I love the new interface. Much more slick and fresh.
Hi, Mosh.
Yes, you are right. The new Welcome screen and Live text are a geat improvements too.
And the new PowerTrace, the new master Pages... and the balloon ! It's the return to the Golder Age of CorelDRAW
best regards for all
Ariel
Hello Ariel,
X3 just wasn't "Corel" without the BALLOON
Now it's for REAL
GOTTA HAVE THE BALLOON to be Corel !
Ted
Hugh Johnson: What items do you find that "could use fixing"? Let's not (as we say in the U.S.) throw the baby out with the bath water! X4 is a good product, however in my opinion too much time and money was wasted on things that didn't get the Corel user anything for their dollar except something to look at. Sort of like a relationship with a beautiful woman that is not only is a virgin is always going to stay one! I'm a proponent of building the house properly and that starts with the foundation, so first color management as a core technology needed to be improved to enhance our ability to compete with our main competition. Also as part of the core technology enhancements, allowing RGB vectors to pass into the postscript stream, allowing CMYK numbers to change in the print stream (allowing driver based device simulation) and the ability to send what ever internal RGB that is chosen by the user down in the non-postscript print stream without activating a device profile for improved ease of non-postscript device calibration. The above changes are something that would have improved the product for all users, because output providers would have a Corel product that performed in coordination with the process of standard output devices. This also would have improved Corels and my ability to place the application in point of purchase display shops, sign shops and dye sub manufacturers where Adobe is eating into our market. Then there are the bothersome legacy issues like the auto center power clip, the non-proportional being checked in the transformation docker. There is a huge list of these things that make Corel look as if they don't care about the user. The issue with spot color objects shifting when pasting into Photo-PAINT. Solving the EPS compression issue for AI imports. I like the RAW converter but it could have used eyedropper linked tone curves and the ability to read the image in the info docker. As I wrote in my color management book Corel has many features that are a conglomeration of incomplete processes. The Web image optimizer that does most of what it should but not completely, color management that is mostly functional but difficult to use. Corel needs to start finishing some of the projects. In my opinion they make a fine product and I use it all the time but improving it does not mean a new doo dad every release. We, the Corel user would be best served if they finished the job and update many of the features that they already have! David Milisock http://community.coreldraw.com/forums/p/3308/12245.aspx#12245
Hugh Johnson: What items do you find that "could use fixing"?
Let's not (as we say in the U.S.) throw the baby out with the bath water! X4 is a good product, however in my opinion too much time and money was wasted on things that didn't get the Corel user anything for their dollar except something to look at. Sort of like a relationship with a beautiful woman that is not only is a virgin is always going to stay one!
I'm a proponent of building the house properly and that starts with the foundation, so first color management as a core technology needed to be improved to enhance our ability to compete with our main competition.
Also as part of the core technology enhancements, allowing RGB vectors to pass into the postscript stream, allowing CMYK numbers to change in the print stream (allowing driver based device simulation) and the ability to send what ever internal RGB that is chosen by the user down in the non-postscript print stream without activating a device profile for improved ease of non-postscript device calibration.
The above changes are something that would have improved the product for all users, because output providers would have a Corel product that performed in coordination with the process of standard output devices. This also would have improved Corels and my ability to place the application in point of purchase display shops, sign shops and dye sub manufacturers where Adobe is eating into our market.
Then there are the bothersome legacy issues like the auto center power clip, the non-proportional being checked in the transformation docker. There is a huge list of these things that make Corel look as if they don't care about the user.
The issue with spot color objects shifting when pasting into Photo-PAINT. Solving the EPS compression issue for AI imports.
I like the RAW converter but it could have used eyedropper linked tone curves and the ability to read the image in the info docker.
As I wrote in my color management book Corel has many features that are a conglomeration of incomplete processes. The Web image optimizer that does most of what it should but not completely, color management that is mostly functional but difficult to use.
Corel needs to start finishing some of the projects. In my opinion they make a fine product and I use it all the time but improving it does not mean a new doo dad every release. We, the Corel user would be best served if they finished the job and update many of the features that they already have!
Edward Thurston said:All thru the testing
On another note Ed I didn't mention it in testing because Corel was not going to fix it. It's like the neighbors barking dog problem, it barks until some shoots the dog or the neighbor. In this case these issues will piss people off until they buy something else.
Edward Thurston: All thru the testing On another note Ed I didn't mention it in testing because Corel was not going to fix it. It's like the neighbors barking dog problem, it barks until some shoots the dog or the neighbor. In this case these issues will piss people off until they buy something else. David Milisock http://community.coreldraw.com/forums/p/3308/12251.aspx#12251
Edward Thurston: All thru the testing
Edward Thurston said:It's just one of the many options that we all go thru only once during the initinal setting up under Tools>Options.
I agree. Some want it this way, and others want it another way. I guess for newbies the auto-center setting can be the easiest. What if you put a bitmap into a power clip container without positioning it first? It will suddenly be invisible. With the auto-center setting you do at least see the bitmap inside the container.
Well I was a beta tester too as well as an AC member, and all though I didnt get all I wished for, I still see this version X4 as a very good version, one of "the" versions. I have tested it and done a lot of actual illustration and graphic work with it, (being an illustrator as I am) and I can say that THIS version is a great one. If someone go from X3 they still get a lot of new stuff to use, but I think as always, that the user´s that get most are those going from two previous versions back. There is a lot the people at Corel coluld have done, but there is also a lot of things they DID do! And being a very visual person, I think the new icons and the interface as a whole is good, and it WAS important to do new things with the Interface. X3 interface I really liked, but this I like a lot too.And no offence David: but you seem to see it strictly out of tech, and all though tech is what we Whant, yes!, I like to have it with BOTH tech and design. And any product out there, be it a handle to a door, a seat in a car, a toothbrush, a car battery, a bottle of vergine olive oil: package is extremly important.For example a client I made illustrations too, a broschure, the CEO came in and said, -"well that cover why dont we just put some lines here and there, that would be okey for me". One thing, that broschure wouldnt had been sold with joy, or might not even be seen kindly by people wanting the broshure. Point is that Interface is always important. Interface is also a question about user friendlyness. Interface we could say is actually a very TECH and DESIGN oriented issue when you come down to it. If you have an interface that is not contemporary, fresh and user friendly, and easy to understand, you will loose a lot of new and old users. Consumers honestly like to have it "New" and "Fresh", "Apealing" and "Contemporary". Thats how things work.Stefan
Hey Stefan, I fully agree with you, the interface is the most important aspect of the application, it is the first thing a person sees. If I open a new application and I don't like the interface within the first hour, I will never like it and I uninstall the program. That is the very reason why I don't use PS very often, although I have it installed I might use it once a year if I have to. I also agree with Lars, you can't win when it comes to software design, some like a feature and some don't, you cant please everyone! I have always felt that, ultimately it is the user who needs to use the application as designed and not the other way around. I have heard a story once, where a very knowledgeable fellow could not find a way out of a function one evening after working way to hard, so he asked for a button to be added to the software, after he got his button everyone else wanted their own button and so after adding all the buttons the user wanted, no one could use the software for what it was intended for and the company went belly up. And the moral of the story is "Be careful of what you ask for, because you might get it !" :)) :)) LMAOROTF
Hey Stefan, I fully agree with you, the interface is the most important aspect of the application, it is the first thing a person sees. If I open a new application and I don't like the interface within the first hour, I will never like it and I uninstall the program. That is the very reason why I don't use PS very often, although I have it installed I might use it once a year if I have to. I also agree with Lars, you can't win when it comes to software design, some like a feature and some don't, you cant please everyone! I have always felt that, ultimately it is the user who needs to use the application as designed and not the other way around. I have heard a story once, where a very knowledgeable fellow could not find a way out of a function one evening after working way to hard, so he asked for a button to be added to the software, after he got his button everyone else wanted their own button and so after adding all the buttons the user wanted, no one could use the software for what it was intended for and the company went belly up. And the moral of the story is "Be careful of what you ask for, because you might get it !" :)) :)) LMAOROTF Alfred http://community.coreldraw.com/forums/p/3308/12314.aspx#12314
Edward Thurston said: Are "we" talking about a "Clear Crop Marquee" in Paint ?
<Alfred> wrote in message news:12397@coreldraw.com... Edward Thurston: Are "we" talking about a "Clear Crop Marquee" in Paint ?Nooooooo, why would I do that :)) Alfred http://community.coreldraw.com/forums/p/3308/12397.aspx#12397
Edward Thurston: Are "we" talking about a "Clear Crop Marquee" in Paint ?
Oh yes, ten lashes with the coffee filter is good, therefore I'll forgive you :) As for, ", or it's in Draw, why not in PP?", I agree with you, however I'll bet you your used coffee filters that it is a technical issue which is not easily solved. Draw and PP are completely different animals and I would assume that the code is as well, I feel that Corel has done a great job integrating the two. Many of the features we have asked for are not feasable for this reason and I would think if there would be an easy way to please the user, Corel would do it.