Slashdot Log In
Alternatives To Adobe's Creative Suite?
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Jun 05, 2007 12:44 AM
from the sure-the-gimp-has-a-plugin dept.
from the sure-the-gimp-has-a-plugin dept.
jsepeta writes "I've been using Adobe products for years, and own several older versions of the products from their Creative Suite: Photoshop, Illustrator, Indesign, Acrobat Pro, and Dreamweaver. I'd like to teach some graphic design and web production skills to my coworkers in the marketing department, and realize that most of them can't afford $2500 to buy Adobe's premium suite and, frankly, shouldn't need to because there should be competitive products on the market. But I can't seem to locate software for graphic design and printing that outputs CMYK files that printing companies will accept. And I'm not familiar with any products that are better than FrontPage yet still easy to use for Web design. Any suggestions? Our company is notoriously frugal and would certainly entertain the idea of using open source products if we could implement them in a way that doesn't infringe upon our Microsoft-centric hegemony / daily work tasks in XP."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Alternatives To Adobe's Creative Suite?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 695 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
|
2
(1)
|
2
Well... (Score:4, Informative)
and
CMYK support for The GIMP [blackfiveservices.co.uk]
Re:Well... (Score:5, Informative)
(http://mystify.org/)
Or maybe try out paint.net? http://www.getpaint.net/ [getpaint.net]
To make things easier- (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://hopscotch.keenspace.com/)
2.) Someone comments on the sheer mediocrity of aforementioned $ALTERNATIVE.
3.)
a. Someone brings up $ALTERNATIVE good points
-or-
b. Someone disses $LEADING_PRODUCT's management, pricing system, ethics, etc.
4.) Someone mentions that aforementioned is irrelevant to the quality of the $LEADING_PRODUCT, then complains more about $ALTERNATIVE
5.) Someone runs out of retorts, says "Go code it for yourself."
6.) Someone comments on how they had sessions of lengthy, drawn-out fornication with your mother; alternatively, your sexual preference.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.mgmbill.org/)
DOT GAIN: Dot gain is the amount a dot of ink expands on paper (because paper is porous) which makes it appear larger. There is far more dot gain on, say, newsprint than on magazine paper, because of the porousness of the paper. There is a pretty good graphical representation of this here. [umax.co.uk] The first gradient represents the information sent to a printer or press. The second gradient is the printed output from that printer or press. Since the dots expand on paper and appear bigger, or more densely packed, the output appears darker than intended. By inputting the actual dot gain from a particular press (which can be affected by dozens of variables), Photoshop is able to compensate, adjusting the values sent to the printer so that what we see onscreen more accurately matches what we see in print.
INK PROFILES: Cyan ink isn't always really Cyan ink...especially when it's printed on off-white paper. (In other words, nearly all paper.) There are several different ink manufacturers and their inks differ visually, and there are thousands of different papers each with their own color. The SNAP test will actually measure the color of the paper itself, and the values of 100%C, 50%C, 40%C-30%M-30%Y (a neutral gray) and Photoshop is able to use these numbers, again, to adjust the information sent to press to best compensate for the weaknesses of the ink and paper.
Now, I haven't used GIMP besides casually opening it and getting confused by the interface, but I just looked in Preferences and apparently you can't even use CMYK colorspace AT ALL, let alone the custom inks and paper settings that are completely NECESSARY for any serious designer / publisher. Just supporting CMYK colorspace is NOT good enough. Without support for custom profiles there is not a snowball's chance in hell that print professionals would use this program anytime soon.
Given Adobe CS's ability to coordinate these ink profiles throughout all their programs, IMO there is no other viable option for someone who will be sending their files to press. Not if they want accurate color output.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's always funny to see someone who never designed professionally in their life suggest GIMP.
GIMP lacks so basic features such as a usable grid, 16-bit/HDR image support, and requires special plugins with numerical inputs to draw a simple rounded rectangle, let alone something more complex.
The closest I've seen to Photoshop is Pavel's Pixel [kanzelsberger.com] editor. It works on any OS you can imagine, from DOS to OS/2, Windows, MacOSX, Linux etc. It's very cheap and it's basically a clone software of Photoshop in many regards.
Other than this, there's Corel's Paintshop and Painter, but Painter is more oriented towards natural media art, not synthetic design or editing photos. Yes, neither of them are free, either. That's because people who have a clue designed them, and people who have a clue in the design industry don't work for free.
You could skimp on Dreamweaver, InDesign, Illustrator, but you won't last long without Photoshop, even if when someone sends you PSD next time and you realize that when GIMP advertised "importing PSD" they actually meant more like importing Photoshop 4 level PSD and losing everything else in the design, thus wrecking it in the process.
Comparing Photoshop-GIMP to MS_Office-OpenOffice is extremely unfair. GIMP is really a toy, it has few interesting plugins and crude tools, while OpenOffice is actually quite usable, even if it lacks some features, it definitely has the basics right, and working.
I have both OpenOffice and GIMP installed here, next to MS Office and Photoshop. I use GIMP only to run the texture resynthesis plugin when I need a tileable texture.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Interesting)
- sincerely, a professional designer who uses all FOSS tools, and kicks your butt at it.
1. Bitching about me not posting portfolio examples for some reason, while you yourself not posting any portfolio too: -2 points.
2. Posting as Anonymous Coward while bitching about above point: -10 points.
3. Claiming your kick my ass in design without knowing what I do, and without me knowing what you do: -25 points.
4. Posting links, the majority of which are about people who moved to Linux, and not about people who moved to GIMP: -50 points.
5. Comparing dust removes and wire removal on CinePaint, with original design on a full-blown raster editor: -1000 points.
6. Citing the CinePaint project manager as a reliable source about how many people use CinePaint versus other tools: -2000 points. Did you know Adobe also claims "Photoshop is the most used application in the motion picture industry"? But wait, one of your links says CinePaint has got Scooby Doo covered, that's impressive by itself.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.holoweb.net/~liam/)
I still wouldn't recommend GIMP for replacing PhotoShop directly in an existing Apple + Adobe + PostScript/EPS/PDF workflow, because of the lack of CMYK support, and the difficulties of working in the RGB colourspace, which doesn't have a clear enough overlap with the CMYK colourspace, and the lack of gamut warnings (visible indication that you've used colours that can't be printed). This stuff needs to happen in the editing interface - to the person who said, isn't it like the sound system compensating for a listening room, no, it's more like the recording engineer noticing when the needles are stuck all the way at 10 (max level) and detail is getting lost. You can't add detail back later.
Inkscape and sk1 are both being used as vector-based software in pre-press (sk1 was designed for that) but overall the Free Software graphic design workflow is not yet very mature. Part of that is that the commercial works has been responsive overall to designer's needs, and part of it is that designers are only very rarely programmers, and programmers only rarely get involved in graphic design enough to understand why OpenOffice + GIMP isn't a total solution.
People have been working on improving the situation - e.g. the organisers and participants at the Libre Graphics Meeting [libregraphicsmeeting.org]. Scribus is indeed advancing rapidly, with a lot of momentum, although its text handling in some ways still lags behind very early versions of Quark, and as it stands today it's not going to challenge people who have come to rely on the newer features of InDesign. But really, it's early days yet. We're in some ways not quite where the proprietary world was in the late 1980s, and in other ways we're ahead of the proprietary world, but we have to catch up in some of the places where we're behind.
It's no good asking to use software they have no real hope themselves of modifying or enhancing, and saying, use this, and if it doesn't work for you, just add features, and by the way it doesn't do everything that right now you believe you need, because it's as much use as handing a person with no legs who needs to get somewhere a broken bicycle. This is not to say I don't believe in Free Software. I just recognise that we don't yet have a Free solution to everyone's needs yet.
As for the rest (Score:5, Informative)
However, one may be able replace some of the other software depending on how you used it. The original poster framed the scenario as tools for the marketing department to use, which clearly lowers the bar in terms of expectations as to what level of competency will be applied. Marketers are not designers, so it would appear as though if Software X does a reasonable job approximating most tasks of Adobe Y, then one can adopt it.
Photoshop - You're unlikely to replace that one. Although, someone else mentioned Pixel [kanzelsberger.com] which could possibly cut the mustard depending on your needs. Otherwise, there really is nothing to compare to Photoshop.
Illustrator - Definitely have a strong look at Inkscape [inkscape.org]. I've toyed with it for 2 or 3 years to keep tabs on its' development, after being fairly impressed during my first run through. These days it has continued to advance and I'd suggest it's ready for the professional world. You can create substantially complex pieces with Inkscape which will probably far out-pace the ability of your Marketing department to bother learning in the first place. While it might be missing a pet feature or two, the bottomline is that Inkscape is ready to be taken seriously as a replacement for Illustrator (and, previously, FreeHand).
InDesign - Professionals already use Scribus [scribus.net] to handle multipage full color layouts sent directly to commercial print houses, so it's gotta be worth your time to look at. CMYK separation, PDF generation,and much of the toolsets you'd expect to see in Quark or InDesign; certainly more than enough power for your Marketing department.
Acrobat Pro - If you're heavily using features like annotation, collaboration, form creation, et cetera, then you probably won't be replacing Acrobat Professional. Nothing can touch it. However, if all you need is to be able to allow your Marketing droids to generate PDFs from documents they create in other software, then you can slap PDFCreator [pdfforge.org] on their little Windows boxen. Remember that OpenOffice already has the ability to turn any of their normal documents and spreadsheets into a PDF at a click of a button. Surely, you've dumped MS Office by now.
Dreamweaver - This is a tough one because you should probably rethink your environment to realize you most likely don't really want Dreamweaver to be used. Unless you're just using Slashdot to conveniently survey the geek mindshare, the odds are that WYSIWYG is an old paradigm no longer needed by most scenarios. What you probably want is some kind of content management engine which your key tech person(s) can administer such that your Marketing department can monkey with the website(s). One engine could be adapted to various websites, if you proposed such a need. If I were to suppose someone was trolling Slashdot, then I would mention Quanta Plus [kdewebdev.org] before realizing Marketing droids would be helplessly confined to Windows and thus I'd point to Nvu [nvu.com] as your capable hero.
But, really, if an evaluation of your technical needs leads you back to WYSIWYG, then you've made a logical error somewhere. The days for that hobbled solution are definitely over.
There you have it! Free and open source software is up to the challenge is most regards. Where there are shortcomings, there are adept proprietary solutions for far, far less than the onerous cost of Adobe
CMYK (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.postnewspapers.com.au/ | Last Journal: Saturday August 03 2002, @01:00AM)
I don't consider lack of 16 bit RGB support a crippling problem for all workflows. Certainly, along with limited RAW support and lack of any sort of ICC colour management it's a problem for high-end photography work, but it's not really a killer for many uses. In fact, the newspaper I work with uses 8-bit colour all the way through its workflow at the moment - and while we'd probably benefit from moving to 16-bit colour for image archival and manipulation, it really doesn't make that much difference for many uses.
I have a much bigger problem with the lack of ICC colour support and CMYK support. You need at least one or the other for a print-targeted workflow, with both strongly preferable. If you only have ICC colour support, you'll need DTP apps that can do the right thing with tagged images, and you won't want to be working on really difficult images that need fine-tuning after colour space conversion. And if you only have CMYK support you'd better have a decent external tool with ICC colour support to the RGB->CMYK conversion, or the result will be muck.
It's exciting to see all the work going in to GEGL (the core for the new GIMP revision with much-improved support of ICC colour, multiple colour spaces, higher bit depths, non-destructive workflow, etc) and I can't wait until some of that starts appearing in a reasonably usable form. Their approach to non-destructive editing & history is the first thing I've seen in GIMP that makes me sit up and take notice when working on Photoshop.
Wait... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Funny)
no alternative (Score:5, Informative)
Re:no alternative (Score:4, Informative)
it's good for limited stuff and for getting started, but you hit the barrier after a while. there's too much stuff that's too hard/clumsy/hacky in gimp.
Re:no alternative (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://whineymacfanboy.googlepages.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday April 12 2007, @09:28AM)
Get flamed for bashing gimp on
Gimp is an alternative for photoshop in much the same way Openoffice is an alternative to MSoffice or linux is an alternative to OS X.
It depends on the job at hand. Sometimes the OSS tool is better for the job, at other times the proprietary tool is better for the job.
Re:no alternative (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://whineymacfanboy.googlepages.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday April 12 2007, @09:28AM)
But I actually said:You see, Linux is not an equal to OS X and OS X is not an equal to Linux. They're completely different beasts. There are some uses where OS X will absolutely not cut the mustard. There are some uses where Linux won't be adequate. Everyone but clueless partisans can see that.
Re:no alternative (Score:4, Funny)
OS-X -- Lexus - overpriced but kool.
Win XP. -- 2001 GM - cheap but uncool.
Win Vista -- 2007 Cadilac -- overpriced but still uncool.
Linux -- Ford pickup -- cheap, sort of kool anti-cool.
Re:no alternative (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Thursday August 07 2003, @02:46AM)
Re:no alternative (Score:5, Insightful)
You've said it yourself, use older versions. Your marketing colleagues don't need the most recent versions. On ebay, you could probably pick up a few training videos and training manuals real cheap too, since the training stuff for old software loses its value as quickly -- if not quicker -- than the software it supports.
If the cost is still prohibitive, you could probably buy an old PC (or an old Mac), and have your coworkers share the station whenever they need to use the software. That's the thing with this kind of software, since it's not their primary job to do graphic design -- they may not all need to use the same graphic design software at the same time.
I realize you may just be looking for a place to complain, and perhaps my unsympathetic suggestions were not what you were looking for, but really -- look around some other businesses -- many businesses are still using Windows 98 -- and they're doing fine.
Re:no alternative (Score:5, Informative)
(http://blog.parasight.de/)
For everything CS2 and previous:
Edit -> Preferences -> Set "History States" up to 1000.
For CS3:
Edit -> Preferences -> Performace -> Set "History States" up to 1000.
That enough undos for you?
Why the default setting is only 20, I don't know; I guess for performance reasons.
As for your other objections, I can't relate. I'm not a programmer, I'm a designer.
As with every professional application there is a learning curve. Once you have that out of the way, Photoshop is excellent and the industry standard for a very good reason.
Re:no alternative (Score:5, Insightful)
It's more complicated than that - the submitter wants particular high-end features (like CMYK for professional print output).
In transportation terms, he's looking for a vehicle that can:
- transport several people / several tons of kit
- rapidly (>100mph)
- to / from endpoints without infrastructure (ie. no roads / runways etc.)
- over inhospitable terrain
Good luck searching. Most people just accept that they need a helicopter to do this job, and therefore you have to pay what a helicopter costs (or a V22 if you're feeling lucky / suicidal - IMO).
Teen Talk Barbie says "Photoshop is hard!" (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://babelfish.alt...%2F%2Fslashdot.jp%2F)
And I notice that some people say that GIMP is nicer for programmers and people with that mentality. Which is fine, but Photoshop wasn't created with primarily that market in mind.
Adobe released Photoshop Elements for that market. You may think I'm demeaning you by suggesting the lite "consumer" or "beginner" version- but you were the one you expected it to be easy, and criticised it for failing in that respect. The full Photoshop is designed to be powerful, not easy. Elements is still quite powerful for something easy to use.
Actually, I'd suggest that Photo Deluxe (Elements' predecessor) was even easier to use- but that was very cut down and wizard-based, and has been discontinued.
You can only go so far in making something easy to use without losing flexibility.
I don't know Photoshop well enough to claim that everything "hard" in the interface can be explained as an intentional move by its developers to choose power and flexibility over immediate ease-of-use and intuitiveness (as opposed to bad interface design). But I do know that it's generally accepted that Photoshop is *not* aimed at the casual user.
I understand your willingness to help, but (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://fohat.wordpress.com/)
Re:CYMK TIFF is a backwards tradition that must di (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.isights.org/)
Go look up additive and subtractive color systems and the circumstances under which each is used. Then come back when you have something not unimaginably dumb to contribute to the conversation.
Open-Source for sure (Score:5, Informative)
(http://metroid.calcgames.org/)
Photoshop -> Gimp [gimp.org]
Illustrator -> Inkscape [inkscape.org]
InDesign -> Scribus [scribus.net]
Web Design -> Kompozer [kompozer.net], which is a bugfix release of Nvu [nvu.com] (there's actually a lot of these, I've also heard Microsoft Visual Web Dev Express [microsoft.com], which has a lot of praise from various people)
Not sure of a good PDF editor, but it looks like this claims to do the trick (though i'm sure is nowhere near the level of Acrobat Pro): PDFEdit [petricek.net]. Be warned it looks like it's a cygwin port to windows...
I can't guarantee that those will all live up to your expectations, but I am fairly familiar with most of that software, and it certainly gets the job done.
Re:Open-Source for sure (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.allenvarney.com/ | Last Journal: Friday July 18 2003, @09:53PM)
Scribus will probably be hot stuff in three to five years, but for now, it's low-end desktop publishing, only a couple of steps above Word. In particular, Scribus currently offers only rudimentary support for tables, which was a dealbreaker for me.
There's LaTeX, of course, but I'm not yet ready to drink that particular ocean. LaTeX is oriented toward document design, whereas I need page design. I need to move the illo on page 43 two picas to the right, and then I need to look at it and decide to move it back. Dipping in and out of a config file to do that isn't appealing.
For my current DTP project, I had to move from Linux back to WinXP just so I could use InDesign. InDesign is a great program, but even so... groan.
Now, let's be honest (Score:4, Insightful)
There's nothing out there that can compete in ease of use, or power. Someone mentioned superior tools to web design (notepad, for example) and I can agree there. But for the rest of the products mentioned (among them, photoshop, illustrator, indesign etc.) there's nothing else that can hold a candle up to Adobe.
The first rule of The GIMP (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.amyhughes.org/lego)
Watch how many moderation points get blown stifling any suggestion that The GIMP isn't up to the level of Photoshop.
Watch how many moderation points get blown on this here comment
They don't need the whole suite (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.amyhughes.org/lego)
Alternatives (Score:3, Informative)
(http://www.guerilla.co.za/)
There are many alternatives (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.insidebet.com/)
I am a professional Photoshop user and have become one thanks to the vast amount of tutorials and discussions that relate directly to Photoshop. I know Gimp and I know Paint Shop Pro, but aside from the fact that none of these tools are quite as extensive as Photoshop, you still want that large community to back you up when you need help.
To answer the question of the main article, I would say that the best alternative to Photoshop is yet another Adobe product: Photoshop Elements. It's a capped version of Photoshop at some $100 in retail stores. This is fully comparable to Paint Shop Pro, which is about the same price.
Many polished alternatives for the Mac (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.47ronin.com/)
RapidWeaver [realmacsoftware.com] is an industrial-strength alternative to Dreamweaver which includes an SDK, full drag-n-drop designing interface, coding panel, Flash integration, and site maintenance. Currently it's $49.
Coda [panic.com] is the newcomer on the block, built by one of the best Mac shareware coding companies. As with the others, it allows for drag-n-drop designing and fully supports XHTML. Panic Software's tagline "shockingly good Mac software" is evident here cause they integrate the features of Transmit (their excellent FTP utility) including site/filepath synchronization, drag-n-drop uploading from the Dock... Coda also includes a console that's integrated into the app window that allows for split terminal shells for SSH and other functions. Coda includes a GUI CSS editor and comprehensive HTML programmer's guide in the application itself. $79.
TextMate [macromates.com] is the Mac's premiere enterprise-level, yet shareware price text editor that does... pretty much anything. It can handle just about as many language bundles as jEdit but is purely Mac. It integrates well with Transmit, the shell, Subversion, and has a fully customizable code snippet library for full programmer control. I can't even begin to summarize all the features that sets this editor apart from the others, but it easily shames Dreamweaver's code window. Just watch the screencasts on the website. It costs 39.
CSSEdit [macrabbit.com] by MacRabbit is a GUI-powered CSS editor which has a snooping mode called X-Ray that can analyze a website's design similar to Firefox's 3rd party Web Developer addon, except with style, polish, and features that you've come to expect from Mac applications. It includes a CSS "builder" workflow that allows you to use some natural language and object-oriented programming (in the most basic sense) to build CSS effects. $29.95
There are many others including Apple's own iWeb [apple.com] (which is included with every new Macintosh, is VERY easy to use, and puts out bloated-yet XHTML compliant code) and BBEdit [barebones.com] by Bare Bones Software which is very comparable to TextMate in many ways.
Off-topic (ish) (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.pax-europa.com/)
Cut a long story short, someone seems to be almost ready to finally do this, Pixelmator [pixelmator.com]. Cheap, neat and looks like it's easy to use [tuaw.com]. Not a real photoshop competitor, but then again most people pirate photoshop for light photo retouching and occasional messing around. This looks like it could handle what a lot of casual photoshop users want without the insane price tag.
For printing, don't try to cheap out (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.artboy.org/)
If all you're trying to do is educate the users about CMYK, then of course you can use pretty much any software that works nicely with a desktop inkjet printer that can do CMYK proofing (in a pinch Photoshop can be used as a RIP for this purpose assuming you have one copy of it). Of course no proof is ever the same as a real print, so eventually people will hit a wall in their real knowledge until big $$$ is spent on real jobs that you get back from the printer and realize were not quite as good as they thought they'd be.
We're switching TO Photoshop from Gimp, because... (Score:4, Informative)
(http://slashdot.org/)
GIMP does not support Pantone(tm) colors, so we cannot use it for accurate color matching. This means that, even when we get the color exactly the way we want it on our screen and printer, it is likely to come out way different on a professional printer, i.e., the one your printer will likely use to print biz cards, letterhead, trade show banners, etc. For example, some of the professional HP printers are notorious for rendering what you think as blue into a purple-ish color. We end up squandering everyone's time in a guess-the-actual-color game to get even close to the color we intended.
With Pantone support, the problem is solved because we'll select the EXACT colors we want using the standard color swatches from their kit, and our printer will be able to reliably print these EXACT colors.
Since the info I've found indicates that GIMP does not even plan to support Pantone, we must switch, probably to Photoshop, if for no other reason that it is the industry standard, and we'll have a greater level of exchange and collaboration with our printers.
So, I'm sorry to say that my open-source bias has again bitten me in the arse. I knew better than to have skipped past my product research, but I just went for the OS solution. Now, I've squandered valuable time in a startup biz learning the quirks of software that will now be replaced. There, I've said it, so mod me down.
Something that /. always misses on this topic (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Friday January 14 2005, @05:11PM)
Designers don't give a damn about open source, free software, EULAs, software patents, etc.
Designers care about getting a tool that allows them to complete their workflow in the highest quality, in the shortest amount of time. If the tool they are given has some fucked up interface where they can't find anything, that prevents them from getting their work done, and they get pissed off. They see no benefit to using GIMP over Photoshop, because they have been using Photoshop for years, and know exactly where everything is.
I managed to ramrod through a transition from QuarkXPress to Adobe InDesign at the company I work for three years ago, and the only way I could make that transition was to set InDesign to use Quark keyboard shortcuts and menus - something Adobe added because they knew it was necessary to match functionality and ease transition, because no one in their target demographic is going to take a couple weeks out of their advertising schedule in order to learn new layout software.
In the real world, billboards and newspaper ads need to be produced, and fucking around with the flavor-of-the-month OSS version of layout or editing software impedes that for most people. Paying Adobe's price usually ends up saving a lot of time and money in the end.
Dreamweaver replacement (Score:3, Informative)
(http://www.planetrainbowsix.com/)
Use older versions! (Score:3, Interesting)
I strongly suggest buying older copies of Adobe products if you can. After years of use, I really haven't found the changes to be that drastic. A beginner would hardly notice any difference, and there are some serious benefits aside from the cost.
Old Adobe products run with excellent performance. Opening up Photoshop 7 side-by-side with CS3 makes me wonder why I'm even using CS3. Each upgrade gets slower. Unless you absolutely need the latest & greatest feature, not likely as a beginner, then prior versions will do just fine.
Scribus (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Scribus (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Scribus (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Wednesday August 22, @07:47AM)
But if I were a publisher who did not have $2500 to spare every 4 years for a new QuarkXPress license, I would certainly give Scribus a try.
Re:just pirate it (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://thewaxwingslain.com/)
Education may just be where pirated software is most appropriate. If most corporations are paying full freight for applications, and an employee skilled on an application is the best salesman for that product, software vendors shoot themselves in the foot for NOT providing their products free to students. Maybe a hidden watermark that says "academic" would prevent them from using it once they land that good job.
It's a shame to see people like the parent being so blindly conditioned to the current backward model of intellectual property. How long will we have to use buggywhips to fly jet planes?
Re:GIMP = low investment, great productivity (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Best replacements for Dreamweaver (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Thursday August 07 2003, @02:46AM)
Re:Best replacements for Dreamweaver (Score:4, Insightful)
Gah, I can go on and on about the crap that frontpage and dreamweaver spit out as an excuse for HTML, and don't even get me started on XHTML. Designers who use those tools can do great creative things with it and it looks great on one or two browsers that are configured they way most browsers are configured. Unfortunately in my line of work I have usually take what the designer has done and completely rewrite it. If designers were actually forced to write in HTML or at least look at the HTML output of the programs they used, then I wouldn't have to do that nearly as much.
Re:Let's all suggest mspaint... (Score:4, Funny)
(http://babelfish.alt...%2F%2Fslashdot.jp%2F)
Re:Best replacements for Dreamweaver (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.ozbricks.com/batwing)
I teach Website Development at a TAFE and I have found Notpad++ [sourceforge.net] to be pretty good. It is still a simple text editor, but it's free and it colour-codes your text (useful for finding those unclosed tags or quotation marks).
Dreamweaver does more, but it depends greatly what you are doing. I use Dreamweaver a lot, but I spend nearly all my time in code view anyway. The only major problem I have with Dreamweaver is it's inability to handle frames properly. but frankly, no WYSIWYG editor does. You're better off setting frames and framesets in text editors anyway, if you are using them at all.
arrrr (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Let's all suggest the Gimp... (Score:3, Informative)
Oh yeah? [cinepaint.org]
Re:I could compare GIMP to Photoshop (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://whineymacfanboy.googlepages.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday April 12 2007, @09:28AM)
A reliable, economical, easy to drive car compared to something that's beautiful, but too powerful & expensive to buy & maintain for 99.99% of users?
Is that really the sort of analogy you wanted to make?
Re:I could compare GIMP to Photoshop (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Best replacements for Dreamweaver (Score:3, Informative)
(Last Journal: Thursday August 07 2003, @02:46AM)
Re:I could compare GIMP to Photoshop (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Thursday August 07 2003, @02:46AM)
The BMW drives in style and fast, gets full service for free (4 years of 50,000 miles), has touch-screen interfaces and 8-point surround audio that plays all the formats, and gets you where you need to go quickly and elegantly. Did I mention it's a brand new model, just out this year?
The Model T drives you places, but it takes 3 times longer and sometimes you have to go to the back and crank the handle, or even open the hood to fix that loose sprocket yourself. Plus the stereo is just a boombox and it's pretty hard to control and skips when you run over bumps. But hey, it goes. Practically the same!
Though there is still the question, would you take a free Model T over a BMW at full price?
Re:just pirate it (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://thry.org/)
Now your company CAN afford to buy the Adobe Creative Suite (after all, it's ideally an investment that will make money). After the individuals pirate the software for home use, another marketing department has people with experience in Adobe software, and Adobe gains a paying customer (without losing any, as your co-workers aren't going to buy it anyway).
Or so the "model" goes.