Illustrator CS (aka 11) has MAJOR FLAW! DO NOT BUY!

[Wendy_Jedlicka@adobeforums.com]

When you back save Illustrator CS (Illus 11) files to share (legacy export) with vendors and clients using older versions (even Illus10) - THE TYPE FRAGMENTS! All type strings are cut-up into single word (or if manually kerned) single LETTER elements.

All editing of text becomes useless. WHAT WERE THEY THINKING!!!!!

That we'd NEVER need to edit or use our old files without completely reworking them? Is Adobe even aware how Illustrator is used by working pros?

Adobe's complete lack of support for their older versions leaves me with no option but to tell ALL of my colleagues to NOT upgrade until this MAJOR MAJOR bug is fixed. And not just worked around, really fixed so you can genuinely back save documents without the type going totally wild!

The CS "UPGRADE" to Illustrator has rendered it completely useless. I am HUGELY DISAPPOINTED.

Wendy Jedlicka
Jedlicka Design Ltd.

[Gary_Newman@adobeforums.com]

I feel your pain, Wendy, but you really must read the thread at the top of the Forum: Thomas Phinney "Illustrator CS: Let's talk about the new text engine." 5/2/04 12:12pm </cgi-bin/webx?13@@.2ccdcea3/189>

[Wendy_Jedlicka@adobeforums.com]

P.S.

I HAVE spoken to Adobe about this, and they have no solution, work-around, or announce able plan to fix this. If I were them, this would be like #1 on my to-do list.

[John_Kallios@adobeforums.com]

Have you read the link Gary posted?

To me it is not a bug. It is perfectly understandable. The results are expected and it is something that I would want Adobe NOT to spend any time working on. There are vast many other areas that need attention.

The fact is that previous versions and legacy files will die from attrition. It is a teething period, but it is now a better product and it is also a product that can be built upon rather than have it stagnate.

The reality of the situation is that 10 and CS are needed to run side by side. I do sympathize with those who do not have 10 and upgraded from an earlier version. (I do not know if that applies to you)

[Wendy_Jedlicka@adobeforums.com]

To John:

Thanks for the direct, I DID read the info, such as it was, and I appreciate the mammoth task of dovetailing Illustrator into OSX. I know full well WHY/HOW things happen in the course of developing software, I've been rubbing it up with programers since the 70's. THIS particular "inconvenience" tough is not just a minor irritation - it's costing me both time AND money!

You can't "improve" a tool as central to my industry (packaging) as Illustrator and completely ignore how it's actually being being used. THIS is the real heart of the problem.

ALL the the groovy new features are useless to me if I can't remain compatible with my clients and vendors. SOME of whom I might add, are STILL using Illustrator 8 - with no big plan of upgrading anytime soon. These are not tiny little back water shops, but printers doing millions of packages in a single run, serving manufacturers all over the world. When they get a system to run, they stick with it for a LONG time.

I've been an Illustrator user since there WAS and Illustrator, and a computer graphics artist before there was a Mac. I've been an ardent fan and heavy Illustrator user all this time. So I think I get to say, this was NOT one of Adobe's better moves. And I HOPE they have this particular problem on the front burner, not the back as I've been lead to believe.

I DO though have a positive thing for the Adobe crew so you don't write me off as some crazed whiner - PhotoShop CS ROCKS! Too bad I spend MOST of my 9-12 hours each day in Illustrator with little time to enjoy PhotoShop.

I eagerly await the patch that will let me use my new Illustrator, but until then, it's back to 9 on OS9.

Wj

[John_Kallios@adobeforums.com]

Gary said it best…

"I feel your pain, Wendy"

The transition affects each of us differently and I wish I had a magic answer to help you. Unfortunately, I do not foresee Adobe ever making a "patch" for this. (insert usual disclaimer here that I am NOT a person in the know of anything Adobe plans or does not plan to do)

[Dee Holmes]

Wendy, you probably should have researched alittle more before jumping in. (just my opinion) I have yet to cross over to OSX or AICS, but I do follow this forum.

What, do you think OSX is not so different than OS9.xx? Or do you have a letter to them too?

In progress, there is change. We either decide to be prepared for it, or we launch in full bore with problems we can't answer by ourselfs.

So get over it, ask questions, read up on everything before bitchin' off on a subject that has been covered (and is still being covered at the top of the forum)

For me, I'm not there yet, but at least I'm learning about it before I have a major catastrophy.

And if you type nicely, some people in this forum might get to like you, and answer your questions without..............

Whatever.

[Scott_Weichert@adobeforums.com]

Actually.... this is a non issue. If you create outlines of all type, which you really should do rather than sending live type, and use a two file workflow (just like you should with Photoshop) then everything runs perfectly smooth. I never give my print providers Illustrator or Photoshop files with live type. You're just asking for an error that way, which most often isn't seen until the job is off the press.

[lee_vickers@adobeforums.com]

"Actually.... this is a non issue. If you create outlines of all type, which you really should do rather than sending live type, and use a two file workflow (just like you should with Photoshop) then everything runs perfectly smooth. I never give my print providers Illustrator or Photoshop files with live type. You're just asking for an error that way, which most often isn't seen until the job is off the press."

I agree with Scott. I work in the packaging industry too, and I also spend 95% of my day in AI. Even when we were using AI10, all type was outlined to avoid the usual font problems. We keep a 'live text' copy of the file in an archive and send an outlined vendor copy to the printer. On the few occasions a 'live' file was sent out by mistake it ended in tears. Sending the artwork as a whole image (rather than image/text) ensures you have ultimate control over what is going onto the box.

But playing devil's advocate here, I can see problems in the publications industry and the like where a live text file, being converted back and forth between legacy and CS, will result in unwanted changes.

[Mordy_Golding@adobeforums.com]

"WHAT WERE THEY THINKING!!!!!"
"Is Adobe even aware how Illustrator is used by working pros?"



No, the people at Adobe are actually accountants and surfer dudes and have little knowledge of how people use Illustrator. In fact, if you were to ask someone at Adobe what Illustrator is used for, you'd get a reply along the lines of "that's used to draw pictures, right?"

I could say that I take offesnse to some of the comments listed here, as I was working at Adobe at the time and was partially responsible for everything you find in Illustrator CS. But I'm not the the type to get offended. I'm a professional in the industry. I'm VERY aware of how professionals use Illustrator. In fact, I'm aware of how professionals of many different industries and vertical markets use Illustrator. Put another way, the people on the Illustrator team were VERY aware of everything that they did. In fact, I'd venture to say that nothing you'll find in Illustrator happened by chance -- everything was thought out and planned carefully. Illustrator isn't the industry-standard by chance -- and by admitting you're using it 9-12 hours a day is proof to that.

Don't get me wrong -- you're free to criticize a decision made by a team of software developers. Criticism is always welcome. But please don't accuse them of not thinking.

Adobe's complete lack of support for their older versions leaves me with no option but to tell ALL of my colleagues to NOT upgrade until this MAJOR MAJOR bug is fixed.

Well, if you read my post, you'll know this isn't a bug -- it was deliberately designed that way. A bug is something that doesn't work as intended. As for Adobe's "complete lack of support for older versions" I beg to differ. We spent a lot of time making sure people didn't lose data by accidentally overwriting their files (which is why you have to EXPORT legacy rather than save). We did everything that was possible. You have every right not to be happy with the results. But I honestly beleive that Adobe was as upfront and clear about the issue as possible. Other companies may have let users discover the issue on their own. I have no regrets. I think we did the right thing.

You're free to tell your friends of colleagues not to upgrade. I just feel bad that those friends will be missing out on what is probably the best version of Illustrator ever. And going back to OS9? I dunno -- OSX was really iffy when it first came out, but right now, in Panther, you couldn't get me to use OS9 unless there was a six figure sum involved. And this is from a guy who even once tried going to Windows XP. OSX is a dream come true.

The CS "UPGRADE" to Illustrator has rendered it completely useless.

Completely useless. Hmmm.. those are strong words. So the faster performance is useless? The OpenType support is useless? The 3D effects are useless? The PDF 1.5 support is useless? The new Print UI and print engine is useless? The improved flattener preview is useless? The hundreds of templates, fonts, symbols, brushes, swatches, etc. are all useless? -- and if giving up on Illustrator CS means going back to Illustrator 8, that must mean that all of the features that were added in 9 and 10 are also useless -- like nested layers, live effects, envelopes, graphic styles, symbols, save for web, SVG, slicing, PSD support, appearances, and numerous tools and effects.

Maybe the CS upgrade is useless to you personally, but I hardly think it's useless to the 2 million users worldwide who also use it.

Please don't get me wrong -- there are DEFINTELY workflows that are negatively affected by this. I have to disagree with Scott's statement because there are PLENTY of reasons why saving text in older versions is necessary. But technology moves forward, and no one forces anyone to use something that doesn't work for them.

:) Mordy

[Wade_Zimmerman@adobeforums.com]

This whole argument is is silly the idea that you would by a new version of an application that has new features that previous versions do not support is a known
requirement of the purchaser/user you know in advance that there will be features that will be flattened or altered or not be editable in previous version.

And why would you open the legacy file in AI CS in the first place if it were not for the purpose of using AI CS features which cannot be edited in a legacy version anyway?

I am afraid that it is the thinking of the user who has not really thought this out.
If you own the previous version of AI use that for strictly legacy work and for more current up to date and modern work use AI CS for all the excellent features an excellent performance.

And do professionals use AI in publishing for the text capabilities of AI for art maybe
but for producing books and publications, what for AI CS outstanding page management capabilities? You got me on that one.

[Joe_leMonnier@adobeforums.com]

I know this horse has been beaten before but i'll add my $.02 (where is the "cents" sign?)

Previous versions were allways easy to upgrade to and were backwards compatable if you stayed within the feature set of the prevoius version. This way you could work in the latest version and deliver files to clients in whatever primitive version they had. Newer features (transparency, raster effects and more) could be imported into Photoshop at the last minute and attached. The client got a file that was (in their version 8,9 or 10 world) perfect. My clients are pretty insitant on getting files they can use the way they want. If they want a file in version 8 or 10 they want just that- a file that opens, edits and saves just like any other. I'd love to be able to outline type, but so far, few of my clients have allowed it.

As I said before, there has allways been a simple 2-file workaround in backwards compatability. You could even make it a single file system by limiting the feature set to what is supported n ther older version. But unless I want to do without type altogether, I've got to send files that from the clients point of view are inferior to what they expect for a version 8,9 or 10 file. I work on maps with many, many pieces of type, so manually concateneating the type is out of the question.

So, my complaits aside, I would wish that Adobe had made the use of the new type engine (and all its new features) optional just as if it were any other new feature. This is so obvious that I imagine that it was impossible, but I ask nonetheless.

thank you,

[Just_A_Mac_Guy@adobeforums.com]

Not to throw oil on the fire here, I don't have CS in front of me to test this... But..

Text fragmentation when converting QX pages to illustrator via PDF has been around for years. The work around is to copy the text fragments and paste them into a new text box in Illy which at least gives you a single string of editable type {albeit, which must be re-kerned and massaged... PITA... hey that's what we do for a living... It is what we bill for.

Adobe's new text engine may be a neccesary evil to advance the technology {I am not convinced, yet}, but this is inconvienient at best...

Calling this a major flaw, and shouting "Don't Buy It!" is kinda Chicken little-ish.

There are plenty of legitimate concerns about CS and OSX... If you choose to hold off purchasing... at least pick a resonable grip. The new text engine is how the CS collection works. You can deal with it now or later... Your choice.

[jonf@adobeforums.com]

I have to agree with Joe. I was doing work with an international corporation. Many of the foreign offices which need to use our files must be able to edit the documents we create. Some of these locations are still on AI6, believe it or not. This is multimillion dollar corporation, but the foreign offices must justify their budget locally, and can't afford the tens of thousands of dollars to upgrade all their hardware and software so they could use CS.

CS makes it impossible to upgrade in this environment. It's impossible to create files that they can use. If the file involves text, exporting doesn't provide a file that they can do anything with. It's fine if all you're providing is a logo or simple graphic, but for maps, flowcharts, diagrams, and so on the file is essentially worthless. That seems an inexcusable limitation that shouldn't have been swept under the rug as a "teething pains" issue.

[Doug_Katz@adobeforums.com]

2¢

Option-4.

Isn't it a pleasure to harken back to the agricultural revolution, basking in all its advances for humanity without having to undergo the trauma of the transition itself? Have you any idea how many farmers were angrily downgrading to Hoe v.8 after having bought new electro-mechanical versions that weren't backward compatible?

[jonf@adobeforums.com]

"For every metaphor there is an equal and opposite counter-metaphor."

The agricultural revolution? Come on now, let's not get overly dramatic about the advantages of AI ;-)

But the problem isn't the tool, it's the product. The product created by the new AICS can't be used by people that can't afford the upgrade. That's as if the agricultural revolution produced food that could only be eaten by people who could afford the new equipment. Some revolution.

[John_Kallios@adobeforums.com]

Previous versions were allways easy to upgrade to and were backwards compatable
if you stayed within the feature set of the prevoius version.




That is it in a nutshell. The new text engine IS a new feature.

[jonf@adobeforums.com]

Which is why people complain. The ability to use text should not (in our opinion) be a "feature." It's intrinsic to the document. For a very large percentage of the user base, the ability to use the text in a document is equivalent to the ability to open the document at all.

Setting all the anger aside, this is a legitimate warning to anyone considering purchasing AICS. If you remove the angry hyperbole and rhetoric from the original post, it makes a pretty concise description of what will actually happen when you upgrade. You want potential buyers to know this in advance. Otherwise you'll just end up with more outraged customers like Wendy.

[Wade_Zimmerman@adobeforums.com]

Just as Just_A_Mac_Guy wrote you can always cut the text and paste it into a new text frame in the older versions. Or use Rick Johnson's script to do this or you and the problem goes away.

And why in heavens name would the million dollar client be editing text in AI 6 or earlier anyway? Why not in a word processor with linked text.

If that is your chosen method of working then your method is so confused you really can't expect progress to be held up in order to wait for you to advance.

There are ways of making this work but it requires you and you clients to adjust to a new way. I got news for you you know you will have to adjust so why not do it now.

And there is no doubt in my mind that when the next version of AI comes out you will be complaining as to why it did not work the way this version works why did they change after all it was so easy in AI CS all you had to do is cut and paste the text into a new text frame. What could be easier!

We have people who complain now of why does AI CS work like version 9 and 10 because it those version perform so much better and faster, the same people who complained about those two versions to no end.

What do you make of that?

[Michael_Gianino@adobeforums.com]

If your client wants Illy 8 files, couldn't you just create those projects in Illy 8? No backsaving necessary.