<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Pet Peeves of Buying Design Software</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.graphicdesignblog.co.uk/pet-peeves-of-buying-design-software/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.graphicdesignblog.co.uk/pet-peeves-of-buying-design-software/</link>
	<description>Graphic Design Tutorials, Graphic design news and information by a freelance graphic designer in Northamptonshire UK</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:52:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert</title>
		<link>http://www.graphicdesignblog.co.uk/pet-peeves-of-buying-design-software/comment-page-1/#comment-24472</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:03:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.graphicdesignblog.co.uk/pet-peeves-of-buying-design-software/#comment-24472</guid>
		<description>&lt;&gt;

If you look at the business model that successful airlines are using, you see that more money can be made by selling at a lower price. That isn&#039;t contradictory because the increased sales volume more than makes up for the lower price.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&lt;&gt;</p>
<p>If you look at the business model that successful airlines are using, you see that more money can be made by selling at a lower price. That isn&#8217;t contradictory because the increased sales volume more than makes up for the lower price.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: IT Support Bristol</title>
		<link>http://www.graphicdesignblog.co.uk/pet-peeves-of-buying-design-software/comment-page-1/#comment-23341</link>
		<dc:creator>IT Support Bristol</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2010 13:39:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.graphicdesignblog.co.uk/pet-peeves-of-buying-design-software/#comment-23341</guid>
		<description>You would expect that updates for those who have been loyal would reduce over time based on that loyalty.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You would expect that updates for those who have been loyal would reduce over time based on that loyalty.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vista Drivers</title>
		<link>http://www.graphicdesignblog.co.uk/pet-peeves-of-buying-design-software/comment-page-1/#comment-12092</link>
		<dc:creator>Vista Drivers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:56:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.graphicdesignblog.co.uk/pet-peeves-of-buying-design-software/#comment-12092</guid>
		<description>&quot;Why do I pay nearly £1000 (Quark, Adobe Creative Suite) for software but they can’t throw in a printed manual.&quot; &gt;&gt; So true! I guess that we don&#039;t spend enough so they need us to spend more on buying guides or waste hours searching for help online. Paint Shop Pro has been something I&#039;ve been pleasantly surprised with, though. It isn&#039;t Adobe, but it can handle alot of the same tasks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Why do I pay nearly £1000 (Quark, Adobe Creative Suite) for software but they can’t throw in a printed manual.&#8221; &gt;&gt; So true! I guess that we don&#8217;t spend enough so they need us to spend more on buying guides or waste hours searching for help online. Paint Shop Pro has been something I&#8217;ve been pleasantly surprised with, though. It isn&#8217;t Adobe, but it can handle alot of the same tasks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Saturday Links</title>
		<link>http://www.graphicdesignblog.co.uk/pet-peeves-of-buying-design-software/comment-page-1/#comment-2582</link>
		<dc:creator>Saturday Links</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2007 20:23:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.graphicdesignblog.co.uk/pet-peeves-of-buying-design-software/#comment-2582</guid>
		<description>[...] Pet Peeves of Buy Design Software [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Pet Peeves of Buy Design Software [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: lustrious.net - Blog of a NEPA girl</title>
		<link>http://www.graphicdesignblog.co.uk/pet-peeves-of-buying-design-software/comment-page-1/#comment-1888</link>
		<dc:creator>lustrious.net - Blog of a NEPA girl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jul 2007 00:39:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.graphicdesignblog.co.uk/pet-peeves-of-buying-design-software/#comment-1888</guid>
		<description>[...] Pet Peeves of Buy Design Software [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Pet Peeves of Buy Design Software [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tara: Graphic Design Blog</title>
		<link>http://www.graphicdesignblog.co.uk/pet-peeves-of-buying-design-software/comment-page-1/#comment-1793</link>
		<dc:creator>Tara: Graphic Design Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2007 08:56:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.graphicdesignblog.co.uk/pet-peeves-of-buying-design-software/#comment-1793</guid>
		<description>Hi Louisa, 

Thanks for your comment. 
&quot;’m starting to think that some companies just want to make more money without offering anything new &quot;

I know what you mean, I have ben looking at the new Adobe packages, and none of them really have what I want altogether as a bundle, but its not worth buying the packages individually, so you end up buying a bundle with software you don&#039;t want. A pick and mix option would be ideal.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Louisa, </p>
<p>Thanks for your comment.<br />
&#8220;’m starting to think that some companies just want to make more money without offering anything new &#8221;</p>
<p>I know what you mean, I have ben looking at the new Adobe packages, and none of them really have what I want altogether as a bundle, but its not worth buying the packages individually, so you end up buying a bundle with software you don&#8217;t want. A pick and mix option would be ideal.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Louisa Nicholson</title>
		<link>http://www.graphicdesignblog.co.uk/pet-peeves-of-buying-design-software/comment-page-1/#comment-1792</link>
		<dc:creator>Louisa Nicholson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2007 04:32:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.graphicdesignblog.co.uk/pet-peeves-of-buying-design-software/#comment-1792</guid>
		<description>I completely agree with you. I found that CS3 has backtracked on a lot of things and for someone who has been using Adobe through 11 versions, I&#039;m starting to think that some companies just want to make more money without offering anything new (with the exception of Flash CS3 which offers AS3, though an original Macromedia product). What I found in expensive software is slower processing in version updates, changes in interface and an increase on price per year. All of these are major no-no&#039;s in the software engineering world and customer service. Everyone says &quot;well, just buy a better computer&quot; - we shouldn&#039;t have to. Thank you for writing something that isn&#039;t so positive about industry standard software. 

PS- About Quark vs InDesign: I usually find print houses to prefer Quark as it&#039;s easier to pre-press. I find that designers prefer InDesign more as do I. Neither is out-performing the other though, not yet!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I completely agree with you. I found that CS3 has backtracked on a lot of things and for someone who has been using Adobe through 11 versions, I&#8217;m starting to think that some companies just want to make more money without offering anything new (with the exception of Flash CS3 which offers AS3, though an original Macromedia product). What I found in expensive software is slower processing in version updates, changes in interface and an increase on price per year. All of these are major no-no&#8217;s in the software engineering world and customer service. Everyone says &#8220;well, just buy a better computer&#8221; &#8211; we shouldn&#8217;t have to. Thank you for writing something that isn&#8217;t so positive about industry standard software. </p>
<p>PS- About Quark vs InDesign: I usually find print houses to prefer Quark as it&#8217;s easier to pre-press. I find that designers prefer InDesign more as do I. Neither is out-performing the other though, not yet!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LaurenMarie</title>
		<link>http://www.graphicdesignblog.co.uk/pet-peeves-of-buying-design-software/comment-page-1/#comment-1791</link>
		<dc:creator>LaurenMarie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:39:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.graphicdesignblog.co.uk/pet-peeves-of-buying-design-software/#comment-1791</guid>
		<description>Tara, I don&#039;t think there&#039;s anything to disagree with you about using Quark vs. InDesign. It&#039;s a personal preference really! And I think you are right in choosing one over the other because you know you&#039;ll get faster and better results (even if someone else would not).

I do however think that the industry is quickly moving away from Quark and towards InDesign, especially since Adobe was smart and packaged it (&quot;oo! a freebie!&quot; &lt;em&gt;Not.&lt;/em&gt;) with CS. Plus, Quark hasn&#039;t been all that great in updating their software and they&#039;ve severely suffered for it. I&#039;m sure there are still designers out there who use Fireworks instead of Photoshop. It&#039;s not the tools that matter, it&#039;s the concepts and subsequent execution (unless, of course, your printer stops accepting Quark files! But then you could just print to PDF)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tara, I don&#8217;t think there&#8217;s anything to disagree with you about using Quark vs. InDesign. It&#8217;s a personal preference really! And I think you are right in choosing one over the other because you know you&#8217;ll get faster and better results (even if someone else would not).</p>
<p>I do however think that the industry is quickly moving away from Quark and towards InDesign, especially since Adobe was smart and packaged it (&#8220;oo! a freebie!&#8221; <em>Not.</em>) with CS. Plus, Quark hasn&#8217;t been all that great in updating their software and they&#8217;ve severely suffered for it. I&#8217;m sure there are still designers out there who use Fireworks instead of Photoshop. It&#8217;s not the tools that matter, it&#8217;s the concepts and subsequent execution (unless, of course, your printer stops accepting Quark files! But then you could just print to PDF)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tara: Graphic Design Blog</title>
		<link>http://www.graphicdesignblog.co.uk/pet-peeves-of-buying-design-software/comment-page-1/#comment-1788</link>
		<dc:creator>Tara: Graphic Design Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Jul 2007 19:27:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.graphicdesignblog.co.uk/pet-peeves-of-buying-design-software/#comment-1788</guid>
		<description>Hi Carlton and Michelle, Thanks for your comments, Michelle I have only dabbled with Indesign, but prefer Quark because I know it far better, but I know a lot other readers will disagree with me.

Hi Lauren, I have tried buying software from the US. The trouble is you get charged customs taxes and then the post office also charges you to collect the money (how kind) so it ends up not being much cheaper.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Carlton and Michelle, Thanks for your comments, Michelle I have only dabbled with Indesign, but prefer Quark because I know it far better, but I know a lot other readers will disagree with me.</p>
<p>Hi Lauren, I have tried buying software from the US. The trouble is you get charged customs taxes and then the post office also charges you to collect the money (how kind) so it ends up not being much cheaper.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LaurenMarie</title>
		<link>http://www.graphicdesignblog.co.uk/pet-peeves-of-buying-design-software/comment-page-1/#comment-1787</link>
		<dc:creator>LaurenMarie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Jul 2007 19:22:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.graphicdesignblog.co.uk/pet-peeves-of-buying-design-software/#comment-1787</guid>
		<description>Wow, I&#039;m really surprised about the price difference. That just doesn&#039;t make sense to me! Can you buy it on a site like New Egg and just pay the international shipping? Adobe was probably smart enough to see that one, though.

Adobe has spent a lot of money making CS was it is, especially on the usability end. It&#039;s pretty intuitive once you get around the first learning curve of new software. And like Carlton said, they know it, which means they&#039;ll charge for it. I suppose we should really hail Adobe as absolutely brilliant for making us so dependent on their products! But we&#039;re on the other end, so we hates it, Precious!

I am using InDesign. I was one of the first classes at my college to be taught this program instead of Quark. I like it. It always plays nice with other Adobe products and its shortcuts are similar, too. Nothing frustrated me more than going back and forth between Adobe and Maya (3D software) because of those stupid shortcuts!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow, I&#8217;m really surprised about the price difference. That just doesn&#8217;t make sense to me! Can you buy it on a site like New Egg and just pay the international shipping? Adobe was probably smart enough to see that one, though.</p>
<p>Adobe has spent a lot of money making CS was it is, especially on the usability end. It&#8217;s pretty intuitive once you get around the first learning curve of new software. And like Carlton said, they know it, which means they&#8217;ll charge for it. I suppose we should really hail Adobe as absolutely brilliant for making us so dependent on their products! But we&#8217;re on the other end, so we hates it, Precious!</p>
<p>I am using InDesign. I was one of the first classes at my college to be taught this program instead of Quark. I like it. It always plays nice with other Adobe products and its shortcuts are similar, too. Nothing frustrated me more than going back and forth between Adobe and Maya (3D software) because of those stupid shortcuts!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Database Caching using disk
Content Delivery Network via gdesignblog.gdesignblog.netdna-cdn.com

Served from: www.graphicdesignblog.co.uk @ 2012-02-10 12:13:43 -->
