a whole lot of other software out there would still be able to open the old files (with some apps doing a better job at importing than others). Adobe could have pulled such a stunt when it changed the foundations of Illustrator from Postscript to PDF around 20 years ago, but they maintained backward compatibility.

Again, you are adding in that limitation of free/open source. I am not limiting it to just that. I don't know how many times I have to type that out.

I didn't say just free/open source. I included "cheap" in there too. The primary desire of anyone wanting alternatives to Adobe Illustrator (or CorelDRAW) is saving money. They want something "equivalent" for cheap or free. It isn't an apples to apples comparison like the Illustrator vs Freehand rivalry back in the 1990's.

However, I do have far more scripting ability as well as being able to come up with my own extension to enhance how/what I am able to do in those programs. That drastically increases what I'm able to do with the software.

Specifically, which software application is this? If you're talking about embroidery software then the comparison is irrelevant. Adobe Illustrator and CorelDRAW do support scripting. Illustrator supports a wide variety of plug-ins, some of which are outstanding (ones from Astute Graphics). How many sign makers are going to have time to engineer their own custom software plug-ins?

When you say missing features are they truly missing or just implemented in a different way? I have run across software that I thought didn't do x, y, or z and it turns out that they did. Just implemented in a vastly different way.

When I say one application has a feature that is missing from its rival I mean just that. It isn't a difference in implementation. CorelDRAW can support art boards up to 1800" X 1800". Illustrator can't do that. That's a long standing difference Adobe is rumored to be addressing with a future release. As far as I can tell CorelDRAW still doesn't support OpenType Variable fonts whereas Illustrator does offer full support. I can't bring AI files into CorelDRAW with active art brush or pattern brush effects applied to line strokes, which is a bummer since the art brush can be used to create far better looking text on path effects. There are many more differences between the two applications. If someone wants to use either application exclusively he'll have to do without some of the unique features in the rival app.

The low cost and free applications are often very lacking in features compared to the "closed" graphics programs on Windows and OSX. They're only useful if there is a certain unique angle to them. I have Autodesk Graphic and Vectornator Pro loaded on my iPad Pro for options of on-screen drawing using the Apple Pencil. If either was available for Windows I probably wouldn't load them on my PC because they don't really do anything I can't already do in Illustrator or CorelDRAW.

You talk hypothetically about keeping your options open, but provide little in the way of specifics.

Everyone's specific needs are going to be different, not everyone here has matching needs with what you need. If I were to talk about specifics, it would be specifics as to my shop, which you would immediately call me out on as being specific to my shop.

We're mainly talking about Adobe Illustrator and Adobe CC in general in this thread. Upgrade to CC or stick with the last version of Creative Suite? That was the original question. This is a forum primarily for sign designers and fabricators. That boils the software needs of most participants here down to a pretty narrow range. As far as I can tell there are no graphics applications that qualify as Adobe Illustrator killers. Not even CorelDRAW lives up to that (which is why I cannot use CorelDRAW exclusively).

The thing about CC is that once that promo pricing runs out, you're stuck at $70/ x # of users, forever. There's been zero retention specials, long time customer appreciation specials, no price adjustments, no sales.

We're paying $53.99 per month for each CC license. Adobe will try pretty hard to sell Creative Cloud for Teams, but it't not mandatory to buy it. They also still have the Photography and individual app plans available.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

Most graphics applications have a slew of import and export filters. If a vendor comes along claiming he has a worthy replacement for Adobe Illustrator and wants to attract Illustrator users then the import and export filters of his "Illustrator-killer" must be on point. In order to sell to existing AI users he has to make the switch as painless as possible. That's on top of needing to deliver new bells and whistles to help users get their work done better, faster, etc. There's no point in switching at all if it's going to only be a step backwards or sideways.

I actually agree with all of this. Where the difference is (from my understanding of your previous posts) is expecting 1:1 parity, which I take it to mean zero pain. That's just not going to happen. The best thing that one can do

Regarding saving work files in other formats than the master file format, which formats do sign makers choose? PDF is pretty tied to Adobe and Adobe-generated PDFs have their own quirks that can make them no different than saving a file in AI format. CorelDRAW layouts with large art boards don't export well to other formats, like PDF. The glitch I usually see is PDF file with no artwork in it. EPS has its own limitations.

The point of saving to other file formats along with the proprietary versions is to ease the pain of transition. That's the main point of that.

Anyone could issue that warning about any piece of software. The thing is Adobe Illustrator and its AI format has been around for 32 years. It is very entrenched in the graphic design industry. Hypothetically, if Adobe changed Illustrator so it could only open recent version AI files a whole lot of other software out there would still be able to open the old files (with some apps doing a better job at importing than others). Adobe could have pulled such a stunt when it changed the foundations of Illustrator from Postscript to PDF around 20 years ago, but they maintained backward compatibility.

I would really only be worried about this if there is a major refactoring of the code. That's when I would be worried about this happening.

I didn't say just free/open source. I included "cheap" in there too. The primary desire of anyone wanting alternatives to Adobe Illustrator (or CorelDRAW) is saving money. They want something "equivalent" for cheap or free. It isn't an apples to apples comparison like the Illustrator vs Freehand rivalry back in the 1990's.

Cost, while is certainly something that I would look at, it isn't the biggest factor that concerns me. Control is the biggest thing. I would pay more if it got me more control. I would. I deal with software that's in the $15k range, where x-1 upgrades were $1500 for one program.

I only missed one version of CS when it switched to CS (I would wait out other versions in years previous) and that was CS5.5. I didn't actually do upgrade pricing, I bought new. Mainly because I didn't want have to deal with keeping the older version, installing that, then installing the upgrade (or two) when moving to another computer. I was doing the Master Suite as well, although I could have gotten away with Design Premium.

Now, when one compares higher cost with less control, that's when I do have an issue.

Specifically, which software application is this? If you're talking about embroidery software then the comparison is irrelevant. Adobe Illustrator and CorelDRAW do support scripting. Illustrator supports a wide variety of plug-ins, some of which are outstanding (ones from Astute Graphics). How many sign makers are going to have time to engineer their own custom software plug-ins?

One can script the hell out of Inkscape, GIMP(with this one kinda have to, my least favorite out of all of these listed), Krita, Synfig, Blender. I would say those could have a place in the sign shop. Maybe not Synfig unless a big time Flash/Animate user. Better interpolation engine compared to Flash/Animate, otherwise, I waffle. Takes awhile to get used to.


As I mentioned numerous times, don't have to do these things on your own. Could always get it from the community.

I love Astute Graphics plugins. Love them.

I would say DRAW has better scripting abilities then Ai, it did seem I had to fight things a little bit more then with DRAW. Could have just been me, very possible. Just my impression though.

As far as embroidery software the comparison is irrelevant but not for the reason that you think. The only competent embroidery software that I know in the open source world (a project that I have been involved with for a couple of yrs) is a plugin itself for Inkscape. Now the closed source software versions, there is no ability to add on anything unless you go through the vendor directly. So decent software (I'm including home level versions as well) that go from $700 to $15k (there was one that was $20k back in the day), you get what you get. Better hope that it had everything that you wanted as there was no other way to add anything yourself. No scripting, no macros no nothing. No ability to come up with a custom pipeline.

When I say one application has a feature that is missing from its rival I mean just that. It isn't a difference in implementation. CorelDRAW can support art boards up to 1800" X 1800". Illustrator can't do that.

The reason that I make that distinction is that there could be a feature that you aren't as it isn't easily discoverable and that might lead one to believe that it isn't there when in fact that it is.

As one, one person on here thought that always had to do point and click operations in Ai and didn't know that some of those could be done as Actions. That type of thing.

Inkscape can go bigger then Ai with regard to artboard size as well. I think Affinity as well.

Now that is something that never bothered me, but that would difference that would be irrelevant for y'all.

That's a long standing difference Adobe is rumored to be addressing with a future release.

I would have to wonder if that would cause any code breakage, especially with backward compatibility. Without knowing how that would be implemented within their own code base, hard to tell. May not be any problem at all (and if that was the case, given that it was such a big point of contention for a long time, why it wasn't implemented earlier).

As far as I can tell CorelDRAW still doesn't support OpenType Variable fonts whereas Illustrator does offer full support.

Variant support in Inkscape, again due to the SVG file format, is limited to CSS conventions. There may be an extension that handles that better, but that's how it is officially. I doubt that that will change officially due to once again, SVG file format and what that entails. But there is some support there.

I can't bring AI files into CorelDRAW with active art brush or pattern brush effects applied to line strokes, which is a bummer since the art brush can be used to create far better looking text on path effects.

See, I just don't expect that to work. While I can bring in my abr brush files into Krita without any problems (atleast the commercial brushes that I have bought over the years), I wouldn't expect it. Don't get me wrong, it's great that it works that way, but I didn't expect it.

There are many more differences between the two applications. If someone wants to use either application exclusively he'll have to do without some of the unique features in the rival app.

I would kinda expect this as well. Even if they do have the same features, I would expect them to be implemented in a different way, which would also lend to my reasoning why I wouldn't expect a 1:1 parity on importing rival application's file.

The low cost and free applications are often very lacking in features compared to the "closed" graphics programs on Windows and OSX.

Yes, but some of those, the ones that are "open" allow for others to close in that gap and some of those do a very, very good job. Some suck, but some do a very good job.

For some, this would be the only way to get some features as it would be beyond the scope of the original intent of the program. Main reason why I'm not keen on recommending Inkscape for a printing workflow unless one realizes that it's going to take some extra work. For the simple fact of using the SVG format as their main format. And I don't see that changing. For any type of cutwork it doesn't matter up to a point, depends on what we are talking about.

They're only useful if there is a certain unique angle to them.

Full control and customization. As granular as you want/desire. If you don't care about that, that's fine. Although it will always be limited and never be an option at all in that case either for you. Which is fine.

I understand fully about wanting to just get up and go and not have to deal with all of the finagling.

We're mainly talking about Adobe Illustrator and Adobe CC in general in this thread. Upgrade to CC or stick with the last version of Creative Suite? That was the original question. This is a forum primarily for sign designers and fabricators. That boils the software needs of most participants here down to a pretty narrow range.

And yet despite that, you still have some on here that are able (and proud) of the fact that they are Draw only and haven't had a need to deal with Ai, I think one even mentioned not having to deal with it at all in another thread. And you have some that have moved to Affinity as well and don't use the other two.

So there are still some deviation from that. Enough that would make me hesitant to apply a broad reach to it.

If the OP can get by with just CS6, then chances are good that by now other applications may have what the OP needs as well. Certainly at the CS6 level.

As far as I can tell there are no graphics applications that qualify as Adobe Illustrator killers. Not even CorelDRAW lives up to that (which is why I cannot use CorelDRAW exclusively).

I'm not to sure that I would want an application killer. That to me makes it seem like we would eventually just get right back to this point in time, just with a different vendor.

They also still have the Photography and individual app plans available.

There was one time, not all that long ago that they had experimented with upping the Photography package from 9.99 to 19.99 and it varied, even within the same country if I recall, to which pricing schema one saw. I think they dialed it back from that due to backlash (too much too quickly), but that is very much a risk as well.

 

[shoresigns]

So you expect 1:1 parity between closed sourced proprietary software file formats? That's just not going to happen at all. At best you might get partial implementation with older files, but do you really see companies like this sharing their file formats like they are skittles?

Come on, really? If that's the case, why would these companies be dealing with a closed file system? You may like to have 1:1 parity, but I am sorry, I just can't see that happening. To me, that's like expecting all bugs to be taken care of when a software is in beta, just not going to happen. Nice notion, but not practical.

Adobe has published many of their file formats, including Photoshop (PSD/PSB formats), Illustrator (AI format), InDesign (IDML format) and Acrobat (PDF format). Anyone who wants to develop an application that reads those formats can do so, without having to reverse-engineer it. They're not proprietary to Adobe.

https://www.adobe.com/devnet-apps/photoshop/fileformatashtml/
https://wwwimages.adobe.com/content/dam/acom/en/devnet/indesign/sdk/cs6/idml/idml-specification.pdf
https://www.adobe.com/devnet/pdf/pdf_reference.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2015090...eveloper/en/illustrator/sdk/AI7FileFormat.pdf

Now I realise that even if the format specs are published, that still doesn't guarantee that a non-Adobe application will do a great job of importing them. We all know that most non-Adobe apps don't do a perfect job of dealing with PDFs, even though Adobe has gone to great lengths to document the PDF standard and make it openly available. However anyone developing an app to compete in markets where Adobe dominates, will likely need to make a pretty good effort at supporting Adobe formats if they want to earn a slice of the market.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

I would contend that they aren't freely and totally open about it. They do have a restrictive license to it and have to seek permission from Adobe with certain use cases. They also stipulate that they don't promise that it is totally complete , nor is it actually totally accurate and that it can change at a moment's notice without notification. Standard boiler plate stuff, but still, if it was freely available, using a copyright license versus something like Apache license, MIT or something like that. I would speculate that it isn't totally free just for that.

Also, are there any blobs of code that would be in their format that is licensed from other companies? I doubt that they would have the ability to share that info as well and that would also make some things in their file format not translate even if another application followed it exactly. It's not quite as easy to totally open source something like this. There have been many moves to open source Flash, but it has blobs of code in it that can't be (if I'm remember correctly).

I mean MS has some parts documented on their OS out there in the wild that they have published, doesn't mean that the OS is freely available.

 

[Bobby H]

I actually agree with all of this. Where the difference is (from my understanding of your previous posts) is expecting 1:1 parity, which I take it to mean zero pain. That's just not going to happen.

The least thing a rival vendor can do is provide import accuracy between features that are duplicated between the two applications. And if there are glaring features missing then the vendor needs to update his product to keep up. If there are too many critical features missing compared to, for example, Adobe Illustrator then the Illustrator user is not going to be inclined to switch. At best he might install a copy of the new drawing program on his computer if the price is right. But he's not going to uninstall Adobe Illustrator, and he may keep using Illustrator most of the time.

The difficult thing with ditching Illustrator is the application has so many unique features that users often bake into their artwork without making any attempt to expand or flatten. When they do that the artwork really can only be opened accurately in Illustrator or another Adobe CC application. Adobe-generated PDFs can be a big problem to open in non-Adobe applications. Funny thing, PDFs made by other applications can be even worse. The only practical solution with some of these client provided PDFs is opening them in Illustrator and using Astute Graphics' Vector First Aid plug-in to fix most of the mess. And even it doesn't fix everything. But I would much rather use that than try to use CorelDRAW to re-build a client PDF into usable artwork -that process can take a hell of a long time. And time is money.

Specifically, which software application is this? If you're talking about embroidery software then the comparison is irrelevant. Adobe Illustrator and CorelDRAW do support scripting. Illustrator supports a wide variety of plug-ins, some of which are outstanding (ones from Astute Graphics). How many sign makers are going to have time to engineer their own custom software plug-ins?

One can script the hell out of Inkscape, GIMP(with this one kinda have to, my least favorite out of all of these listed), Krita, Synfig, Blender. I would say those could have a place in the sign shop. Maybe not Synfig unless a big time Flash/Animate user. Better interpolation engine compared to Flash/Animate, otherwise, I waffle. Takes awhile to get used to.

Inkscape is the only application you mentioned that fits into mainstream sign making purposes -which mostly calls for 2D vector graphics work. Inkscape is the only one in that list which directly compares to Adobe Illustrator. I personally don't like its user interface and limitations; I can get things done a whole lot faster in CorelDRAW and Adobe Illustrator. The only advantage I see in Inkscape is that it's available for free.

Photoshop figures in to a lot of design for large format printing, as well as design for LED signs. The rival pixel-based image editors just don't compare well to Photoshop. I prefer the features and interface of Photoshop. The tight integration Photoshop has with Illustrator and InDesign isn't matched by any other software vendor. Freehand was the only drawing program that came close to matching Illustrator in terms of integration with Photoshop.

Cost, while is certainly something that I would look at, it isn't the biggest factor that concerns me. Control is the biggest thing. I would pay more if it got me more control. I would. I deal with software that's in the $15k range, where x-1 upgrades were $1500 for one program.

That's your own case. I was talking about most users in general who balk at using Adobe CC. Software cost is the #1 factor. These folks don't see the value Adobe is offering for $54 per month. They're actually delivering significantly more than what was bundled in the Master Collection of the previous Creative Suite model. That cost around $2000 to buy and $600 per year to update, yet it was still missing a few things and didn't have squat for fonts. The Adobe Fonts thing is worth a bunch just on its own. So I see the CC thing as an investment to help our company make more money.

I would have to wonder if that would cause any code breakage, especially with backward compatibility. Without knowing how that would be implemented within their own code base, hard to tell. May not be any problem at all (and if that was the case, given that it was such a big point of contention for a long time, why it wasn't implemented earlier).

Adobe Illustrator allows users to save down in many previous versions of Illustrator, including old versions based on Postscript. Obviously recently added features will not translate when artwork is saved down to earlier versions, with more features either breaking (or being flattened/simulated) the farther one goes back in time.

Variant support in Inkscape, again due to the SVG file format, is limited to CSS conventions. There may be an extension that handles that better, but that's how it is officially. I doubt that that will change officially due to once again, SVG file format and what that entails. But there is some support there.

That still ends up being another knock against Inkscape in a comparison to Adobe Illustrator. As far as I can tell Illustrator is still the only vector drawing app that provides full support for OpenType Variable fonts.

And yet despite that, you still have some on here that are able (and proud) of the fact that they are Draw only and haven't had a need to deal with Ai, I think one even mentioned not having to deal with it at all in another thread. And you have some that have moved to Affinity as well and don't use the other two.

I'm personally no hardcore fanboy of any one drawing application. But I've been keenly aware of the differences between CorelDRAW and Illustrator for a very long time, not to mention differences with Freehand, Canvas, CASmate, Flexi and a host of other drawing applications both new and ancient. I make plenty of complaints and requests in both the CorelDRAW and Adobe Illustrator forums. Both still have room for improvement. All the other drawing apps out there have even more room for improvement.