Powerpoint vs Director

[Flashst webforumsuser@macromedia.com]

Yes - that does sound an odd comparison to most of us I'm sure.

But, I have someone who is reciting how good powerpoint is and that he can create a 'powerpoint show' that is as compatible as a director projector. (We're talking about creating CD here.)

I know that Director is immensely more powerful that Powerpoint. The user wishes to create a CD that will ultimately be dispersed to over 4000 people. There may bemore CD prjects after that too.

I personally would not use a program that is really a slide show presenter to do such a task, but I am having difficulty in stating technical reasons why. The cd in question does not currently have any animation, but does have menus/lots of graphics, and quite a few 'pages'.

Anyone give me some (big) reasons??

Thanks,

Flashster

[Rob Dillon]

That's not a real argument, it's just a trap. Aside from both
applications creating media that can be played back on computers, they
share almost no real funcionality.

Director creates applications. These applications are platform specific
and can be distributed either through the web, by CD or downloaded
file. DIrector apps are updateable, content can be added and changed.
Director apps are extensible, if designed with changing content in
mind, Director apps can have modules added, deleted or changed by
adding files in any of a number of ways.

Director apps can add and interpret dynamic content. Director has a
built in database tool, the casts, whose contents can be changed at any
time. Director can import data from many sources and in many formats to
allow for the dynamic display of that new data.

Director apps can play a wide variety of other media: digital video,
Flash, digital audio, live media streams, and in a useful way.

Director allows you to use any font that you like, add or change text
at runtime, save text or any other file format at runtime.

Director allows you to poll the user's computer to find a place to copy
and save files, optimize playback, test for and install support
players, like QT, test the system for suitability and advise the user
if needed. Director can control the use of memory to optimize the
user's playback experience.

Powerpoint allows for none of the above. Powerpoint is linear, allows
for only some, preplanned, interactivity. While Powerpoint can be
learned in an afternoon, the most sophisticated PP show pales in
comparison to the simplest Director app.

Powerpoint doesn't create applications, it creates files. When
launched, a PP file cannot figure out if the player is installed, if
there is no player installed, the file just fails. If the program
designer has no regard for the audience, then this may be just fine.

PP's user interface is an abomination. It seems that it was designed by
wolves, and ones with no regard for the end user.

In short, PP is a toy, it makes simple presentation support tools. That
may be all that the designer wants or needs. Regardless, the audience
probably deserves better.

PP is a very good outline tool for developing content for some types of
Director projects. While I feel that intellectual freedom is a great
thing, I'm not so sure that a tool like PP should be freely available
to the public.

--
Rob
_______
Rob Dillon
Team Macromedia
[url]http://www.ddg-designs.com[/url]
412-243-9119

[url]http://www.macromedia.com/software/trial/[/url]

[Richie Bisset]

Add to that the fact that, the last time i looked at powerpoint(a long
time ago admittedly), all the most basic tools you'd need to create a
slick professional presentation, even one that is just a slideshow,
were rubbish. Firstly you couldn't anti-alias the text??? what is that
all about? given that most powerpoint presentations are displayed on
svga data projectors which will display 800*600 pixels at around six
feet wide you would have thought that anti-aliasing would have been
the first consideration.

Add to that the fact that the transitions are pretty terrible too (ok
so are directors if you're on a pc but at least you can script your
own smooth ones in director). and i would say if you want your
company/client to look professional and present themslves well to
their target audience director is the only choice even if it can
appear to be a little over spec for projects like the one you are
undertaking.

Oh also despite having XP with the latest powerpoint viewer on my
machine i can't actually view half the powerpoint files i am sent
anyway while the mac users at my work can.</rant>

hth,

richie

oh and Rob, to be fair, wolves are actually pretty sophisticated
creatures and as such they'd probably struggle with the interface too
;)

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 11:11:09 -0500, Rob Dillon <rob@ddg-designs.com>
wrote:

>That's not a real argument, it's just a trap. Aside from both
>applications creating media that can be played back on computers, they
>share almost no real funcionality.
>
>Director creates applications. These applications are platform specific
>and can be distributed either through the web, by CD or downloaded
>file. DIrector apps are updateable, content can be added and changed.
>Director apps are extensible, if designed with changing content in
>mind, Director apps can have modules added, deleted or changed by
>adding files in any of a number of ways.
>
>Director apps can add and interpret dynamic content. Director has a
>built in database tool, the casts, whose contents can be changed at any
>time. Director can import data from many sources and in many formats to
>allow for the dynamic display of that new data.
>
>Director apps can play a wide variety of other media: digital video,
>Flash, digital audio, live media streams, and in a useful way.
>
>Director allows you to use any font that you like, add or change text
>at runtime, save text or any other file format at runtime.
>
>Director allows you to poll the user's computer to find a place to copy
>and save files, optimize playback, test for and install support
>players, like QT, test the system for suitability and advise the user
>if needed. Director can control the use of memory to optimize the
>user's playback experience.
>
>Powerpoint allows for none of the above. Powerpoint is linear, allows
>for only some, preplanned, interactivity. While Powerpoint can be
>learned in an afternoon, the most sophisticated PP show pales in
>comparison to the simplest Director app.
>
>Powerpoint doesn't create applications, it creates files. When
>launched, a PP file cannot figure out if the player is installed, if
>there is no player installed, the file just fails. If the program
>designer has no regard for the audience, then this may be just fine.
>
>PP's user interface is an abomination. It seems that it was designed by
>wolves, and ones with no regard for the end user.
>
>In short, PP is a toy, it makes simple presentation support tools. That
>may be all that the designer wants or needs. Regardless, the audience
>probably deserves better.
>
>PP is a very good outline tool for developing content for some types of
>Director projects. While I feel that intellectual freedom is a great
>thing, I'm not so sure that a tool like PP should be freely available
>to the public.