Jump to content

Whitedog

Members
  • Content count

    65
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Whitedog

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Actually, for $9.99 you can get Lightroom Classic and Lightroom (for mobile) plus Photoshop with the Photography package. Maybe you don't use Lightroom, but many of us do and find this to be a bargain. Adding InDesign for another $5.00 would be a good deal in my book.
  2. You should read a little more. This thread has dedicated over 20 pages to the discussion. Opening indd files is impractical, if not impossible. The file type facility we are waiting for is idml, which is an output format from InDesign that enables files to be opened by third-party apps, like Publisher. We are told that that capability is coming, but not release date has been offered.
  3. Indd and idml are not 'almost the same." While I admit I've confused the two in the past, the fact is that indd and idml are significantly different formats. It is, for all practical purposes, impossible for a third-party app to open indd files, which are in a proprietary Adobe format. IDML, on the other hand, is a conversion format that InDesign can produce so that third party apps can open InDesign documents. It is this latter capability that we have been talking about and waiting for. Unfortunately, the release version of Publisher does not yet have this capability. Needless to say, I am disappointed. And Serif has not yet informed us when it will be added. So, though I bought the release version of Publisher at the pre-release price, I will have to continue to use InDesign CS 6. Fortunately I am still running macOS 10.12, Sierra, so that won't be a problem. Sooner or later, though....
  4. I received the notice to download the release version of Affinity Publisher. I likewise preordered it. The download link was a bit elusive, but I found it in My Account. I'm wondering, though, does this version include IDML import? You know, that feature that people have been going on about for 19 pages on this blog? Hope so. Guess not. I tried to import an IDML file and it was not recognized. I tried to open the file, with the same result. I'm disappointed, to say the least. Publisher will be of little use to me without IDML support. I paid for the initial release version, in part because the price was reduced, but with the hope they had included the much requested IDML support. Failing that, it is my hope that they will include it soon. Some news on that front would be useful. How long will we have to wait? Without IDML support, Publisher will languish in my Applications folder. And I will continue to use InDesign CS6. This will suffice for some time because I have no intention of upgrading to macOS 10.15 Catalina—where use of 32bit apps will be discontinued—for a good long while yet. Meanwhile, if Serif expects to sell many copies of Publisher, they'd better get going with implementing IDML import. It's clearly the most requested feature.
  5. Thanks for the links. I read some of the referenced text to get an idea how the script works, then the how to install scripts page to figure that out. I downloaded the script and installed it, as per instructions. This will come in handy when the time comes to convert my InDesign files to IDML. Of course, this script will do so much more. Quite an ingenious piece of work. Given how many people will need to convert their files for use with Publisher, when it can handle IDML, this script will need to be more broadly described, and referenced. Look forward to further enquiries.
  6. Too bad I didn't work for you, or someone like you. I was fired because I took too long to write code—because I included comments. I commented my code so I could follow what I was doing. I was also directed on another job to figure out where the flaw was in a batch of code that was not commented. There was no one in the shop who could tell me what it was even supposed to do so I had to outline it to figure it out. I was too slow there, as well. My boss was an idiot who thought I should somehow know, by osmosis I guess.
  7. Back in the day (when I had to do my own keypunch from my code sheets), taking the time to comment my code was frowned upon, even though I was taught that commenting was a "best practice." The real world didn't line up well with what I learned in school. Quick and dirty was the accepted meme.
  8. Good points. I wasn't making an accusation, merely asking a question. Your example is not indicative of all code, by the way, but just one instance—though I imagine others could be found where more code was better code. I also suspect that the slow processing had to do with calls to external code libraries, which take inherently longer to load and process.
  9. I should have mentioned that I'm using macOS 10.12, Sierra. The size of the app doesn't matter in relation to my 1TB Fusion drive. I just wonder about the efficiency of the code in so large an app, which does not yet even have feature parity with InDesign.
  10. On an unrelated note, I just noticed, with the latest update, how large Publisher is. Over a terabyte, three times larger than InDesign CS 6. This gives me to wonder about the applications's operating efficiency. Just a thought.
  11. CS 4 has a (relatively) simple workflow. I know a pro who uses it regularly—because it's familiar. He also has CS 6 for more complex issues, like handling more recent RAW files. But CS 4 does most of what he needs to do. And he's in no hurry to upgrade his OS, despite my warnings about security issues. I wouldn't put him on Mojave in any case. Too many problems. Real substantive changes, like APSF. So, yes, pros get stuck in ruts, just like anyone else. Change is challenging and for some people it represents totally unnecessary hassles, not to mention expense. I use CS 4 to run my Epson scanner software, which has not been updated for 64 bit apps, like Photoshop beyond CS 4. But I also have CS 6 and Photoshop CC, with Lightroom in Adobe's photography package. InDesign, however, has not been discounted, which is why Publisher is appealing.
  12. Where have you posted the link? This forum is 14 pages long now. Finding your link would be like finding a needle in a haystack.
  13. I have the same issue, on a smaller scale. I have CS6, but InDesign and Dreamweaver are still 32 bit apps, so they will not work in the next iteration of macOS, which only supports 64 bit apps, like Photoshop and Lightroom. You can get an affordable subscription for Photoshop and Lightroom CC, at $20 a month. But there's no discount for InDesign, so I'll have to move on eventually. Quark is too expensive, compared to what we can reasonably expect to pay for Publisher. So I am hoping they have IDML import when the final release comes out, though Serif haven't confirmed if they will. They have only said that they delayed the release to work on some features that many people have requested, but that's all rather vague. So we will have to wait and see. Without IDML import Publisher will not be the InDesign replacement we hope it to be.
  14. Flash still works in the Mac OS. It's in iOS that Apple banned Flash, primarily because when the iPhone was first released it didn't have the horsepower to support Flash, which was and is resource intensive. Now that the iPhone does have the horsepower, Flash has been deprecated, even by Adobe, who plan to kill it off entirely in the near future, because, well, the Internet has moved on, just as Steve Jobs said it would. You may still be able to buy a PC with a floppy drive, but you'll have a hard time finding any media to use in it. Apple is not often ahead of the curve any more, but they pioneered the idea of abandoning inefficient technologies for newer and better ones. As for Apple forcing people, that is particularly true with the iOS ecosphere. Of course they do so on the Mac as well, but not quite as extensively. But then, Microsoft used to have that reputation, in spades, and they were liberally sued over restraint of trade issues and had to pull in their horns dramatically. But then Apple does not, even now, have the kind of market dominance that Microsoft did and still does. Not even close. Even so, Microsoft still gets off on denigrating Apple, even though they have much more serious competitors, like Google. Windows fanboys still have the habit. A lot of the seemingly inscrutable business decisions in Big Tech have to do with keeping their products competitive. Oh, and stealing your personal information and selling it. Something, by the way, that Apple, alone among the bit 5, does not do. By the way, not even Adobe CS6 is all 64 bit. Photoshop and Illustrator are. Dreamweaver and InDesign are not. If Adobe were going to upgrade any products to 64 bit it would be those. Not CS 4 or 5. There would be not profit in upgrading those. If you want to continue using CS4, install OS X 10.9 in VMWare Fusion or Parallels Desktop and run CS4 from there. That's what I will probably be doing, eventually. The real problem with companies not serving the interests of their customers has to do with the size of their business, not actual intention. Small companies are usually more light on their feet as regards customer concerns. The bigger they are, the higher off the ground the executive suite is and the more isolated executives are from their user base. So they get careless, though only occasionally does that result in damage to the company, as was the case with Quark and Blackberry. Others run into trouble with the government, as happened with Microsoft and now is happening to Google, Facebook and Twitter. The days when the Google motto to do no evil was in vogue are long gone. One could say that they ended with Google's IPO. Socialism provided some leverage against capitalist excess, but then we had socialist excess, as in the 35 hour work week in France, which they are unwilling to give up, even for the obvious good of the country. But I'm getting off topic. I only wanted to explain why companies so often seem to be deaf to their customers's concerns. And gigantism is the main cause, in my opinion.
  15. Indeed. Especially in light of the PDF import issues mentioned in this forum. It may work for a quick and dirty edit, but PDF import doesn't actually work very well and is all but useless for long, complex documents. IDML import is probably the best option. Of course a copy and paste that included all styles and formatting from the original document might be preferable. That has worked with MS Word for a very long time, which is one reason it has remained a primary document source. But it might not be possible with InDesign. From what I've read in this forum, IDML import is the only viable option. Of course the most desirable option would be the ability to open an InDesign document directly in Publisher, with all style sheets and formatting preserved, but that seems implausible. So IDML import it is. Up till now placing content in InDesign documents has been my end point. Witch meant getting my text into Word and then into InDesign. If Publisher is to replace InDesign in the future, that means, for me, a different end point, as clearly it does for many other potential users of Publisher. There are innumerable users who cannot afford Adobe any more. And there are many others who want to overcome their dependence of the Adobe ecosystem, for one reason or another. Serif seems the way to go if one wants a well integrated suite of apps, as we have gotten used to with Apple and Adobe. It seems to me that publisher will be the capstone of this suite, if it can do the job. If I were younger, I would jump to Affinity Photo and Designer as well, but I no longer have the energy, or the necessity, to learn such heavy duty apps. My career is winding down. Still, while I don't do much image editing any more, I still write a lot. And sometimes I like to use some style and pizzaz. So a basic text editor is not enough. If I can more away from InDesign, that would be a good thing, for me, anyway. YMMV.
×