About this forum

[Badgeman]

I agree with Ralph,
I would hope that any 'new' Freehand like programme could keep it simple and do what Freehand does best. I started with 7 and was in effect forced to upgrade through to MX which didn't really give me anything more than I needed - straightforward drawing tools and a simple interface to work with.
I design enamels, medals etc so effectively cartoon drawing style and Freehand was/is so much simpler and faster to use the ai, Corel etc.
A good import range is useful, currently I have to import in to AI, then export out as an AI8 format to import back into MX - TEDIOUS!!

Michael

[slopes]

Whist see no controversy in private users criticising Adobe and singing the praises of the best vector drawing tool (still) on the planet, I do wonder about the wisdom of Quasado making upfront statements on their quest to build a FreeHand replacement.

Of course, it may be perfectly legal for a software business to acknowledge the brilliance of a competitor's named product - and bemoan the fact that it is facing unnecessary obsolescence - it may at the same time be prudent to promote Expressive as a program for all those who love freehand drawing - 'freehand' being a part of the English language. I think everyone would still get the message.

[pixel8in]

Thanks for the forum. I will follow the development of the new software with interest.

[kbell]

Is this going to be commercial software or open source software? Just curious.

Isn't the problem, at its core, the difference in motivation of software vendors and users? Users want to make some kind of graphic, or file, or calculation. Vendors want to sell software. "Upgrades" that are not really upgrades are a tool for selling more stuff. The old versions are dropped, or made inoperable, or their operability under new OSs is not maintained; effectively they are sabotaged. As in the case of FreeHand, the new "upgrades" are often not as good as what they replace. This is the case with EndNote also.

Part-time users (i.e. those who make graphics for their own use in papers, lectures, books, as opposed to those who make graphics for customers) suffer inordinately from software changes. Old files (which may be in on-going projects, as some science projects, like book projects, can be on the go for decades, and many people have many such projects) become unreadable. New software requires a learning phase that has a payback very different from that for a professional user.

What if the expectation for all private developers was that they would --- unless they stated otherwise --- maintain the software for some set time at least, and further commit to releasing the code when they decided to cease maintaining it? And if they committed beyond that to, at the time their software ceased to be maintained, also opening the file format and issuing a graphic converter?

Software buyers could then consider that commitment in their decision process. That commitment would reduce the chance of the buyers' work being stranded in an unreadable format, and reduce the chance of the buyer facing an endless series of pointless re-learning.

That commitment would also provide a motivation to make real improvement the motivation for "upgrade". (Instead of "upgrade" being a synonym for "old version sabotaged".)

Perhaps, if Quasado is going the commercial route, it would make that commitment.

(p.s. I'd also suggest that some early versions of Canvas were a delight to use, and should also inspire any new vector program.
p.p.s. Is anyone doing anything with Fireworks? Or are those functionalities capable of being integrated with a new program?)

[troglodyte]

I for one welcome our new illustrious overlords!

[quasado]

Isn't the problem, at its core, the difference in motivation of software vendors and users? Users want to make some kind of graphic, or file, or calculation. Vendors want to sell software. "Upgrades" that are not really upgrades are a tool for selling more stuff. The old versions are dropped, or made inoperable, or their operability under new OSs is not maintained; effectively they are sabotaged. As in the case of FreeHand, the new "upgrades" are often not as good as what they replace. This is the case with EndNote also.

I might want to add that our motivation is to build the most innovative and usable vector/illustration/dtp tool out there. Yeah, big goals I know but that's how we think about it. We're very passionate about Expressive, we love it and we've already spend years developing it in the shadow so we're not after the "big money fast" thing or whatever. If Expressive brings enough income to feed our company with and allows us to hire more developers to improve it (read: better perfoming, better tooling but not 1000's of features) then we're more than happy with that. Isn't it that working on such a great product you're passionate about and get paid for it is the most wonderful thing for a developer as well as for the designer at the end using it?

That commitment would also provide a motivation to make real improvement the motivation for "upgrade". (Instead of "upgrade" being a synonym for "old version sabotaged".)
Perhaps, if Quasado is going the commercial route, it would make that commitment.

We're way too small to "sabotage" old versions and loosing customers. And I doubt we'll ever get that bigger which is.. after all.. a good thing for us. So yes, upgrades will have real value for the user.
Furthermore, we're also thinking about building an opensource format for the files (read: xml based, aka human readable) to protect companies investment. By providing the converter (expressive format -> pdf/ai/etc) as opensource we might be able to prove customers that setting on expressive is the right thing to do.

Alex

[Buttercup1993]

I'm sorry; I still do not understand (nor am I necessarily expressing a preference): will this product be a commercial product or will it be open source?

[FFH Mark]

I'm sorry; I still do not understand (nor am I necessarily expressing a preference): will this product be a commercial product or will it be open source?

This will be a commercial product.

[FFH Thü]

I might want to add that our motivation is to build the most innovative and usable vector/illustration/dtp tool out there. Yeah, big goals I know but that's how we think about it. We're very passionate about Expressive, we love it and we've already spend years developing it in the shadow so we're not after the "big money fast" thing or whatever.

This is definitely the best thing users of a software can hope for: A developer team who really cares and has its heart in it. No doubt you will create something great. The danger comes later, when big companies want to buy a small one to eradicate competency. Great products were destroyed that way, besides FH, take mFactory's mTropolis. Best authoring solution around, bought and buried by Quark. Stay small and stay independent. Or at least if a software is sold, make sure the contract includes a paragraph "if software is not updated to current standards longer than 2 years, it becomes public domain open source software and must be released.".

[Buttercup1993]

I'm sorry; I still do not understand (nor am I necessarily expressing a preference): will this product be a commercial product or will it be open source?

This will be a commercial product.

Thank you. I will be following this product with interest (would have either way).