🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Mar12.225504.17012@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> lwfg7029@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Lawrence W Fountain) writes:
>
>
>    Has anyone out there used both Adobe Illustrator and Aldus Freehand that 
>can compare the two for me?  I want to purchase one of the two (or any other 
>comparably priced pieces of software) and I'm not really sure how they compare 
>with each other.  Could you give me some suggestions?
>
>    Thanx...
>
>                       larry fountain
>                       lwfg7029@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu

Here is a summary of the replies that I received when I asked for advice on
whether to buy Freehand or Illustrator. I have grouped them into two sections:
those who prefer Freehand and those who prefer Illustrator. I hope that this
does not characterise contributors' opinions too crudely.

I would like to express my thanks to all those who replied, and who clearly
took considerable efforts to explain exactly why they thought waht they did.

1) For Freehand
===============

From: Gamliel Avshalom <momi@rpi.edu>
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY

>For whatever it's worth, I never liked Illustrator.  It is not 
>what one would call intuitive...FreeHand is OK and lets you do
>most of what you may ask for (Except arrow heads on lines).  The
>other deficiency of FreeHand is that the final product is an 
>EPS file that cannot be pasted in something like MS Word.

[But you can do an Option-Copy and then paste it. But this doesn't 
always work -rej]

From: boogles@athena.mit.edu

>I have found Illustrator to be a memory and processor hog.  Its facilities for
>handling text are more difficult to use, compared to Freehand.  I personally
>prefer Freehand for this reason, since I have to deal in text enough.  If you
>have the money it would be ideal to have both programs, since they both have
>their strong points.  It also might be useful to have Illustrator since many
>programs export/import in illustrator format.  Freehand can read/write
>Illustrator files, but it is always nice to use the program that the files were
>made for.  I have done some desktop publishing and I know some people in the
>business; the professionals always keep both programs around.

From:     mary carpenter 862 6887 <MXC117@psuvm.psu.edu>

>Ok, this is a bit of a big job....I work for the Geography Dept. at Penn State
>University in a graphics lab.  We are almost completely computer oriented. So,
>I should be able to give you a bit of an insight. (I'm familiar with both
>programs and have used them EXTENSIVELY.)
>Personally, I like FreeHand a bit better than Illustrator, for the main reason
>is that FreeHand will let you work in Preview Illustration mode. Meaning that
>you can see pretty much what your graphic looks like as you work on it. (i.e.
>fills other than PS fills show, line and type styles appear as they should,
>etc.)  Illustrator has not had this capability in earlier versions.  I am not
>completely sure about Illustrator 3.0 and this feature.  However, 3.0 has
>proven to contain some bugs yet -- at least for us, in our usage. Illustrator
>will only allow you to work in a wire frame mode (at least earlier versions, we
>haven't used 3.0 too much yet because of our particular problem -- we print
>most final copies on a Linotronic printer, and the one here at the Univ is
>incompatible with the new Illustrator.).
> 
>Besides allowing you to see what you are working on, as you work on it, FH also
>allows you to 'undo' up to 99 steps backward (providing you haven't saved).
>This is a settable feature allowing you to specify the number of 'undo's
>possible.  Illustrator has one undo.
> 
>These two reasons would be enough for me to recommend FH over Ill. if you
>intend to use the program for educational purposes.  When learning a program, I
>found it helpful to be able to see what I'm working on and be able to 'undo' my
>mistakes rather than starting over.
> 
>Another feature of FH that I like is the concept of descreet drawing layers.
>FH has 200 layers, whereas Illustrator keeps everything on a single layer.
>You can assign objects to particular layers, and then choose which layers
>you want to be "active" or visible.  Illustrator's answer to this is the
>'hide'command.  You can hide objects to make them invisible or 'lock'
>them to make them inactive.  In my opinion, assigning layers and changing
>the active and visible layers is easier to deal with than hiding or lock-
>ing objects.
> 
>Illustrator does have its good points.  Since it doesn't work in preview mode,
>it is faster in some respects than FH.  It is compatible with the IBM version
>of Illustrator. (FH is also, but you have to port it through the Mac Ill. first
>  :)  )  Illustrator also allows you to tile your graphic to make it larger
>than the standard page.  If you intend to create graphics larger than 8.5x11,
>then Illustrator is the one to pick -- it allows you to use up to 9 pages in a
>single drawing.  FH is stuck with one page only.
>You can also have several different views of the graphic visible at once with
>Illustrator.  What I mean is that you can designate 2 or 3 different magnif-
>ications in windows when working in Illustrator.  FreeHand doesn't allow for
>this.
> 
>Finally, having gone through the company provided tutorials for both of these
>programs, I can say that FH's is a little easier to understand and shows a few
>more of the fine points of the program than the one for Illustrator.  However,
>both tutorials are still inadequate (we developed our own tutorials in the lab
>after some frustration with the company's work.) and can't replace many, many
>hours of experience.  All in all, I would give FH the rating for easier to
>learn and to use for design-as-you-go-along.  However, Illustrator is preferred
>by some of the people in our lab for its speed and a few of the features
>mentioned above--it should be noted that these people were either already quite
>adept at FH or Illustrator for the IBM at the time they learned Illustrator for
>the Mac.
> 
>I should add that I haven't noticed a difference in the capability of handling
>color.  Both programs aren't capable of producing true color specs because of
>the nature of the Mac screen, obviously.  But I like FH's handling of Process
>Colors better than Illustrator.  (By the way, Illustrator only shows color in
>the preview mode as stated above for fills and lines styles and such.)

From: gsnow@pro-freedom.cts.com (Gary Snow)
Organization: Apple*Van - Apple Users Group of Vancouver, WA [206/253-9389]

>Well, I use them both at my job as a Graphics Artist, and I must say that I
>like Freehand 2.03 better then Illustrator 3.0.  I played with Freehand 3.0
>at MacWorld, and I must say that Freehand has been made even better.

From: ksbolduan@amherst.bitnet

I'm a dyed-in-the-wool FreeHand user and wouldn't think of doing extensive work
in Illustrator. A few notes about some important features, at least for me:

>1. Illustrator does not provide for the importation of TIFF files.
>2. v. 3.0's text handling abilities are far superior to those of 1.9.x, but
>they're still not as intutitve as FreeHand's. FH has a text dialog box, while
>Adobe Illustrator (AI) types right on screen. You say tomawto, I say tomayto.
>3. (Most important for me) AI does NOT allow you to work in preview mode. I
>rarely step out of it while in FH as I like to see what I'm doing.
>4. AI converts Type 1 fonts into editable outlines. A great feature, and one
>that will be available when FH 3.0 comes out later this quarter.
>5. In fact, with FH 3.0 around the corner, I'd wait and see what it offers
>before you make your purchase. Preliminary reports that I've read seem to
>surpass AI 3.0 quite easily, though again I'm a bit biased.
>6. FH has a feature to ALIGN objects, any objects on the screen. This makes for
>quick 'n' dirty alignment of bottoms, tops, centers, and it will even
>distribute objects evenly. I think I use this dialog box more than any other
>feature.

From: jr@amanue.UUCP (Jim Rosenberg)
Organization: Amanuensis Inc., Grindstone, PA

>1.  Freehand has much better export/import facilities.  I have SuperPaint --
>1.something -- and have a fair number of drawings I'd like to redo.  They
>looked cute on an ImageWriter but look pretty poor on a laser printer.  My
>understanding is that the only thing Illustrator can do with a PICT is let you
>trace it, but Freehand will let you import it and edit it directly.  True?
>
>2.  Layers:  Freehand has all the layers than you could possibly use,
>Illustrator 88 has only one layer.  The MacUser review didn't mention whether
>Illustrator 3.0 had improved at all in this regard.  Does anybody know?  I
>have some idiosyncratic reasons for possibly needing layers.
>
>Of course the biggie superiority of Freehand over Illustrator was dealing with
>text, which Adobe has now addressed.

2) For Illustrator
==================

From: frank@mnetor.UUCP (Frank Kolnick)
Basis Computer Systems Inc.

>I've had both for a couple of years, and I can sum up my usage as follows
>(I think a feature-by-feature comparison is pointless, unless there's some
>exotic feature you must have, since both programs are comparable):
>When I need to draw an 'illustration' (person, computer, whatever), I
>invariably reach for Illustrator. I find its metaphor (esp. the pen tool)
>and keyboard shortcuts much more intuitive and less intrusive than FreeHand's.
>When I want to draw 'diagrams' (data structures, org. charts, etc.), I
>almost always use FreeHand. FreeHand is more of a 'structured' interface;
>I think of it as a drawing package, as opposed to an illustration package.
>If I had to choose one, I'd choose Illustrator, esp. now that the text
>handling has been improved so much. (The built-in charting may also be
>useful -- I haven't had occasion to try it.)

From: phil@waikato.ac.nz
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

>My impression is that computer-oriented people prefer FreeHand, while more
>artistically-inclined people prefer Illustrator, whose tools and usage seem
>more intuitive to them.  I prefer Illustrator's look and feel, but I possibly
>have a more artistic streak than most computer buffs.  In an all out features
>war, FreeHand wins, though.  Illustrator's Autotrace is better, FreeHand can
>wrap text around a curve (or any shape).
>
>A cheap solution might be to try SuperPaint 2.0.  It has a "Bezier Curve" which
>has similar control points to Illustrator and FreeHand, but the result is
>QuickDraw rather than PostScript.  It is in no way as powerful as FreeHand or
>Illustrator, but it does the job pretty well.  The editing operations on a
>Bezier curve are suprisingly simple yet powerful, after using FreeHand or
>Illustrator.

From: sm196103@seas.gwu.edu (Scott Cherkofsky)
Organization: The George Washington University, Washington D.C.

>I to would pick Illustrator.  I have used the charting functions of 
>Illustrator and they are very comprehensive as far as I can tell.  I am 
>still learning but the features are very nice - Using pictures for 
>columns (like oil barrels) which can be placed in a number of different
>ways.  You can scale the images, cut them off (like when car companies
>use cars to represent millions of units output where 1.5 million were made.
>e.i. one full car and half of one) you can have them scaled (as the bar
>on a bar graph fets larger, the picture can be scaled accordingly).
>
>Scott Cherkofsky
>Mechanical Engineering student

From: clouds@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Kathy Strong)

>By the way, the text handling in the current version of Illustrator (3.0) is
>VASTLY improved. I rate it "usable" now.  :-)
>
>The new Illustrator also has a charting feature that lets you enter numbers
>in a mini-spreadsheet and automatically create a chart, either with plain
>ol' bars or repeating icons (someone has dubbed this the "banana bar chart").
>I own both Freehand and Illustrator, but Illustrator is the one I use most
>of the time. I like the feel of it better (subjective, I know). I also like
>being able to change the shape of a curve by dragging directly on the curve,
>rather than only being able to change it by dragging the control points.
>(I usually use the "drag the curve" method for gross adjustments and then
>fine-tune by "dragging the control points.")
>
>In fact, now that Adobe has fixed up the text handling in Illustrator 3.0, 
>the ONLY time I use Freehand is if I have a drawing with a lot of graduated 
>fills. Freehand lets you do those much more easily than Illustrator, and 
>they take up a LOT less room on a disk.

My conclusion (for what it's worth)? I want a look at Freehand 3.0 when it
arrives. I expect I shall go for that.

Once again, many thanks to the contributors.