Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!harrier.ukc.ac.uk!owl.ukc.ac.uk!rej From: rej@ukc.ac.uk (R.E.Jones) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps Subject: FreeHand vs Illustrator (LONG) Keywords: Aldus, Freehand, Adobe, Illustrator, Graphics Message-ID: <91@owl.ukc.ac.uk> Date: 14 Mar 91 12:03:45 GMT Organization: Computing Lab, University of Kent at Canterbury, UK. Lines: 235 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 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 >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.