Illustrator 9/10 piece of ****

Matthé

macrumors member
Original poster
Oct 25, 2001
75
0
I think everybody knows illustrator 9 is a piece of crap!
when making films of illustrator files I have encountered:
-curves being reduced to non-curved blocky shapes (an 'o' turns inta a hexagon)
-the cmyk mode switching to rgb time after time again after saving it as cmyk
-colours switching to non-defined colours, and when trying to correct this adding a strange contour to every txt/shape which is corrected
-white shapes/texts that every so often don't print on coloured backgrounds
-masks that dont work unless you embed images (eps no less)

even with all updates/ps-printers installed I genuinely HATE Illustrator

some bloke at Adobe told me (after calling to ****ing Ireland!! no offense for the Irish intended) that this was propably due to the fact that version 9 has far more potential and features than some printers and filmflashing software can handle
So it's officially of no use, version 10 will propably be no better cause this also uses these new features

unless you use it for web work, think again
copy-ing to flash often results in loss of correct colour or missing shapes (but honestly, this could be an Adobe-Macromedia conflict)
But when copy paste-ing something into Photoflop colours should remain thesame, not
unless I turn ****ing colourmanagement (which no-one really understands completely) off

Photoshop, besides the dodgy colourmanagement, is the only Adobe product worth buying (don't get me started on inDesign!)

the rest of my money is going to Macromedia from now on. Even if they're a tad late with OS X applications

**** ADOBE!!
 

ormerlin

macrumors newbie
Dec 12, 2001
17
0
Adobe Products

I have been using both Illustrator and Freehand for quite a few years now. I cannot say that either is better than the other, since they both have their stregths and weaknesses. I always keep a copy of each product on my Mac, because one will just not do everything I need.

As far as not mentioning InDesign, I must. I started with PageMaker with version 3, I believe it was. I have never had any major complaints with PageMaker, and have been using it for years. All I heard for years was how much better Quark is, I think not. It may be that I am just so comfortable with the Adobe interface that I don't want to use Quark. When InDesign was released, it was quite a dog, and very slow. When version 1.5 was released, I have switched all my work from PageMaker. I don't know what problems you are running into with InDesign, but I personally cannot wait for version 2.0 for OS X.

I think Adobe products, for the most part, are wonderful. So what if they haven't released PhotoShop for OS X yet? They are working on it, and writing a complex like PhotoShop for OS X is no easy task. For the mean time, PhotoShop in Classic works perfectly fine for me.
 

Matthé

macrumors member
Original poster
Oct 25, 2001
75
0
adobe

I can accept flaws in first generation software, providing that they at least awknowledge it or try to remedy it
working with adobe programs in itself is comfy BUT most problems arise when your work is seemingly done and you send your files of to the printers
I know a lot of printers who keep telling me that we're the only ones using inDesign or sending them pure illustrator eps files for them to handle
some printers even refuse (YES!!) inDesign files cause they do not flash (or how do you say this in english) films correctly

many times I had to resort to outlining whole inDesign files (with no small risk of things ****ing up) resulting in much much longer flashing time needed to make the films (and jeopordising the deadline)
I've had texts dissappear on me if I didn't (mostly partially which is even stranger)
even more sad is the fact that the technology used to do all this is: PostScript: developed by who?

when sending off files used by either inDesign or illustrator 9, I just don't know if they're going to be allright

needless to say printers charge us more cause they need more time to get the films right
 

ormerlin

macrumors newbie
Dec 12, 2001
17
0
InDesign

When InDesign was first released, I also ran into the problem of printers not supporting it. The thing is, all the printers I deal with actually prefer PDF files for printing, and only use the native document for a backup, if they need to change something. I agree there are still some problems with InDesign that still need worked out, but for the most part, I am very happy with it.

I think it will be interesting to see what happens when both Quark and InDesign are released for OS X.

It is too bad you have had such bad luck with the two products, when I have had such great luck.
 

loveshismac

macrumors member
Nov 21, 2001
49
0
Dallas
I too had the rgb to cmyk change by itself, problem.
you need to throw away all you prefences to illustrator.
What I found was multiple illustrator prefrences. a 9.0/9.01/9.02.

delete all but 9.02 (of course)
The color issues are no doubt a problem in your color management.

color from adobe to macromedia will never be the same- they use different rgb calculations.

First Freeand uses sprite technology for transparency.
illustartor use true eps transparency.
If you will read your manual you will learn that unless you flatten transparecy you no doubt will have issues printing on anything but a inkjet.

And Illustrator 10 in X is incredible.






 

dantec

macrumors 6502a
Nov 6, 2001
605
0
California
I dunno about you guys but GoLive 5 ROCKS! Dreamweaver has a complicated ***** interface. I dunno about Adobe Photoshop (I have the 5.0 LE version installed but never use it), but I like PhotoDeluxe 2.0 (wish they would update it though, the PC version is a 3 or 4 now!)

Personally I never liked Macromedia, the only good thing they make in my opinion is Flash.
 
Indesign & Quark

Does anyone know if Indesign will import Quark files AND do it well? I need to find a way to move all of my business correspondence over to cheaper software (not going to get into all the whys and hows here).

Or, does anyone know of a cheap layout program that can put simple--but professional--stationery together? I'd prefer something that imports and properly converts all of my Quark files, but I'll rebuild the files if the software is worth it. And, this software should have very fine-tuned tracking, kerning and leading tools.

Feel free to e-mail me privately. (just hit the mail icon below)
 

kaneda

macrumors 6502
Oct 27, 2001
430
184
Illustrator 10

Illustrator 10 is really sluggish when using with MAC OS 9.2.2

Better for when using MAC OS 10.1
 

evildead

macrumors 65816
Jun 18, 2001
1,275
0
WestCost, USA
Originally posted by dantec
I dunno about you guys but GoLive 5 ROCKS! Dreamweaver has a complicated ***** interface. I dunno about Adobe Photoshop (I have the 5.0 LE version installed but never use it), but I like PhotoDeluxe 2.0 (wish they would update it though, the PC version is a 3 or 4 now!)

Personally I never liked Macromedia, the only good thing they make in my opinion is Flash.

I personly like Dreamweaver. I am into flash and I like the seemless intergration of Fash with Dreamweaver. I have only used GoLive5.0 a little and I feel that Dreamweaver is a much more powerfull Application. Im not that experianced.. so my opinon my not count for much... but thats what I think.