FH10 or FHMX

[kitty12]

I am going to be upgrading my operating system to OS X shortly and have FH 10. How have people found using FH10 on OSX? Any main problems? Or should I get FHMX?

[Martin Sammtleben]

In article <cac9i0$j9b$1@forums.macromedia.com>,
"kitty12" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote:

> I am going to be upgrading my operating system to OS X shortly and have FH
> 10. How have people found using FH10 on OSX? Any main problems? Or should
> I get FHMX?

If you scan this forum you will find that version 10 and MX have
numerous issues regarding fonts under OSX. Another annoyance is the
inability to group Type 1 fonts by families as there is no Type Reunion
for OSX.

These were enough reasons for me to stick with FH8 and OS9.
Upgrades are supposed to improve upon the version they replace and not
create a slew of new problems in areas that used to work.

Sadly it seems that FH has been in a downward-spiral ever since FH9.

--
Cheers Martin

[den-chan]

In my opinion FHMX works better under OSX then FH 10 did. MX still has some
problems but at least it doesn't quit right in the middle of working on a
document like FH 10 did.

I have to agree with Martin though. FH8 is the Gem of the group. The one thing
I hate in FH MX is that you have to turn the settings to High rez just to get
a decent print out on a non postscript printer. In FH 8 it didn't matter what
kind of printer you used or your settings, it always printed the document at
the highest quality. What happend??..haha..who decided to change that feature
in freehand??

[Joel Berry]

If you use Freehand MX for printwork, you'll run into a boatload of
problems...

If you use Freehand MX for multimedia/web design (as I mostly use it for),
it's a dream...

"kitty12" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:cac9i0$j9b$1@forums.macromedia.com...

> I am going to be upgrading my operating system to OS X shortly and have FH

10. How have people found using FH10 on OSX? Any main problems? Or should
I get FHMX?

>

[Runnerman12]

Yep, web work and common printing like business cards, logos, and legal spreads
is fantastic. 2 neat tools i really love are the Extrude Tool and the new Live
Effects which work like Fireworks drop shadows / glows etc... Thre's also a
neat feature if you use FireworksMX 2004. If you create a PNG in Fireworks and
export a TIFF, then use the TIFF in a FreeHand page, you can actually Roundtrip
the image (minmize FH, open FW) with the click of a button. This has been a
neat timesaver for me. I iwsh they'd implement more like it. :-)

-Runnerman

[ballookey]

I've been running MX and MXa under OSX almost since they came out, but tonight
I finally re-installed version 10.

Both MX & 10 were quit-happy in my experience, but finally, as nice as some of
the features are in MX, I needed to get back to the functionality of 10. The
way they changed the Group behaviors makes me nuts when I'm trying to get a job
done, and the type inspector is a step down from 10. I'm keeping MX installed
for those occasions when I want to take advantage of some feature, but I
realized, that's hardly ever. I can't give anyone else MX files, so there's no
real point in depending on an MX feature. At least with 10, I can do whatever I
want and confidently export to EPS or AI.

For the record, MX ran almost perfectly - the way it's supposed to, that is -
for me. (Except for the unexpected quitting) I just have always prefered
FreeHand because of it's increased efficiency over Illustrator. MX took a huge
step back on that front.

I've hated Illustrator for over 10 years now, and I'm very upset that FreeHand
seems to be dumping ME.

-ballookey

[envirographics]

Kitty 12
Under windows, FH10 has a nasty bug both in 10 and 10.0.1, I have just tested
this on a Mac running FH10 and it exists there also. Can probably assume it
would likewise in Mac FH10.0.1, if Macromedia fixed it for the Mac they would
likewise do so for PC one hopes ! This bug destroys all layer info for items
given a PASTE INSIDE. Depending on your work, this may be a minor nuisance or
serious . Cutting contents will mean user has to put the objects back on their
appropriate layers. For me, with 130 layers making up a map, I pasted it
inside a border, then cut contents a week later to add a road, and found
whilst all layer names remained, all the objects sat on the last layer used !

Took me a day to sort it all out ! I have not used FH10 since, dare not !
but FH9 has serious issues for me (launch fails saying not enough memory on two
totally different PC's both "Gb ram !!!, no anti-aliased text, icons vanish and
tools wont select, all on two separate PC's so it must be Macromedia at
fault....MX also has issues so it seems.

These MX issues add further to my doubts about using MX for my in-depth
Freehand work, be it cartography or aviation. I either go for MX and hope that
Macromedia start listening to us users, there's enough in these threads now to
prompt that, and bring Freehand back to the programme it used to be, or accept
that its dying and stay with FH7 or 8 on win98, but how long can I do that, my
IT support here refuse to support win98 anyway ! I was FH7 on win95, now must
settle on one for win2K. How will Freehand treat us non web simple printwork
users, will they fix issues or ignore us ? How did that paste inside bug
survive ? Looking at the embarrasing vast list of issues resolved with 11.0.2,
yet still issues remain, are they not testing anything ?

Envirographics

[James E. Talmage]

You do have your prefs set for Remember Layer Info, don't you?

In FHMXa on Windows, I just:

1) Created a blend with 75 steps.

2) Released to layers.

3) Drew a rectangle.

4) Cut the objects. Paste Contents.

5) Saved and closed the file. Quit FH.

6) Opened the file. Selected the rectangle. Cut Contents.

All the objects went back to their original layers. I also:

1) Copied the clipping path object. Pasted into a new document with only one
layer.

2) Saved. Quit.

3) Opened it back up. Cut Contents. All the appropriate layers were created
and the objects were on them.

I don't have

JET

[James E. Talmage]

(Brain cloud)

That was to say...

I don't have FH10 installed anywhere, so I can't try it there.

JET

[Stuart Ridgway]

My prepress studio, with 5 operators, has been using MX since it came out on
the panther OSX system and frankly it's great for seps and printing. Only
niggle is that placed bitmap tiffs from version 9 move about 2mm when opened in
MX. An oddity but a minor glitch in the big scheme.

[envirographics]

James,
No the problem was fixed in MX, it existed for the duration of 10 and 10.0.1.
However finding paste insides in MX requires individual clicking, they dont
show up if more than one at a time is selected, the star icon that is the
giveaway is only selectable when user clicks on word CONTENT assoc with word
CLIP PATH in object window. Very laborious if you have many groups and
pasteInsides.

Stuart, oh cripes, a 2mm shift !!! for my work that just about puts an end to
the option of using MX. I shall test to see what happens and how to resize or
shift images. Perhaps opening the file in FH9 and drawing boxes to match the
image edge in keyline, then putting all images back to match the boxes might
work. Thats 100 images in one file of mine alone alone to deal with, !!!!
What happens when I open back in FH9, then up in MX, going between home and
office ? Then there is the occasional sending of work to an FH8 user.

Macromedia, take note ....!!!!....I trace maps, the maps must stay exactly in
register and such backgrounds feature many carefully abutted scans. With a 2mm
shift then that means all road and other detail will be seriously out.
Likewise my aviation work, aircraft plans, its vital the images being traced
don't move. I am currently working out sizes of structures no longer existing
and recreating how they looked in plan form from size of bricks and mortar
thickness in a few rare photos taken before demolition, I am currently drawing
in mortar at just a few pixels per mortar visible, any image movement when (if
!) I upgrade to MX will wreck this.

If this is so, just what the hell are you Macromedia up to, haven't you any
idea how this program gets used ! Do you think we all just bow to the web
god, many were using Freehand well before the internet, most of those still
are. It is (or was) extremely accurate and used for such work.

You are painting me and others into a corner if all this I am finding out in
this thread and elsewhere is true.

Envirographics

[Judy Arndt]

Stuart,
Are you using FHMX 11.0.2?

I assume when you say bitmap TIFFs you mean one-bit TIFFs. FHMX now places
transparent one-bit TIFFs by the actual dimensions, not the black pixels as
in previous versions.

There was an issue in FHMX 11.0.0 where one-bit TIFFs in legacy documents
would shift. This should not be happening in 11.0.2.

Judy Arndt

Stuart Ridgway wrote:

> My prepress studio, with 5 operators, has been using MX since it came out on
> the panther OSX system and frankly it's great for seps and printing. Only
> niggle is that placed bitmap tiffs from version 9 move about 2mm when opened
> in MX. An oddity but a minor glitch in the big scheme.
>

[davecc]

Stuart,

I believe that tiff movement had been fixed in MXa 11.0.2 Build 92. I am not experiencing this issue.

David

[James E. Talmage]

However finding paste insides in MX requires individual clicking...

Graphic Find/Replace Palette: Select>ObjectType>Clipping Paths.

JET

[Martin Sammtleben]

In article <cat2v0$ev0$1@forums.macromedia.com>,
"envirographics" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote:

> Stuart, oh cripes, a 2mm shift !!! for my work that just about puts an end to
> the option of using MX. I shall test to see what happens and how to resize
> or
> shift images.

Does that happen with EPS, too?

If not you could try saving an EPS with full-size TIFF preview instead.

--
Cheers Martin

[envirographics]

JET,
Thanks for the tip on finding Paste insides, that could be most useful, I
shall try it. Also Judy for the find and ConToPath tip somewhere, thats
hopefully pasteInside back on the rails for me.

Hope this has been fixed, telling my printer chap that he would need to
reposition all the tiffs in 33 maps created a few years ago for this years
report, sent to his MX from FH7 didn?t meet with a good response !

Martin, that might be worth trying for any new material, trouble is I have a
LOT of existing files I am forever using. I just work with tiffs between FH and
Pshop, they then update in FH so must see if future work could instead use EPS.
I give them grey fills in FH so again need check if this works with EPS and
would the tiff preview take on the grey. I shall go and experiment when 5 mins
spare. Printing them to non postscript printers as I do at home though as well
as often at work will not work ?. Most home users I would imagine don?t have
postscript.
Cheers.
Envirographics

[Judy Arndt]

I recommend you get Acrobat Pro/Distiller. Then you can print from FH to
Postscript files and Distill to PDF. The PDF will contain all the Postscript
features of the FH file and can be printed to any non-Postscript printer.

Judy Arndt

envirographics wrote:

> Printing them to non postscript printers as I do at home though as well
> as often at work will not work ?. Most home users I would imagine don?t have
> postscript.

[envirographics]

I have limited use of pdf, I seem to think that when I created a pdf the
colours changed to what I would have got, but I shall investigate and test.
Hope though that testing MX will show no tiff shift or bitmap shift now as the
real problem otherwise is all the existing work when it opens in MX. For
future work though, perhaps distiller and pdf as you say, not sure how my
printing bureau would incorporate a pdf map into the rest of the document laid
out on screen in Quark though. I shall ask and find out. I did find that pdf
making resized artwork allowing for printing margins somewhile back, with maps
to scale this was not good, think though thats fixed now ?
Thanks
Envirographics

[Ken Kehl]

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 21:37:36 +0000 (UTC), "envirographics"
<webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote:

<snip>

> Stuart, oh cripes, a 2mm shift !!! for my work that just about puts an end to
> the option of using MX. I shall test to see what happens and how to resize or
> shift images. Perhaps opening the file in FH9 and drawing boxes to match the
> image edge in keyline, then putting all images back to match the boxes might
> work. Thats 100 images in one file of mine alone alone to deal with, !!!!
> What happens when I open back in FH9, then up in MX, going between home and
> office ? Then there is the occasional sending of work to an FH8 user.

It's not a 2mm shift, it's not random, and it's not with all TIFFs.
For some strange reason, Freehand has always registered bitmap TIFF
(a.k.a line art, 1-bit, b-w TIFF) files by the lower, left pixel that
was set "on". In response to "User Request", bitmapped TIFF files now
register by the lower left corner of the image, or their "bounding
box".

Still, the problem is there and it ranges from being a pain to nearly
insurmountable when moving files between versions. My solution was to
stop upgrading at v9. I don't know what I'll do when FH9 is no longer
supported by currently available hardware and OS's.

> Macromedia, take note ....!!!!....I trace maps, the maps must stay exactly in
> register and such backgrounds feature many carefully abutted scans. With a 2mm
> shift then that means all road and other detail will be seriously out.
> Likewise my aviation work, aircraft plans, its vital the images being traced
> don't move. I am currently working out sizes of structures no longer existing
> and recreating how they looked in plan form from size of bricks and mortar
> thickness in a few rare photos taken before demolition, I am currently drawing
> in mortar at just a few pixels per mortar visible, any image movement when (if
> !) I upgrade to MX will wreck this.

> If this is so, just what the hell are you Macromedia up to, haven't you any
> idea how this program gets used ! Do you think we all just bow to the web
> god, many were using Freehand well before the internet, most of those still
> are. It is (or was) extremely accurate and used for such work.

Oh yeah.. The web. 'The End of Print."

Have you noticed how many online merchants are luring customers to
their websites with printed information these days? Amazon.com is
printing multi-page ad inserts in the Sunday papers. To my eye, the
most noticeable negative "web impact" on print has been the decrease
in quality of low-to midrange work, since many submissions were
obviously designed for screen viewing.

Whoops - I forgot the #1 negative "web impact" on print - the fact
that Macromedia has become distracted and is letting Adobe is run away
with the DTP business.
______
Ken
ellipsis design
(remove the _xx_'s)

[Odysseus]

In article <40dda449.430378@forums.macromedia.com>,
[email]ellipsis_xx_@concentric.net[/email] (Ken Kehl) wrote:

>
> It's not a 2mm shift, it's not random, and it's not with all TIFFs.
> For some strange reason, Freehand has always registered bitmap TIFF
> (a.k.a line art, 1-bit, b-w TIFF) files by the lower, left pixel that
> was set "on". In response to "User Request", bitmapped TIFF files now
> register by the lower left corner of the image, or their "bounding
> box".
>

I don't know the original reason or rationale either, but I think of it
as 'an Aldus thing'. PageMaker, also originally sold by Aldus, behaves
the same way in positioning one-bit-deep images. At least it did at one
time -- I'm not sure about v6.5 and later, or whether long-time PM users
have encountered a similar problem when opening old files after
upgrading.

--
Odysseus