rej@ukc.ac.uk (R.E.Jones) (01/21/91)
I am trying to decide whether to buy Aldus Freehand or Adobe Illustrator. Unfortunately, nowhere round here seems to be able to provide a demo copy of either of these programs! I'd be most grateful for any advice/opinions/experience on these two packages, particularly Illustrator. I have used Freehand and quite liked it. The package would be used in a technical/educational environment, i.e. largely for drawing diagrams of varying complexity, though it would also be used to a lesser extent for other purposes, e.g. cover sheets. At the moment colour capabilities are not that important, although this might change in the near future. [By the way, simpler drawing programs such as MacDraw are not up to the job.] Richard Jones rej@ukc.ac.uk
ksbolduan@amherst.bitnet (01/21/91)
In article <47@owl.ukc.ac.uk>, rej@ukc.ac.uk (R.E.Jones) writes: > I am trying to decide whether to buy Aldus Freehand or Adobe Illustrator. > Unfortunately, nowhere round here seems to be able to provide a demo copy > of either of these programs! > I'd be most grateful for any advice/opinions/experience on these two packages, > particularly Illustrator. I have used Freehand and quite liked it. I'm a dyed-in-the-wool FreeHand user and wouldn't think of doing extensive work in Illustrator. A few notes about some important features, at least for me: 1. Illustrator does not provide for the importation of TIFF files. 2. v. 3.0's text handling abilities are far superior to those of 1.9.x, but they're still not as intutitve as FreeHand's. FH has a text dialog box, while Adobe Illustrator (AI) types right on screen. You say tomawto, I say tomayto. 3. (Most important for me) AI does NOT allow you to work in preview mode. I rarely step out of it while in FH as I like to see what I'm doing. 4. AI converts Type 1 fonts into editable outlines. A great feature, and one that will be available when FH 3.0 comes out later this quarter. 5. In fact, with FH 3.0 around the corner, I'd wait and see what it offers before you make your purchase. Preliminary reports that I've read seem to surpass AI 3.0 quite easily, though again I'm a bit biased. 6. FH has a feature to ALIGN objects, any objects on the screen. This makes for quick 'n' dirty alignment of bottoms, tops, centers, and it will even distribute objects evenly. I think I use this dialog box more than any other feature. Those are just a few of the reasons why I like FH. But, of course, I have both. I think the bottom line in terms of performance is that each has features the others lack and if you can afford it, get them both. But, if you have to go with one, I'd wait until FH 3.0 comes out and go with that one. One final caveat. Be aware that the FH v. AI argument as been raging for many years and trying to convince one program's users that the other is better is like trying to convince a Mac user that IBMs are better or vice versa. Good luck, Kevin Bolduan
phil@waikato.ac.nz (01/22/91)
In article <47@owl.ukc.ac.uk>, rej@ukc.ac.uk (R.E.Jones) writes: > > I am trying to decide whether to buy Aldus Freehand or Adobe Illustrator. > Unfortunately, nowhere round here seems to be able to provide a demo copy > of either of these programs! > I'd be most grateful for any advice/opinions/experience on these two packages, > particularly Illustrator. I have used Freehand and quite liked it. My impression is that computer-oriented people prefer FreeHand, while more artistically-inclined people prefer Illustrator, whose tools and usage seem more intuitive to them. I prefer Illustrator's look and feel, but I possibly have a more artistic streak than most computer buffs. In an all out features war, FreeHand wins, though. Illustrator's Autotrace is better, FreeHand can wrap text around a curve (or any shape). > The package would be used in a technical/educational environment, i.e. largely > for drawing diagrams of varying complexity, though it would also be used to a > lesser extent for other purposes, e.g. cover sheets. At the moment colour > capabilities are not that important, although this might change in the near > future. > > [By the way, simpler drawing programs such as MacDraw are not up to the job.] A cheap solution might be to try SuperPaint 2.0. It has a "Bezier Curve" which has similar control points to Illustrator and FreeHand, but the result is QuickDraw rather than PostScript. It is in no way as powerful as FreeHand or Illustrator, but it does the job pretty well. The editing operations on a Bezier curve are suprisingly simple yet powerful, after using FreeHand or Illustrator. -- Phil Etheridge (phil@waikato.ac.nz) /\ /\ -+-,--, .--, ._ Computer Services/Mathematics & Statistics / \/ \ / /--< /-- / University of Waikato, Hamilton, NZ. / \/ /__.) \_ /
jr@amanue.UUCP (Jim Rosenberg) (01/22/91)
In <47@owl.ukc.ac.uk> rej@ukc.ac.uk (R.E.Jones) writes: >I am trying to decide whether to buy Aldus Freehand or Adobe Illustrator. I'm in the same boat. I thought the review of Illustrator 3.0 in the latest MacUser was just *AWFUL*. I'd give it about 1 mouse. Or maybe the bomb. It said Illustrator 3.0 had passed way ahead of Freehand, and then went on to give practically *nothing* in the way of real details as to why. From the last review they ran, I've got the following down as advantages of Freehand that I might find important. The Illustrator 3.0 reviewer didn't say a *word* about these: 1. Freehand has much better export/import facilities. I have SuperPaint -- 1.something -- and have a fair number of drawings I'd like to redo. They looked cute on an ImageWriter but look pretty poor on a laser printer. My understanding is that the only thing Illustrator can do with a PICT is let you trace it, but Freehand will let you import it and edit it directly. True? ASIDE: Get with it, Adobe. Lack of attention to export/import can only be spelled a-r-r-o-g-a-n-c-e. There is NO EXCUSE for it. 2. Layers: Freehand has all the layers than you could possibly use, Illustrator 88 has only one layer. The MacUser review didn't mention whether Illustrator 3.0 had improved at all in this regard. Does anybody know? I have some idiosyncratic reasons for possibly needing layers. Of course the biggie superiority of Freehand over Illustrator was dealing with text, which Adobe has now addressed. Meanwhile, if the trade rags are to be believed, Freehand 3.0 is supposed to be just about out. It was supposedly shown at MacWorld. Did anybody see it? Is there a ship date? I know Adobe is on the net; is Aldus on the net? Can anyone from Aldus comment? From the brief writeups I've seen on Freehand 3.0 it looks like a lot of the new stuff has to do with color, which I don't care about. -- Jim Rosenberg -- cgh!amanue!jr CIS: 71515,124 UUCP: / / | WELL: jer dsi.com pitt! ditka! BIX: jrosenberg Internet: cgh!amanue!jr@dsi.com
howard@locus.com (Howard Moskovitz) (01/23/91)
In article <490@amanue.UUCP> jr@amanue.UUCP (Jim Rosenberg) writes: > >Meanwhile, if the trade rags are to be believed, Freehand 3.0 is supposed to be >just about out. It was supposedly shown at MacWorld. Did anybody see it? Is >there a ship date? I know Adobe is on the net; is Aldus on the net? Can >anyone from Aldus comment? From the brief writeups I've seen on Freehand 3.0 >it looks like a lot of the new stuff has to do with color, which I don't care >about. I was at MacWorld and Aldus DID NOT show Freehand 3.0 (much to my surprise). This may be due to product problems or with Aldus adding features at the last minute to compensate for the features added to Illustrator 3.0. -- --------------------------------- | Howard Moskovitz | | Locus Computing | | Inglewood, CA |
MXC117@psuvm.psu.edu (mary carpenter) (01/23/91)
In article <42890@ut-emx.uucp>, clouds@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Kathy Strong) says: >Which just goes to show that features lists don't prove a whole lot. By >the way, the text handling in the current version of Illustrator (3.0) is >VASTLY improved. I rate it "usable" now. :-) Well......Illustrator 3.0 hasn't solved all of its problems with text yet. I work in a graphics lab here at Penn State where we use both FreeHand and Illustrator. Just got the new version of Illustrator in. We're working on a project that is a pamphlet for ACSM containing about 85 map projections generated by an IBM program and passed into Illustrator. Getting the new version, we decided to test it out by doing the 85 illustrations in it. Time to send it to the printer. (We're using a Linotronic typesetting machine at printing services on campus -- don't ask me what model, only a few people are allowed to go near the thing!) Not a _single_ illustration will print in Illustrator 3.0. Everything had to be saved as Illustrator 88 and resent. This was a bit of an inconvenience, since we, the printers, and Adobe tech support couldn't figure out what was wrong. They print in 88, but won't do a damn thing other than crash the setup when run in 3.0. So...Illustrator 3.0 does still have some bugs. By the way, I'm biased toward FreeHand, but I'll use Illustrator if I have to. Out of the employees in our lab, the general opinion is that you prefer the program you learned first. ------ Mary Carpenter PSUCAC student consultant PSUDOG cartographic production assistant, graphicist, and gopher
gsnow@pro-freedom.cts.com (Gary Snow) (01/23/91)
In-Reply-To: message from rej@ukc.ac.uk |I am trying to decide whether to buy Aldus Freehand or Adobe Illustrator. |Unfortunately, nowhere round here seems to be able to provide a demo copy |of either of these programs! |I'd be most grateful for any advice/opinions/experience on these two |packages, particularly Illustrator. I have used Freehand and quite liked it. Well, I use them both at my job as a Graphics Artist, and I must say that I like Freehand 2.03 better then Illustrator 3.0. I played with Freehand 3.0 at MacWorld, and I must say that Freehand has been made even better. I vote: Freehand! Gary --- UUCP: ogicse!clark!pro-freedom!gsnow | Pro-Freedom: 206/253-9389 ProLine: gsnow@pro-freedom | Vancouver, Wa ARPANet: crash!pro-freedom!gsnow@nosc.mil | Apple*Van InterNet: gsnow@pro-freedom.cts.com | Vancouver Apple Users Group
frank@mnetor.UUCP (Frank Kolnick) (01/24/91)
In article <1991Jan23.035410.12677@clark.edu> gsnow@pro-freedom.cts.com (Gary Sn ow) writes: )|I am trying to decide whether to buy Aldus Freehand or Adobe Illustrator. )|Unfortunately, nowhere round here seems to be able to provide a demo copy )|of either of these programs! )|I'd be most grateful for any advice/opinions/experience on these two )|packages, particularly Illustrator. I have used Freehand and quite liked it. ) )Well, I use them both at my job as a Graphics Artist, and I must say that I )like Freehand 2.03 better then Illustrator 3.0. I played with Freehand 3.0 )at MacWorld, and I must say that Freehand has been made even better. I've had both for a couple of years, and I can sum up my usage as follows (I think a feature-by-feature comparison is pointless, unless there's some exotic feature you must have, since both programs are comparable): When I need to draw an 'illustration' (person, computer, whatever), I invariably reach for Illustrator. I find its metaphor (esp. the pen tool) and keyboard shortcuts much more intuitive and less intrusive than FreeHand's. When I want to draw 'diagrams' (data structures, org. charts, etc.), I almost always use FreeHand. FreeHand is more of a 'structured' interface; I think of it as a drawing package, as opposed to an illustration package. If I had to choose one, I'd choose Illustrator, esp. now that the text handling has been improved so much. (The built-in charting may also be useful -- I haven't had occasion to try it.) -- Frank Kolnick, Basis Computer Systems Inc. UUCP: {allegra, linus}!utzoo!mnetor!frank
sm196103@seas.gwu.edu (Scott Cherkofsky) (01/24/91)
In article <5655@mnetor.UUCP> frank@mnetor.UUCP (Frank Kolnick) writes: Stuff Deleted >If I had to choose one, I'd choose Illustrator, esp. now that the text >handling has been improved so much. (The built-in charting may also be >useful -- I haven't had occasion to try it.) > I to would pick Illustrator. I have used the charting functions of Illustrator and they are very comprehensive as far as I can tell. I am still learning but the features are very nice - Using pictures for columns (like oil barrels) which can be placed in a number of different ways. You can scale the images, cut them off (like when car companies use cars to represent millions of units output where 1.5 million were made. e.i. one full car and half of one) you can have them scaled (as the bar on a bar graph fets larger, the picture can be scaled accordingly). Well, you get the picture, or should I say Illustration?!? All in all it is a very well thought out program. Scott -- Scott Cherkofsky "The experience of going through sm196103@seas.GWU.edu life may be intended as a warning Mechanical Engineering student not to do it again." Executive Office of the President -- Ashleigh Brilliant
gsnow@pro-freedom.cts.com (Gary Snow) (01/25/91)
In-Reply-To: message from howard@locus.com |I was at MacWorld and Aldus DID NOT show Freehand 3.0 (much to my |surprise). This may be due to product problems or with Aldus adding |features at the last minute to compensate for the features added to |Illustrator 3.0. I'm sorry, but I beg to differ, I actually got to play around with version 3.0 at MacWorld. Gary --- UUCP: ogicse!clark!pro-freedom!gsnow | Pro-Freedom: 206/253-9389 ProLine: gsnow@pro-freedom | Vancouver, Wa ARPANet: crash!pro-freedom!gsnow@nosc.mil | Apple*Van InterNet: gsnow@pro-freedom.cts.com | Vancouver Apple Users Group
rej@ukc.ac.uk (R.E.Jones) (03/14/91)
In article <1991Mar12.225504.17012@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> lwfg7029@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Lawrence W Fountain) writes: > > > Has anyone out there used both Adobe Illustrator and Aldus Freehand that >can compare the two for me? I want to purchase one of the two (or any other >comparably priced pieces of software) and I'm not really sure how they compare >with each other. Could you give me some suggestions? > > Thanx... > > larry fountain > lwfg7029@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu Here is a summary of the replies that I received when I asked for advice on whether to buy Freehand or Illustrator. I have grouped them into two sections: those who prefer Freehand and those who prefer Illustrator. I hope that this does not characterise contributors' opinions too crudely. I would like to express my thanks to all those who replied, and who clearly took considerable efforts to explain exactly why they thought waht they did. 1) For Freehand =============== From: Gamliel Avshalom <momi@rpi.edu> Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY >For whatever it's worth, I never liked Illustrator. It is not >what one would call intuitive...FreeHand is OK and lets you do >most of what you may ask for (Except arrow heads on lines). The >other deficiency of FreeHand is that the final product is an >EPS file that cannot be pasted in something like MS Word. [But you can do an Option-Copy and then paste it. But this doesn't always work -rej] From: boogles@athena.mit.edu >I have found Illustrator to be a memory and processor hog. Its facilities for >handling text are more difficult to use, compared to Freehand. I personally >prefer Freehand for this reason, since I have to deal in text enough. If you >have the money it would be ideal to have both programs, since they both have >their strong points. It also might be useful to have Illustrator since many >programs export/import in illustrator format. Freehand can read/write >Illustrator files, but it is always nice to use the program that the files were >made for. I have done some desktop publishing and I know some people in the >business; the professionals always keep both programs around. From: mary carpenter 862 6887 <MXC117@psuvm.psu.edu> >Ok, this is a bit of a big job....I work for the Geography Dept. at Penn State >University in a graphics lab. We are almost completely computer oriented. So, >I should be able to give you a bit of an insight. (I'm familiar with both >programs and have used them EXTENSIVELY.) >Personally, I like FreeHand a bit better than Illustrator, for the main reason >is that FreeHand will let you work in Preview Illustration mode. Meaning that >you can see pretty much what your graphic looks like as you work on it. (i.e. >fills other than PS fills show, line and type styles appear as they should, >etc.) Illustrator has not had this capability in earlier versions. I am not >completely sure about Illustrator 3.0 and this feature. However, 3.0 has >proven to contain some bugs yet -- at least for us, in our usage. Illustrator >will only allow you to work in a wire frame mode (at least earlier versions, we >haven't used 3.0 too much yet because of our particular problem -- we print >most final copies on a Linotronic printer, and the one here at the Univ is >incompatible with the new Illustrator.). > >Besides allowing you to see what you are working on, as you work on it, FH also >allows you to 'undo' up to 99 steps backward (providing you haven't saved). >This is a settable feature allowing you to specify the number of 'undo's >possible. Illustrator has one undo. > >These two reasons would be enough for me to recommend FH over Ill. if you >intend to use the program for educational purposes. When learning a program, I >found it helpful to be able to see what I'm working on and be able to 'undo' my >mistakes rather than starting over. > >Another feature of FH that I like is the concept of descreet drawing layers. >FH has 200 layers, whereas Illustrator keeps everything on a single layer. >You can assign objects to particular layers, and then choose which layers >you want to be "active" or visible. Illustrator's answer to this is the >'hide'command. You can hide objects to make them invisible or 'lock' >them to make them inactive. In my opinion, assigning layers and changing >the active and visible layers is easier to deal with than hiding or lock- >ing objects. > >Illustrator does have its good points. Since it doesn't work in preview mode, >it is faster in some respects than FH. It is compatible with the IBM version >of Illustrator. (FH is also, but you have to port it through the Mac Ill. first > :) ) Illustrator also allows you to tile your graphic to make it larger >than the standard page. If you intend to create graphics larger than 8.5x11, >then Illustrator is the one to pick -- it allows you to use up to 9 pages in a >single drawing. FH is stuck with one page only. >You can also have several different views of the graphic visible at once with >Illustrator. What I mean is that you can designate 2 or 3 different magnif- >ications in windows when working in Illustrator. FreeHand doesn't allow for >this. > >Finally, having gone through the company provided tutorials for both of these >programs, I can say that FH's is a little easier to understand and shows a few >more of the fine points of the program than the one for Illustrator. However, >both tutorials are still inadequate (we developed our own tutorials in the lab >after some frustration with the company's work.) and can't replace many, many >hours of experience. All in all, I would give FH the rating for easier to >learn and to use for design-as-you-go-along. However, Illustrator is preferred >by some of the people in our lab for its speed and a few of the features >mentioned above--it should be noted that these people were either already quite >adept at FH or Illustrator for the IBM at the time they learned Illustrator for >the Mac. > >I should add that I haven't noticed a difference in the capability of handling >color. Both programs aren't capable of producing true color specs because of >the nature of the Mac screen, obviously. But I like FH's handling of Process >Colors better than Illustrator. (By the way, Illustrator only shows color in >the preview mode as stated above for fills and lines styles and such.) From: gsnow@pro-freedom.cts.com (Gary Snow) Organization: Apple*Van - Apple Users Group of Vancouver, WA [206/253-9389] >Well, I use them both at my job as a Graphics Artist, and I must say that I >like Freehand 2.03 better then Illustrator 3.0. I played with Freehand 3.0 >at MacWorld, and I must say that Freehand has been made even better. From: ksbolduan@amherst.bitnet I'm a dyed-in-the-wool FreeHand user and wouldn't think of doing extensive work in Illustrator. A few notes about some important features, at least for me: >1. Illustrator does not provide for the importation of TIFF files. >2. v. 3.0's text handling abilities are far superior to those of 1.9.x, but >they're still not as intutitve as FreeHand's. FH has a text dialog box, while >Adobe Illustrator (AI) types right on screen. You say tomawto, I say tomayto. >3. (Most important for me) AI does NOT allow you to work in preview mode. I >rarely step out of it while in FH as I like to see what I'm doing. >4. AI converts Type 1 fonts into editable outlines. A great feature, and one >that will be available when FH 3.0 comes out later this quarter. >5. In fact, with FH 3.0 around the corner, I'd wait and see what it offers >before you make your purchase. Preliminary reports that I've read seem to >surpass AI 3.0 quite easily, though again I'm a bit biased. >6. FH has a feature to ALIGN objects, any objects on the screen. This makes for >quick 'n' dirty alignment of bottoms, tops, centers, and it will even >distribute objects evenly. I think I use this dialog box more than any other >feature. From: jr@amanue.UUCP (Jim Rosenberg) Organization: Amanuensis Inc., Grindstone, PA >1. Freehand has much better export/import facilities. I have SuperPaint -- >1.something -- and have a fair number of drawings I'd like to redo. They >looked cute on an ImageWriter but look pretty poor on a laser printer. My >understanding is that the only thing Illustrator can do with a PICT is let you >trace it, but Freehand will let you import it and edit it directly. True? > >2. Layers: Freehand has all the layers than you could possibly use, >Illustrator 88 has only one layer. The MacUser review didn't mention whether >Illustrator 3.0 had improved at all in this regard. Does anybody know? I >have some idiosyncratic reasons for possibly needing layers. > >Of course the biggie superiority of Freehand over Illustrator was dealing with >text, which Adobe has now addressed. 2) For Illustrator ================== From: frank@mnetor.UUCP (Frank Kolnick) Basis Computer Systems Inc. >I've had both for a couple of years, and I can sum up my usage as follows >(I think a feature-by-feature comparison is pointless, unless there's some >exotic feature you must have, since both programs are comparable): >When I need to draw an 'illustration' (person, computer, whatever), I >invariably reach for Illustrator. I find its metaphor (esp. the pen tool) >and keyboard shortcuts much more intuitive and less intrusive than FreeHand's. >When I want to draw 'diagrams' (data structures, org. charts, etc.), I >almost always use FreeHand. FreeHand is more of a 'structured' interface; >I think of it as a drawing package, as opposed to an illustration package. >If I had to choose one, I'd choose Illustrator, esp. now that the text >handling has been improved so much. (The built-in charting may also be >useful -- I haven't had occasion to try it.) From: phil@waikato.ac.nz Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand >My impression is that computer-oriented people prefer FreeHand, while more >artistically-inclined people prefer Illustrator, whose tools and usage seem >more intuitive to them. I prefer Illustrator's look and feel, but I possibly >have a more artistic streak than most computer buffs. In an all out features >war, FreeHand wins, though. Illustrator's Autotrace is better, FreeHand can >wrap text around a curve (or any shape). > >A cheap solution might be to try SuperPaint 2.0. It has a "Bezier Curve" which >has similar control points to Illustrator and FreeHand, but the result is >QuickDraw rather than PostScript. It is in no way as powerful as FreeHand or >Illustrator, but it does the job pretty well. The editing operations on a >Bezier curve are suprisingly simple yet powerful, after using FreeHand or >Illustrator. From: sm196103@seas.gwu.edu (Scott Cherkofsky) Organization: The George Washington University, Washington D.C. >I to would pick Illustrator. I have used the charting functions of >Illustrator and they are very comprehensive as far as I can tell. I am >still learning but the features are very nice - Using pictures for >columns (like oil barrels) which can be placed in a number of different >ways. You can scale the images, cut them off (like when car companies >use cars to represent millions of units output where 1.5 million were made. >e.i. one full car and half of one) you can have them scaled (as the bar >on a bar graph fets larger, the picture can be scaled accordingly). > >Scott Cherkofsky >Mechanical Engineering student From: clouds@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Kathy Strong) >By the way, the text handling in the current version of Illustrator (3.0) is >VASTLY improved. I rate it "usable" now. :-) > >The new Illustrator also has a charting feature that lets you enter numbers >in a mini-spreadsheet and automatically create a chart, either with plain >ol' bars or repeating icons (someone has dubbed this the "banana bar chart"). >I own both Freehand and Illustrator, but Illustrator is the one I use most >of the time. I like the feel of it better (subjective, I know). I also like >being able to change the shape of a curve by dragging directly on the curve, >rather than only being able to change it by dragging the control points. >(I usually use the "drag the curve" method for gross adjustments and then >fine-tune by "dragging the control points.") > >In fact, now that Adobe has fixed up the text handling in Illustrator 3.0, >the ONLY time I use Freehand is if I have a drawing with a lot of graduated >fills. Freehand lets you do those much more easily than Illustrator, and >they take up a LOT less room on a disk. My conclusion (for what it's worth)? I want a look at Freehand 3.0 when it arrives. I expect I shall go for that. Once again, many thanks to the contributors.
robertw@informix.com (Robert Weinberg) (03/21/91)
FreeHand users seem to complain that you cannot draw in Preview
mode in Illustrator. Really, though, you always have been able
to - and better than that, you can draw simultaneously in
wire-frame AND preview modes.
In Illustrator, just open a new window, and ask for a preview. From
then on, working in the first window in wire-frame mode will
simultaneously update the full preview in the second window. AND,
you can have the first window open very large for an overall view
where you work, and only open the second, previewing, window to a
small size, so that it updates very quickly. It's great to be able
to select points very clearly on the wire-frame while the full
preview opens in the second window.
--
* Rob Weinberg, graphics & publishing ***** Does a falling tree make a sound *
* {uunet,pyramid}!infmx!robertw ***** if 1: no one hears it *
* => Ask me about me. ***** BUT 2: it is not known that *
* => Ask Informix about Informix. ***** no one hears it? *