I write this message for all corel users. In my company i use corel and i use creative suite cs5 for one year and creative CC for one month. Adobe have a grate products but i think there are a lot of programs and one persone can't use all. I find my corel x4 more quickley than illustrator/indesign cc 64 bit. I spend one day for paginate eight pages with illustrator and three hours with Corel. I studies many hours indesign and illustrator but i think almost people have requirement that adobe promotes, it's only a business move. I hope Corel continue to developer this software with this policy and best each distribution. A good graphic using adobe but does not have the ideas in head will never make big plans!!
Tomasi Matttia said:I hope Corel continue to developer this software with this policy and best each distribution.
I use CDR from 2008 and in my opinion as i saw, Corel not invest in cdr developing much. From version x4 i saw some changes ,but not big changes. Only the character formating and the color management are changed, in rest just modified. Export and pdf problems appears in x6 like in x4, no free video tutorials to understand color management in x5, x6 ,CorelDraw masters not handle professional the serious problems like eps exporting or pdf publishing, or the bugs ,they reject all or handle indifferent ,they do not like the criticism :) etc... In graphic design industry (professional print companys) as i saw Adobe products are more preferably.
x4 said:Corel not invest in cdr developing much.
Ok, how much have they invested, real numbers please?
What factual information is your opinion based upon?
Not being mean, just real.
Maybe he means, "effort". Not much effort invested. At least, that's how I read it. And I agree with that sentiment. I always have.
KuttyJoe said:Maybe he means, "effort". Not much effort invested. At least, that's how I read it. And I agree with that sentiment. I always have.
Now you got me curious. What did you use to measure "not much effort"? I mean how do you know?
I am asking because I do not recall your name as participating in the creation/testing of x6. I was there throughout and I totally dis agree with your statement. The effort put forward was extreme and extended beyond the normal, countless hours by so many people. I can say no more.
bob said: Maybe he means, "effort". Not much effort invested. At least, that's how I read it. And I agree with that sentiment. I always have. Now you got me curious. What did you use to measure "not much effort"? I mean how do you know? I am asking because I do not recall your name as participating in the creation/testing of x6. I was there throughout and I totally dis agree with your statement. The effort put forward was extreme and extended beyond the normal, countless hours by so many people. I can say no more. [/quote] The way I read the OP's (Original Post) is he is in favour of Corel over Adobe's products . KuttyJoe is agreeing with him by stating "Not Much Effort" is needed to use the software, not to develop the software. I think there is mis-communications happening here.
[/quote]
The way I read the OP's (Original Post) is he is in favour of Corel over Adobe's products . KuttyJoe is agreeing with him by stating "Not Much Effort" is needed to use the software, not to develop the software.
I think there is mis-communications happening here.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm actually saying that I don't believe Corel has put the extreme effort into development that Bob is claiming and that I've believed this for many years. I have absolutely no proof of that. Bob has no proof to the contrary. What we do have is decades of evidence that can be looked at and final resulting products. In the end, it really doesn't matter to a consumer about anybody's efforts. What actually matters is the quality of the resulting products. Looking at the development arc over 20 years, I've come to a very different conclusion than Bob.
KuttyJoe said:I'm actually saying that I don't believe Corel has put the extreme effort into development
Here's a link to a post from Hendrik Wagenaar, as an example of how it may work.
Ronny Axelsson said:Whether it can be called "extreme effort" is not for me to judge, but like Bob and a few others here I have a pretty good experience how it works behind the scenes. I also know that Corel is a tiny mouse compared to the mammoth Adobe. That said, the small team of devoted developers is doing a very good job. I know, we know, and they certainly know themselves, that they have to prioritize what areas to work on, and what bugs to fix and when (if even possible). Unfortunately they cannot fix them all, no matter how hard they work.
Whether or not they could fix all the bugs is also debatable. I don't believe that super high quality products are only possible with the biggest companies, or that the biggest companies create the highest quality products. Apple quality was far exceeding the offerings of competitors long before it became the most valuable tech company in the world. Microsoft, being the biggest software company in the world routinely makes crappy products that drive even fans of Microsoft nuts.
The highest quality program that I've started using recently costs $79.00 and has the same kind of extreme quality that Photoshop has. It's crashed once on me in about 9 months of sometimes heavy use. All of it's features do exactly as expected and results are strangely higher quality than what I think I'm putting into it. It's an amazing program called Manga Studio. For $79.00, the company is practically giving it away, but what kind of effort does it take to have that level of quality? It wouldn't be unfair if I said that it's obviously far and away more than Corel is putting into Photo-Paint. 12 years ago Photo-Paint would crash by the second, minute, or hour. Today, Photo-Paint crashes by the second, minute, or hour. The performance of the antique brushes is offensively poor. Actually, the brush tools in both Photo-Paint and CorelDraw could be described as antique and poor. Why is it that this cheap unknown program which likely brings in less money for the company behind it can have far and away higher quality than Corel's $500.00 offering? Look at Corel Painter. When the new version comes out the first thing people want to know is whether or not it crashes as much as the last.
KuttyJoe said:Why is it that this cheap unknown program which likely brings in less money for the company behind it can have far and away higher quality than Corel's $500.00 offering?
First off PP is free. Second my question is what resolution does Manga Studio work at?
David Milisock said:Second my question is what resolution does Manga Studio
Manga Studio full version is $299 not $79 and much more limited than CorelDRAW which makes a simpler program to create
I also like to remark that Photo-Paint is "free in the box when you buy CorelDraw". But actually, you can't get it unless you spend about $500.00 for the box. It's not really free. That's just a sort of joke. And the truth is, even if it cost $10.00, it should do as advertised. The hallmark of cheap software should be missing features, not it's inability to work without crashing.
The resolution that Manga Studio works at is any resolution you choose to work at. Typically people are working at 300 - 600. I personally only need 300 but I work with fairly large documents that typically can only be done "comfortably" in Photoshop.
I know what you're thinking. That Manga Studio is some kind of cheapo consumer product that can't possibly be taken seriously. That's actually what kept me from using it for the couple years that I was aware of it's existence. But the truth is, Manga Studio is to big name comic artists what Painter is to some famous digital painters. The price is an anomaly.