Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. That's how it is right now already. Whenever they reach 2.0 we will need to pay to upgrade if we want to keep up with the latest stuff. Or we can stick with 1.x indefinitely. Or skip a version if we don't feel there's enough yet in 2.0 to warrant an upgrade, but maybe when 2.5 comes around they've added enough new features. I think the problem you're seeing is their pace has been so glacial, I think in part because it's a small team and they're not only focusing on the desktop programs, but also the iPad ones, and they just don't have enough manpower to simultaneously work on several programs at once. We've been on the 1.x branch for years, what... almost 5 years now? All updates to that branch are free, as is with most programs except that most programs don't progress at such a slow pace, and usually have their move from 1.x to 2.x within a year or two. Technically most programs would roll up what Serif did for the 1.5 release as a 2.0 release, and ask everyone to pay again (usually at a reduced "upgrade" fee for previous owners).
  2. That is a good point. For me it's a minor issue because again if I'm doing something more complex than a single page (1 or 2 sided) flyer, I'd be doing it in Publisher/InDesign, especially for anything that spans across pages. Even with Illustrator where I often work with multi-artboard projects, I've rarely had a need to span something across them. But I admit it would be preferable to be able to do it even if I'd only need it maybe 1 in 100 projects... I realize my needs aren't necessarily going to align with everyone else's and there may be someone out there that regularly uses multi-artboards and needs to be able to span elements across them.
  3. And I see it as just the opposite. While I can understand your view on how it could greatly benefit Serif by getting a steady monthly income from all current and new users, and not just from attracting new users... on the other hand I see Adobe resting on their laurels because they know they've got the market locked up tight. They don't have an incentive to innovate anymore, they've either bought their competitors outright, or they undercut them on price enough for products like InDesign to overtake Quark as the standard publishing platform even if it wasn't quite as good. And now they've got everyone hooked, effectively, for life so where's the incentive to continue innovating? Things are starting to look up, however. They're finally getting some real competition in various segments that were effectively unthinkable 5+ years ago. Blackmagic has a real competitor in the video editing and motion graphics market. Several real competitors in the web design market (and it saddens me how Adobe neglected Dreamweaver after they bought Macromedia). Several real competitors in photography finally starting to show up and challenge Lightroom's dominance. No one's ever really been able to address Adobe's core products, though. I've seen many Photoshop alternatives come and go over the years, and occasionally an Illustrator alternative will pop up and be short lived. Always alternatives, never replacements. Corel had a chance 10-15 years ago, if not to beat Adobe, at least to be a viable competitor. But back then Adobe had the spark and an incentive to make sure their products stayed on top, and now Corel just doesn't exist in the professional field, they service hobbyists and small businesses that don't necessarily need everything Adobe offers. The Affinity suite is the first one I've seen in a long time that I think genuinely has a chance to disrupt Adobe's dominance, at least for graphic design and somewhat photography markets. But they need to really address the concerns of professionals if they want to actually make this happen. Otherwise they'll end up like Corel, filling the hobbyist gap and perhaps eventually dying out as open source alternatives continue to mature and improve.
  4. You can do multiple artboards, at least since 1.6 and possibly before then. Here's a tutorial from almost 2.5 years ago going over them: Is there something about "pages" that's different from the normal artboard functionality? If I need facing pages with bleed, as in a book or multi-page flyer, I would be using Publisher (and/or InDesign) for that, not Designer (and/or Illustrator). Edit: Also I see linking images is off the roadmap now, is that implemented in beta finally? That's been my main holdover feature that I haven't been able to fully drop Illustrator for. I know Publisher has it and I was hoping it'd quickly get added to Designer, at least with the final 1.7 release but beta after beta it still wasn't implemented.
  5. Use a password manager, you fool. Never worry again what you need to log into any website. You are welcome.
  6. Storing the images uncomressed isn't necessarily the problem, even Illustrator does the same thing (or maybe CC doesn't anymore, but I refuse to move off CS6). But not having the ability to choose whether to link or embed the image is where the real issue lies, in my opinion. I love AD but the one thing keeping me from using it professionally is not being able to link images instead of embedding them. If I'm working on a print ad for a client I may go through 4-5 revisions before final approval, and I save revisions as separate files so if there's ever a need to go back to an earlier revision it's no big deal, but when each file can easliy balloon to 500MB-1.5GB, that's just ridiculous, while with Illustrator each file is around 5-10MB. I've been linking images with Illustrator for as long as it's been an option. Even back on a crappy MacBook (non-Pro) from 2008 there has never been an issue with performance vs. embedded images, so that explanation doesn't really hold any relevance to me. And it certainly was not an issue on my MacPro, nor on my later i7 or current Ryzen PCs.