May 31, 2006

What’s the future of GoLive and FreeHand?

All kinds of confusion, speculation, and declaration are bouncing around the blogosphere and online media at the moment concerning the future of Adobe GoLive & FreeHand. Here’s the official statement from Adobe:

Q. Is Adobe going to discontinue GoLive and FreeHand?
A. No. Adobe plans to continue to support GoLive and FreeHand and develop these products based on our customers’ needs. Clearly Dreamweaver and Illustrator are market leading when it comes to Web design/development and vector graphics/illustration. Customers should expect Adobe to concentrate our development efforts around these two products – with regards to future innovation and Creative Suite integration.

Being a public company, Adobe employees generally have to remain mum about future product developments (for good reason, since we have to be wary of affecting the stock price). For that reason, we’ve done a pretty bad job of communicating our plans, especially to passionate GoLive and FreeHand users. Folks here are working to make that better, and we’ll share more info as it’s available.
Regarding GoLive, both it and Dreamweaver offer some really unique capabilities. GoLive has always emphasized strong visual design tools (a layout grid, etc.), and there are interesting ways to use those capabilities going forward. I won’t presume to speak for either the GL or DW teams & won’t get into more detail, but there are clearly ways the two codebases can complement one another.
Regarding FreeHand, I feel I need to make a couple of points.

  1. Macromedia did not ship a new version of FreeHand following the MX release in 2003. I don’t have further information on why the company took that approach (I didn’t work at MM at that time), but it was a decision made independent of Adobe.

  2. In addition, last year Macromedia–again independent of Adobe–made the decision that it would no longer include FreeHand in Studio. Although the announcement was made following the Adobe-Macromedia merger announcement, it was prior to that deal closing. In other words, it was done at at time when Adobe and Macromedia were not permitted to interact and plan together.

So, while FreeHand may not share the same strategic place in our product portfolio as Illustrator, it hasn’t been discontinued and we’ve now at least put some clarity on that. Now, excuse me while I go to another meeting to plan ways to make Photoshop & Fireworks play well together. :-)

Posted by John Nack at 6:42 PM on May 31, 2006

Comments

  • rupert — 12:45 AM on June 01, 2006

    Please promote FreeHand at Adobe. Or at least sell it to a company that will polish as it deserves.
    thanks

  • Tim — 1:24 AM on June 01, 2006

    I know many designers prefer Dreamweaver, primarily citing better code output.
    I’ve been using GoLive since before Adobe bought it and have been pleased with how my sites perform in all the major browsers on both platforms. I’m not literate enough in HTML to discriminate whether or not GoLive is putting the ‘punctuation’ in the optimal place, and frankly I don’t care–it just works. Do my visitors care that I may not have the most stealthiest, optimal code on the net? Absolutely not. I get no complaints, just sales.
    I’ve used Dreamweaver limitedly, and if Adobe expects me to “upgrade” to it from GoLive in the future, they are going to need to do some major work on it. Macromedia’s user interface is simply the ugliest and least functional I’ve ever seen. (It looks like the early page design programs for the Amiga 1000.) I’m sure many designers prefer this, as it is like Windows to IT departments–job security, as nobody else can figure it out.
    I’ve never used the GoLive grid feature, as you mentioned above, but other features such as Smart Objects are invaluable time-savers. I know some seem to think these are not pro-level features… all I can say is they must have more time and patience than I do.
    I don’t see a lot of GoLive users out complaining about this yet. I suspect many of them do not even realize the impending train wreck they are going to experience if Adobe pulls the plug. I suspect a lot of them have never even used Dreamweaver and aren’t aware of how different it is.
    I just read your position with Photoshop. I’ve got to say I hesitated with CS2, but I finally upgraded and it’s awesome! You guys did a great job!

  • torque2k — 5:11 AM on June 01, 2006

    Please remember your FreeHand users; we are usually of a more technical bent, requiring precise object placement, less emphasis on decoration, and quick access to a stripped down interface (which, admittedly FreeHand MX(a) did a terrible job at presenting). We are also less likely to “float over” to Illustrator than the people who use Quark would float to InDesign.
    Thanks, though, for the concern regarding further product changes!

  • Derry — 5:47 AM on June 01, 2006

    “Market Leading” is somewhat misleading, it implies that a product leads it’s rivals in every respect. “Best selling” would be more accurate term. Merely because a product sells more than it’s rivals doesn’t necessarily mean it’s in any way better.

  • Jim Oblak — 6:41 AM on June 01, 2006

    In your Q&A section, you might want to change ‘Is Adobe going to discontinue GoLive and FreeHand?’ to ‘Is Adobe discontinuing GoLive and FreeHand?’ since you cannot assert whether or not Adobe will continue to develop and maintain any application in the future. Some may overlook your blog’s legal disclaimer and hold you personally responsible for developing GoLive and Freehand forever. :)

  • Jeff — 8:09 AM on June 01, 2006

    Can we get some GoLove?
    PLEASE do not kill GoLive. I don’t know Dreamweaver and don’t want to learn a new interface. I *like* designing vs. coding. All the coding snobs should take their arguments to the fullest and use notepad to make all of their sites.
    I use the grid, I use SmartObjects and they make my life easier. As for whether I am a “professional” or not b/c of it…the last time I checked “professional” was defined by deriving income.
    Dreamweaver may be selling more currently, but a well marketed GoLive could definitely give them a run for the money. I don’t think GoLive ever got the marketing push of a product like InDesign.
    In my soul, I am convinced that GoLive will live no more and that is a shame, but I hope that Adobe will at least consider keeping it or adding it’s GUI and featureset to DreamWeaver.

  • Chris — 8:25 AM on June 01, 2006

    A lot (and I mean hundreds of thousands) of people are going to be very upset if Freehand is discontinued.
    A lot of people misunderstand: Freehand and lllustrator are NOT the same class of applications: Here in South Africa and in large parts of Europe, Freehand is used as both an illustration tool as well as a page-layout tool. Freehand is used to compile pretty much as large a document as is possible before a designer will give in and use Quark (yes, I know InDesign exists). Freehand has much more robust page management and text/copy tools than Illustrator and is THE standard method (here) for distributing print files or prepping before pdf’ing documents under ±100 pages.
    While Illustrator is a fantastic illustration tool, Freehand has a method of drawing that is more precise for close linework, and in my experience, more controlled for point-by-point path manipulation and bezier adjustment.
    For a lot of us Freehand users, THIS is the way we draw on the computer. In South Africa at least (which has a very large advertising/design/publishing industry), Freehand is what EVERYONE uses. Copies of Illustrator gather dust on the shelves as part of value packs.
    North Americans must realise that Freehand has by no means been a dead application next to Illustrator. Illustrator has always had better PS integration and crisper, faster display – but these aren’t the only things that make an application.
    From back in my college days, Freehand was always the most logical and precise tool in my bunch of software. I use it for logo-work, illustration, documents, page-layout and spline creation for import into 3D applications.
    PLEASE Adobe – don’t kill it! Merge the two, or update the separate apps…

  • nice guy — 10:56 AM on June 01, 2006

    I worked on Illustrator an Freehand, but Freehand has many features which makes work easier. And at all, there is no easy way to get your vektors form Illustrator in Flash!
    [Actually, exporting SWF from Illustrator does a very good job of preserving content for Flash, but you’re right that things can be much improved beyond that. –J.]
    Please spent time on developing Freehand!!

  • Glenn Fleishman — 11:32 AM on June 01, 2006

    I wrote what I think is a funny rundown about where the rumors started and led to. One guy emailing a French Mac site with paraphrased comments turned into a firestorm of “official” announcements.
    The tracking I did across three languages and five or six sites is at TidBITS: http://www.tidbits.com/.3c7a8c70.

  • Dean Roksandic Bembelembe — 11:46 AM on June 01, 2006

    The fact how Big you are, is shown by your relations to smaller than you. If Adobe is really that Big, it would listen to small people like Freehand users.
    In case you didn’t know, there is a online petition for Freehand and has massive response. Give your signature for the future of Freehand and leave a comment on the support page:
    http://www.enrichdesign.com/freehand.html

  • michael briney — 12:10 PM on June 01, 2006

    Freehand or Illustrator?
    Have used both. Freehand started to “lose out” to Illustrator when I needed truly precise measurement (for college textbook illustration); Freehand couldn’t cut it (this was version 4). Eventually dropped Freehand altogether with MX2003. If I want to do pagination and layout I use a Pagination and layout program (InDesign). If I need vector graphics, I use a program with that specifically in mind (Illustrator).
    Adobe with its CS Suite mentality continues to improve interapplication workability. Keep this up.
    If the conventional idea of a purchaser and a purchasee holds – then I would expect that Adobe would strip out as much of Freehand as it is perceived that Illustrator can use [and stay true to its nature] – and then sell off the assets to a willing buyer (Corel?).
    GoLive or Dreamweaver?
    Both have strong points. Both have loyal followings.
    If I use a WYSIWYG web tool its (mainly) Dreamweaver. I’d stopped using GoLive with version 5 due to the nature of the business I was doing, Dreamweaver was the tool of choice by all of the people I needed to work with (Disney). GoLive was considered only for interns (after other editors apps had ceased development).
    I’ve use GoLive on two projects in the last 5 years (client requests) and I do find the inface clunky and difficult to manage – especially in light that it is an Adobe Application(!). It didn’t seem to fit the rest of suites inteface guides, which slowed production.
    Bottom line: Integrated the two programs together. Keep the “Dreamweaver” moniker (it sells better) and go with that – neither are a perfect solution but together they might be.
    I’d like to once again enter a plea to bring back “LiveMotion”….
    -mb

  • Salim Hbeiliny — 1:32 PM on June 01, 2006

    I just want to add that I am a developer, and I find GoLive much better than Dreamweaver.
    Dreamweaver has more ready to use code in it which appeals to none developers, but it’s useless for writing your own code.
    GoLive features code completion, a window displaying all useful JavaScript elements (very useful if you have bad memory ;) ). In addition, it creates standard code, specially the layout grid (div styles), I laugh at people still using table. Additionally the css editor in dreamweaver is a joke. GoLive shows live preview of everything.
    In addition, the project management, no need to explain it is just all you need to manage all your files.
    I live in Lebanon, and I can say that many designers here use dreamweaver just because their teacher at university taught them html using it, and they have a very hard time understanding it and end up making pages with very bad code and unoptimized images.
    The good developers I know who use dreamweaver, use other software for CSS editing(top style) and the source view in Dreamweaver to write javascript.
    When Adobe and Macromedia merged I thought they’re gonna use the good features from both software to create something more mature, I really hope that they keep updating GoLive.

  • Greg — 5:33 PM on June 01, 2006

    Being an Adobe web professional (PageMill>CyberStudio>GoLive and LiveMotion) I would be very disheartened were GoLive cease to exist. Adobe is the leader in GUI logic and implementation (well, Apple ain’t bad either) and Macromedia has never really caught on in that regard. I’ve tried their products and they all fail miserably compared to their Adobe counterparts. I used Freehand and Illustrator in their first versions and beyond and Illustrator was much more user-friendly even though it might have been a few features behind. For me, I can sacrifice a few features if an application is -easy- to use and helps keep the workflow moving along and I can be PRODUCTIVE.
    I am hoping that Adobe can take the Macromedia products and do their thing with them and make them into killer applications like the rest of their apps are. Please! ;^)

  • Aled Brown — 6:55 AM on June 02, 2006

    GoLive is fantastic. I’ve used it since Adobe bought it (PageMill 3 upgrade to GoLive 4!). I have tried to get along with Dreamweaver many times but it doesn’t have anything on the absolutely amazing Site Manager in GoLive (try opening a DW site on your laptop after working on it on your desktop…). GoLive uses site files and remembers the state of uploaded content, no matter which computer you go to work with.
    After learning XHTML and CSS in college after being a long time table monster I have primarily used GoLive as a glorified text editor. I find it an excellent development platform for my PHP/MySQL work combined with XHTML and CSS. I do not use any of the GoLive visual tools anymore. Obviously the CSS editor is a fanastic boon in my working process. I will mock up a site using Smart Objects and Layout grids but then convert it to “Proper” standard compliant XHTML so that I am in control of it all.
    I have also tried developing like this in Dreamweaver but it doesn’t keep track of modified files very well at all.
    In GoLive the upload mofidied command is excellent.
    Basically GoLive is very friendly to the programmer.
    In the past I used to use all of GoLive’s visual JavaScript and Table layout functions and they were fine and easy to use. But as my skills developed I found GoLive was able to keep up just fine.
    I would be very very sad if Adobe canned GoLive…. they must at least take the site manager and CSS editor over to Dreamweaver before I’ll touch it.
    In fact… GoLive CS2 will probably do me as it is forever… just please make an Intel compatible version so I can buy a new Intel Mac Pro this year ;)
    As for Freehand… I used to use Freehand 3 and 5 the most back in the day. But when I found out that Illustrator embedded fonts in EPS files I switched. Freehand still doesn’t do that. Freehand does have a nice working method and Illustrator is more difficult to use. Having used InDesign since version 1 I’ve gotten more used to using Illustrator too.
    By the way. I work in an Advertising agency and my job lets me work as a Web Programmer one day and a Print Designer on another. Love it all. Wish I could make our clients change to InDesign… :(

  • mark rush — 9:07 AM on June 09, 2006

    You know theyve ditched golive and freehand right? the did a press release a week or so ago!

  • Andrewj — 2:27 AM on June 13, 2006

    Hopefully the great features all Pro Vector artist love in Freehand and it’s better performance will be translated to Illustrator. Please hurry up guys, some features have been missed for years inside of illustrator (Multiple Mirroring and Rotating in the real intuitive way of Freehand e.g.)!

  • Jason — 11:10 PM on June 14, 2006

    I am planning to enter a graphics design school, both of which use different web design softwares. One uses GoLive and the other focuses on Dreamweaver. I have taken 2 DW classes and found the program simple to use. However, I want to learn CSS, javascript, actionscript,etc. and I hear that GoLive can do all of that without the use of hand coding? Is that true? should i even learn coding at all? the instructors at the GoLive school told me that there is no need with this software out and it is a waste of time to do coding. Is that true?
    [I’m not any kind of authority, but my feeling is that learning at least the basics of the underlying code is pretty essential. Any DW/GL-style tool can go only so far in putting a higher-level interface on the code. And no matter how things *should* work in Web browsers, at some point you’ll inevitably find yourself mucking around in the code to diagnose browser-specific issues. So, my advice is to develop a good grasp on the fundamentals. After that you’ll better understand the power (and limitations) of different development environments. –J.]

  • johnnycat — 12:16 PM on July 10, 2006

    Freehand is the choice tool for allround design work in my country – Portugal, for sure! There are jobs that realy needs some other level of performance, like indesign for real extended paging works, but other than that Freehand does the job fast and good enough (sure there are lots of bugs and improvments to be made). Its easy, practical and versatile. It covers all jobs from logos, and illustration up to flyers, posters, small brochures, a real Swiss Army Knife.

  • Charles Haynes — 6:11 AM on July 11, 2006

    First off, I’m a Mac user and that puts me at a disadvantage with making any comment heard at Adobe. Like any politician in Washington the Adobe spin is how they always remember their Mac “origins” and will “always” support this and that; Mac, GoLive, etc. The larger market drives Adobe toward Windows and Dreamweaver, nothing else.
    Dreamweaver is anything but a dream. I use a combination of things to construct web sites, BBEdit, SiteGrinder, Photoshop, CSSEdit, etc., and GoLive. I was forced to work for a time with Dreamweaver and that’s why I can conclude that the market share alone drives Adobe. No body in their right mind, if they were working in web site design would opt for Dreamweaver’s ridiculous interface.
    I hope they sell GoLive to someone who can continue to develop it so we can continue to be productive. Afterall, if Adobe had developed and marketed GoLive the way Macromedia treated Dreamweaver GoLive would have had the marketshare and this would have been less of an issue.
    Adobe decisions for Mac users and maybe productivity in general… not so great. Except for Illustrator and Photoshop, of course. That’s no excuse for letting good software languish.

  • João Silva — 3:44 AM on July 31, 2006

    please merge Illustrator with Freehand, it needs a revamp, not a death.
    I’ve used it since version 3 until now and if adobe kills it, I’ll keep my machine un-updated forever so that I can still use freehand :)
    With dreamweaver, I think the same, adobe should merge Golive and Dreamweaver, both software can gain with marging the best.

  • pepe galleta — 6:43 PM on July 31, 2006

    Freehand is for loosers and lazy people who don’t want to update their minds.
    Freehand interfaces makes me sick, is unstable, cheap and sloooow (it takes hours to open a file with 20 highres files)
    It has multipages but its not a real layout software. Better use Quark or ID, you stingy guys!
    Try to create a printable transparency… puaj!
    A professional PDF… auch!
    Photoshop (PSD) integration? haha!
    TRY TO MATCH COLORS WITH TRUE PROFESSIONAL SOFT… better call Ethan Hunt for a Mission Impossible!
    and so on…
    Those who cries for FH have no place in the future of graphic communication, but don’t worry…
    you’ll always have Corel!!

  • Ngozi Pole — 3:26 PM on August 02, 2006

    We have been a loyal Adobe GoLive shop for 7 years or so (first using the product as CyberStudio), this is when the Senate was using Net Objects Fusion. My advice, for what it is worth, is to do what Adobe did when they bought GoLive. Simply the next edition of the products should allow the user to configure the tools and short cuts to use Adobe standard, or Macromedia standard tools. It may make some sense to merge both products into Dreamweaver, but I should be able to use Dreamweaver as I use GoLive… Tall order to fill..
    :-}

  • RamaFan — 7:14 PM on August 18, 2006

    I thought I’d add my two cents into this argument. I’m a designer by trade (architecture if you must know), and I’m a web-designer by hobby. I’ve used both GoLive and Dreamweaver for a multitude of different pages, as well as flash and even just straight notepad for HTML.
    The First thing you other designers need to know is it’s not ok if it just works. It needs to work WELL. Knowing how to code, or at least being familiar with code and what it does will drastically improve your sites and their visual appeal.
    Second, it is very, very hard to go in and edit GoLive code. Plane and simple. If I have to make emergency repairs to a site, or if I just need to edit small things quickly GoLive will not do the job. Its backside coding is horrible, hard to trace and awful at separating styles, HTML, JavaScript and other elements. How do I diagnose a problem if I can’t even find it?
    Lastly, If you have to work on a site that has been made using GoLive, yet you use another editor such as…say, Dreamweaver, or even BBEdit, you’ll be SOL when it comes to rollovers, frames, and JavaScript. For these reasons I stick with Dreamweaver.

  • Martin — 6:32 AM on August 19, 2006

    A technical question if anyone bother to answer.
    I have used Golive since 4.0. and I am now using Golive CS2.
    With CS2 my PC (new Dell) has to put in the turbo to do the job. My two HD makes a lot of noise and the PC gets slower minute by minute.
    I am using several software programs like AE, Avid Xpress Pro HD etc., but I can hardly hear the HD’s when I use those programs.
    What is it in CS2 that makes it slower than CS?
    Appreciate if anyone could give an answer.

  • Jonas Andersson — 7:34 AM on August 24, 2006

    I love Freehand. It was a pioneering program. Intuative and straight. It would be hopelessly sad to discontinue its development.

  • Sam Muldia — 12:26 PM on September 05, 2006

    Pepe, obviously FH shouldn’t be used for multi-page layouts with piles of high-res images. God knows I don’t (Quark or preferrably InDesign). But what FH excels at is small stuff like business cards, letterheads, flyers. Doing this type of work with Quark or ID is like going fishing with a nuclear bomb.
    And doing it with Illustrator is like sticking rusty nails into your eye socket. Yeah, you can design the thing just fine, but managing the results when we’re dealing with 5-10 different letterheads and 20-200 business cards using a single-page program like Illustrator is just barely possible. And why should it be? The name says it all – Illustrator.
    Cheering and jeering graphics authoring software like your football team is kinda dumb – one size does NOT fit all. Freehand (and Corel) fit into the niche between outright element design and illustration (Illustrator) and all-out layout. Or do you think it makes sense to create wedding invitations with the same software that they use to lay out an issue of National Geographic?

  • N. Jones — 3:56 AM on September 08, 2006

    Sam Muldia says it all. FH and AI are two very different applications with very different strengths. Users of each should respect each other for this reason; there’s nothing to be gained in a slanging match (Pepe!).
    We’ve used both since the very first versions, and our experience has proven that FreeHand wins hands down in preparing quick, accurate visuals for stationery and small brochures etc. And its integration with QuarkXPress has always been flawless. But FreeHand’s versatility and ease of operation have also made it our number-one choice for technical illustration and cartography.
    We’ve had the choice, and compared both programs in a tight, busy graphics/publishing environment over 17 years as each product has matured. It is not our ‘personal feelings’ or ‘likes/dislikes’ that have led us to favour FreeHand over Illustrator in all these years: it is the speed, accuracy, efficiency, flexibility and great ease of use that FreeHand provides over Illustrator under direct comparison.
    Both applications have features that the other does not. But we would consider it close to commercial suicide if a corporate decision was made within our company to remove FreeHand from our workflow. [And no, it’s not a question of how much legacy artwork we have on archive in FreeHand or Illustrator formats (an issue that Adobe is trying to address in it’s tech notes by promoting ways to transfer FreeHand files into Illustrator): it’s simply a question of forward planning for greatest real-world efficiency based on years of qualified experience.] Thankfully, FreeHand has spoken sufficiently clearly for itself over the years that no such decision would be conceivable.
    I certainly hope Adobe can see this for themselves. They are justifiably biased, of course: they invented PostScript, and Illustrator will always be their baby. But FreeHand is different; it’s the close family member that millions look up to and depend on for their futures, and would no doubt give greatly to save from an early and undeserving demise.
    Don’t shoot yourself in the foot, Adobe. Keep FreeHand different, and keep the program alive. FreeHand 12 for Intel-Mac would be the best thing you could do for yourselves and millions of users.

  • Lloyd Philpótt — 4:39 PM on October 03, 2006

    What would y’all think if Adobe developed an OM object based raster/vector program that included all Freehand, Illustrator, IGES, PDES, etc. (i.e., NURBS, B-Spline and basic geometry formats, allowing import/export of all file types used by graphic designers, industrial designers, cartographers, illustrators, architects, photographers, etc.?
    The product would not be a 3D modeling product to compete with all the CAD, form development, rendering and animation SW, but would be the designer’s integrator SW, tying product, packaging, graphics, environment and mapping to the presentation/publishing world. Front-end, back-end & in the middle.
    [Can we ship extra RAM and a smokestack for your machine in the box? ;-) It’s an interesting idea, but I’m not sure that a new app is what’s needed.
    We’re always pulled between the desire to offer comprehensive editing power and the desire to keep things simple/lightweight. One could argue (as many do) that our apps have grown heavy and intimidating as a result of each one trying to do too much.
    We’re thinking hard about ways to provide apps that run faster and feel lighter, while at the same time requiring fewer clicks per task. The process is ongoing, but I think you’ll like where we’re headed. –J.]

  • pt_dallas — 1:32 PM on October 16, 2006

    you are so full of it, i bet you never even used the programs extensivly… or you would know and tell the truth – illustrator has dozens of limitations and freehand actually has no limits! know before you go… silly people… FreeHand Rocks

  • Daniel Densick — 6:04 AM on October 18, 2006

    We serve multiple clients about 50% use sillystrator and 50% Freehand. My Freehand clients are in panic mode – but to keep their business I am offering free clases in sillystrator. The object of computers is to make our lives simpler, Freehand fits the bill. Simple, and faster… another blogger stated Freehand was slower. That’s strange, for me, on our system Freehand is much faster, sillystrator is a Dog on SAVES for some reason. I smelled this coming long ago,
    [Like, because Macromedia stopped updating FreeHand in 2003? Don’t be so quick to lay everything at the feet of Adobe. –J.]
    Adobe has had their monop with Photoshop, which I say to this day, is the best program ever created for computers, it does it all but great vectors, but I could see that coming eventually. If QuarkXpress folks were smart they would have bought Macromedia so they could have at least won the Bundles War. Poor Quark they Bundle nothing and still out run End-Design/Page-Faker. Excuse me while I go load Quark 7 on my Mac Pro.
    [You might want to read this Macworld report first. –J.]
    I hope Adobe will sell Freehand to someone. Or else, please get it up-to-date so my clients will not have to bog themselves down with Sillystrator…

  • Ellen — 2:56 PM on October 20, 2006

    GL v. DW
    I’ve used both and have done direct comparisons for how many steps it takes to complete various tasks. GL is by far quicker and easier to use.
    As a long-term devotee and advocate of all Adobe products, I beg you to please keep the GL interface!

  • Jay M. — 3:49 AM on October 26, 2006

    I came across this page after a hair-pulling incident with illustrator. And I miss my Freehand.
    If you take it away, give me something that will do the following:
    1. Design a logo with 20 variations, neatly presented 1 per page,
    2. Layout out and produce business cards (front and back), letterhead and envelope (all different sizes) using logo
    3. Use logo and elements to mock up a couple of web pages
    4. Take the same designed identity and lay out a 12 page brochure
    5. Do 1-4 all within ONE DOCUMENT.
    Oh, yeah, and give me the ability to copy and paste vector elements and type into flash. No exporting needed. Just Cmd-C, Cmd-V. Done.
    And I hate how I end up with heaps of files in illustrator just because it only does one page at a time. It’s just dumb.
    And Illustrator’s pen toll is clunky. Why do I have to choose umpteen different pen tools to do a couple of simple tasks? Freehand did them all with one.
    Okay, my illustrator rant is over. Thanks.

  • Randall Cohen — 12:22 AM on November 02, 2006

    I have been a Freehand user for 16years and would very much like to see it continued. The multi-page ability and its speed and intuitive ease of use make it a dream app.
    If Adobe decides to discontinue Freehand, I recommend incorporating it into Illustrator with a user interface which maintains Freehand’s functions within Illustrator.
    Another wonderful thing Adobe could do (and should) is to develop an Illustrator training program specifically geared to Freehand users.
    [As it happens, the Illustrator team has put together just that (PDF). –J.]
    By all means, combine the two applications, but leave Freehands intuitive functions as Freehand functions within the new application. Or create a preference option to allow Freehand functions to still look and feel like Freehand and possibly even allow Illustrator functions to work similar to Freehand. That would be a good interum application till we Freehand users learn the Illustrator thinking process (while Illustrator includes Freehand’s functions). But don’t throw out Freehand.
    Think of Freehand like a Leica camera, where they continue to provide service and parts for even the oldest models, while creating new models of a time honored workhorse.

  • Tom — 7:38 AM on November 16, 2006

    I love Freehand. It was a pioneering program. Intuative and straight. It would be hopelessly sad to discontinue its development.

  • ken — 2:58 PM on November 20, 2006

    I -as well- have been using freehand for 11 years and I live by the software. It’s fast, simple, clear in process and gets the job done well. Yes I know people like most what they know best. And yes I know Adobe has absolutely no love for Freehand (first hand experience) so I have tried to switch to Illustrator. I don’t want to become outdated and get stuck on an outdated laptop! I’ve tried to twitch 4 times in the 5 years… Absolutely no luck. Yes Illustrator has more features but also dozens more pulldown/panel/option buttons. You spend more time in the pulldown menus than you do designing.
    As test a friend of mine (adobe employee at the time) and I sat down and tested to see how AI and MF stood up to each other. AI did everything MF did, but MF did it MUCH FASTER!!! and there were a bunch ‘bells & whistles’ the AI had that MF was lacking. But hey real designers don’t need ‘bells & whiles’.
    I have nothing against AI, but I very much get pissed off at Adobe for trying to kill any form of competition in the market of vector illustration software, an Adobe monopoly is not healthy for any of us in the end.
    [Well, before Adobe takes too many shots on the chin for “killing” FreeHand, let me point out again that Macromedia stopped revving the product in 2003. That was all years before Adobe and Macromedia got together. –J.\

  • Collen — 7:03 AM on December 01, 2006

    You can design the thing just fine, but managing the results when we’re dealing with 5-10 different letterheads and 20-200 business cards using a single-page program like Illustrator is just barely possible. And why should it be? The name says it all – Illustrator.

  • Christopher — 6:46 AM on December 07, 2006

    Good post, Ken.
    Your posting were of great use in learning new information and also in exchanging our views. Thank you.

  • Karen — 7:26 AM on December 08, 2006

    At my company, we use Illustrator, Freehand (10 because we do not like MX), and InDesign CS2. In fact, we really only use Illustrator for single drawings, eps files and stuff like that. Otherwise, we use Freehand. For long documents (more than 8 pages), we are moving more and more to InDesign. We have a fantastic graphic illustrator (not me!), who loves Freehand, but he also sees the need to use InDesign for the larger documents (it’s just easier to manage the pages and multiple languages!).
    So, that being said, why can’t we have one killer app that combines the 3 programs into one? In this day and age, it shouldn’t be too difficult to have options for a single vs a multi-page document. There could also be functions for turning features on and off to conserve memory, if necessary. But believe me, it would take alot less memory on my machine if I could just have the one app open and didn’t constantly have to have Freehand, Illustrator and InDesign open at the same time, as well as all the other programs that I need to produce a single document.
    But in the interim, what would be really nice is if Adobe would have the copy and paste feature from Illustrator to InDesign bring text in as text (please!), and create some extensions/plug-ins that makes going back and forth from InDesign and Freehand easier.

  • Richard Hubbard — 2:38 AM on December 10, 2006

    What would be nice is if Adobe would sell FreeHand off to another company. I can understand why FreeHand wouldn’t fit in with Adobe’s current line of programs, but with the huge list of FreeHand users wanting a new version, I think Adobe would be respected by the FreeHand community if they would sell the program. If another company were to make an offer, would Adobe sell it? We FreeHand users love Adobe’s products like InDesign and Photoshop ao they certainly wouldn’t be losing customers.

  • Barbara — 8:46 AM on December 21, 2006

    Please keep GoLive, I use it and the coauthor feature. It is great… and the coauthor editor is free! My clients are happy. If coauthor was killed then what are my clients going to do.
    I think GoLive is a great program and reasonably easy to use.
    The coauthor feature has great potential to become more robust. Please continue to develop that. As in the ability to add more pages based on the same page layout.

  • Kolby — 9:50 AM on December 22, 2006

    Please keep FreeHand, or at least sell it to another software company… There are so many FreeHand users!!!!!

  • Henry Ortega — 1:26 AM on December 23, 2006

    I’ve been a loyal Freehand user since waaaaaaaaay back. I would like to suggest that Adobe should either sell the program to someone else (Apple are you listening?) or upgrade it to the Universal format to play in the new Intel Macs. I would hope that Adobe would see the potential that Macromedia (for the last 2 versions) didn’t have. Killing it off would be very bad IMHO, while integrating it into Illustrator may be the lesser of 2 evils. Please save Freehand.
    Cheers!

  • eero raunio — 5:18 AM on January 02, 2007

    Hello. I would like to add a comment from basically FreeHand country, Finland. I’ve used FH since version one, and i really know why FreeHand won the market here; it was intuitive and easy. I trained shortly for Illustrator, but had to give up effort. The logic of Illustrator baffled me.
    Since that i’ve see every typographic and layout crime committed with FH, and also great works of art and commerce. Printers swear resignedly at 20-page FH layouts, as do color proofers. FH continues, for people prefer known tools — and they have continuity from old work and templates. I understand them.
    But our office moved over to CS2 package and left FreeHand. Result is a different, new and better workflow, better color and profile control and, main point, sync with European and U.S. firms and agencies.
    I’m still a bit slow and unsure with Illustrator, but it will pass. It is just a tool, not religion.
    Eero Raunio, graphic artist, Evia Oyj, Helsinki

  • Sidsel Lorenzen — 6:17 AM on January 11, 2007

    Hej
    I’ve been using FH for 15 years and I love it. Now Ive got a Mac/Intel and some features in FH won’t work, like tje bezier tool, and line tool. What do I do?
    I have Illustrato CS2 as well, but I don’t like it and do so want my FH to work.

  • prasanth G — 11:54 AM on January 15, 2007

    Please don’t kill Freehand. It would be a great help for millions of users like me ,if, Adobe up grade it.
    Thax.
    Prasanth
    [I’m not entirely sure what would constitute “killing” FreeHand beyond the benign neglect it’s received for years (not updated since 2003). FreeHand hasn’t really been alive since then. –J.]

  • Dean K — 1:32 AM on January 26, 2007

    As a user of Freehand since version 5.5 (before that, Micrografx Designer!) — I make my living with this product. Some of its features (how about multiple pages, extraordinary text tools) aren’t emulated in Illustrator at all, so I’d hate to see it left by the wayside.
    Try changing point text to area text in Illustrator. In Freehand, it’s a one-click routine.
    In many ways, like our South African friend points out, Freehand is a publishing platform — competing with a mix of InDesign and Illustrator features in the one tool. I love creating multiple-page documents with text flowing across pages — arranging my pasteboard any way I choose (easier than InDesign and obviously beyond Illustrator’s one-page only setup).
    I need to know 2 programs (ID and AI) to replace what FH does — and given at least 10 years of daily FH use, I’d rather not abandon a productive workflow to start all over again.
    And can anyone tell me why AI launches Fireworks, not PS, when I “edit original” on a linked jpg??!
    [I believe it uses whatever file association is set up. So, on Windows, it goes with whatever the OS says, and on the Mac it goes with what the file says. At least that’s how it was last time I checked. –J.]
    Long live lovely Freehand!!
    Happy Australia Day to you all from Melbourne downunder.

  • silvio — 6:46 AM on February 24, 2007

    NUMBERS
    What could be the reason of dropping Freehand? One reason is surely that Adobe doesn’t want to produce two similar softwares. I understand this. The decision was taken by managers, obviously. Managers think in numbers. I’m a Freehand-user and I think in numbers too. Especially when I think spending all the hours learning Illustrator, then I will think in numbers. I will count all the hours I will spend learning a software that is supposed to be similar to Freehand (but isn’t in my opinion). I will count all the hours I will learn a software I don’t want to. Not to mention the hours I will get angry about Adobe-managers.
    [Adobe inherited a product on which the plug had already been pulled years earlier. –J.]
    Someone must tell them that Freehand and Illustrator are not the same. Like Mac and Windows. They only appear to be.
    And someone should tell them to either:
    – sell the code (to Apple or…)
    – or give it open source
    If they really think that Freehand isn’t worth a swiss-franc, then give it away for free.
    But they seem to be scared to do such things. Imagine Freehand would have been updated decently since 2003. What software do you think we would have now? A even more brilliant one.
    This comment comes from Switzerland. Greetings to Southafrica and Australia

  • Jaron W — 8:23 AM on March 05, 2007

    I find all these comments very interesting. I, myself, am looking into getting involved in web design and have started looking into different applications. These comments give me an idea of many of the pros and cons expereinced by others in the field. It’s like talking with the neighbors before moving into the neighborhood.
    However, one thing sticks out like a sore thumb. Several people have mentioned this already – you’re talking about different things. It is not simply that DW is better or GL is better – they’re just different! It’s like comparing Coke or Pepsi – that’s a matter of taste (or tradition/passion.) Or Mac v. PC – they have similarities but they are different! NOT better or worse. Point out how one application is better in a certain situation, THEN we’re making progress. But that doesn’t mean it’s better in all situations.

  • Mike Gould — 7:29 AM on March 19, 2007

    Well, I just cut an order for the Freehand MX upgrade – I wanted to get illustrator (and CS3 for that matter) but it all came down to pricing. I’d tried out Xara, but I like the MX interfaces better – made for more efficient workflow (for me). The one thing I don’t like r.e. illustrator (and most of the otherwise excellent adobe apps, is the load time and how much stuff gets put into memory before you can load a document. But the forward momentum in the long run is clearly on the CS side…if only the upgrade policies were a bit more liberal ;)

  • Karl Lalemand — 1:05 PM on March 23, 2007

    I like MILLIONS (well A lot) of users went an upgrade to Freehand …
    Heck I buy 2 extra lottery tickets each week hoping to win, so I can purchase it from Adobe … cuz I’m pretty sure they are going to mothball the competition:(
    I think you’ll find them trying to mix & match the two programs, and come up with one killer app.
    I for one want my Freehand back!
    I have both on my Mac, but I make my living (as meger as it is) using Freehand. I’ve been using it (and have almost all the versions and up-grades) since the begining.
    For me, it’s just easier to use. Yes I know it’s because I have been using it so long, but I don’t want to put that much time into Illustrator. I like many of us, will likely have to learn it soon, as what parts of it currently work with OS X, may not with Leopard, and I don’t see Adobe putting to much time into it, with all of the other programs they NEED to get ready. And hell, if we are forced to – we will upgrade and get use to the next best thing.

  • Christine Schmidt — 7:33 AM on March 28, 2007

    I have been using FreeHand since 1990. I design magazines using FreeHand and because of it’s amazing capabilities I am able to finish a 24-page magazine in about 8 hours. PLEASE continue to offer FreeHand.
    I also make my living using FreeHand.
    The only thing about it that needs improvement is the drop shadow effects – they don’t export as PDFs well.

  • Ken Lawson — 9:09 AM on March 28, 2007

    I noticed in the New York launch of cs3 products golive was not in the mix.
    Is golive going to die by neglect??
    Ken in Kentucky
    [Check out the GoLive page. There will be a new version (9.0) shipped later in the spring/summer. –J.]

  • Dixon Jones — 10:50 AM on March 28, 2007

    I’ve been using FreeHand since version 1, and Illustrator since version 3. There isn’t enough room here to itemize all the advantages I find in FH versus AI; I’ll reiterate the main one, expressed by others above, that I find FH is a cleaner, more efficient production environment than AI. I can just get more done, and do it more precisely, in FH than in AI.
    Having said that, I will also admit that 75% of what I used to do in FH, I now do in InDesign. The tools in InDesign are good enough for logos and simple stuff.
    Indeed, if (as looks likely to me) it is going to let FH fade away, I wish Adobe would do for vector-based drawing what it has done so admirably for desktop publishing with InDesign: start over from scratch, and build a powerful program, incorporating the best features of its predecessors.
    Of course, since all the “competition” is in-house, there probably isn’t much incentive to do that…

  • Michel Raj — 10:45 AM on April 19, 2007

    Please give FreeHand a chance. I am using it since v1, and still use it daily.
    What about a Macintel version ?
    I earn my life using FreeHand and don’t “feel” Illustrator.

  • Houari — 6:36 PM on April 22, 2007

    Hey guys! The decision makers at Adobe’s. The name says it all, GOlive not GOdead. I love GOlive and I am very pleased with all the work I do with it. I have faith in you to make it better and exciting, and looking forward to see the new version.
    Please keep it Alive.
    Thanks. Houari

  • Arabic Music — 5:28 AM on May 01, 2007

    I use dreamweaver for development, my recent project is ListenArabic.com : an online radio based on php and macromedia flash. However I have 80% of the time the code view mode or in some cases the split mode. I have never used Dreamweaver in the design mode because I write my own code and I need the full space to see all the functions. I will have to test the page in a browser later on anyway because the results in Dreamweaver design pane cannot be trusted. I haven’t tried GoLive yet, maybe I should give it a try. Keep up the good work..

  • toby — 12:51 PM on December 11, 2007

    Like a lot of you, i have been using Freehand since version 7.
    I work in the fashion industry where i use freehand for designing technical sketches as well as sketching ideas out with an intuos pad and pen. I have tried and tried to get used to Illustrator without much success.
    I know it is a great piece of software (for illustrators) but it will never be as effective and intuitive to use for me as Freehand is.
    The attitude from Adobe, forcing designers to migrate to an incomparable product through aquisition is unacceptable but of course great for business. I cannot work effectively and quickly to deadlines with Illustrator.
    I know a lot of companies in my industry are switching to Illustrator now that there is no more support for Freehand (they mostly work with PC’s, personally i choose to work on a Mac) and Corel Draw is not an option for professionals. Illustrator is too confusing for me and i have been using computers since the hey-day of the ZX80, so i consider myself experienced.
    I work primarily with paths, points, handles and masks. In Freehand this is intuitive and quick but in Illustrator i am always confused by the 2 selection tools, by not being able to select through layers with a click, adjusting handles is a nightmare for me in Illustrator, i still haven’t worked out how to join 2 points quickly and this whole mask instead of paste inside scenario makes me break out in a sweat. Don’t even get me started on multi page layout…
    I do not expect that anyone at Adobe cares enough to integrate these tools into Illustrator, there’s already an established base of Illustrators out there who are happy with their tools.
    Maybe it’s only the case that they have never experienced the benefit of these great and easy to use functions from Freehand? Perhaps it’s a case of ‘What you don’t know can’t hurt you?’ Maybe that should read ‘just because you don’t know about it, it doesn’t mean that you know best’.
    I am already hearing of many people having problems with Jaguar and Freehand. This is one reason for me and my company to hold off on upgrading. We have deadlines that we have to reach and we can’t expect our clients to wait until we get to grips with Illustrator. I waste too much time trying to use Illustrator for simple tasks and no, taking a class wouldn’t help, it’s not me, it’s the software.
    I think we can only hope that Adobe chooses to integrate some of these ‘missing’ options into Illustrator but to be honest i don’t think we will see any changes… why should Adobe change it? Everyone ‘in adobe’s eyes’ is happy with Illustrator. (Except most of the Freehand Users struggling to get to grips with an unintuitive toolset in Illustrator)
    I don’t want to have to work in several programmes when i can use one. Life is short, let’s use the time we have to be productive and then go home and enjoy our lives. It’s not all about work.
    I thank Adobe for making such fantastic programmes like Photoshop and Lightroom but this ignorance/ dominance in the Vector Graphic market does not help anyone except Adobe. So, Adobe, please act your age and not your shoe size and don’t ignore your customers. You bought the market, forced us to buy your software, please don’t force us to use your unintuitive tools just because you can.
    I would love to just have one programme for all my Illustration needs and when that has to be Illustrator because there is no competition, then that’s ok but please provide us with a working solution that speeds up workflow and not one that hinders it.
    Thank you.

  • dick — 4:08 AM on December 28, 2007

    http://www.enrichdesign.com/blogspot
    just go there guys and read what freehand is about. also the comments are nice to the interviews.
    http://www.enrichdesign.com/blogspot
    or here…
    there is nothing to say to nick. just this maybe…
    there are other good grafic software like:
    xara xtreme, daneba canvas, corel draw, expression design, inkscape…
    illustrator is in my eyes too slow and to clumsy. i am still with freehand. microsoft xp works perfect so why should i switch to this poor illustrator? evan after i learned it thru mordy cds and worked with it. i am not impressed. on ms xp i can easy work for the next 4 years still with freehand. guys there are also soon migration guides from freehand to other software on the market and i will look at it for sure.

  • Franz Mayer — 7:01 AM on January 22, 2008

    Adobe: bring back FreeHand or include all these better capabilities of FreeHand in Illustrator

  • Steve Payne — 4:39 PM on January 31, 2008

    Look at Adobe’s history. Remember Adobe bought Pagemaker and Freehand from Aldus, and sold Freehand to Macromedia. They marketed Pagemaker as their Quark killer app until InDesign came along. They bought GoLive and marketed it as their Dreamweaver killer. They market Illustrator as the ‘Freehand killer’ and expect some of us who have been around for a while to believe it. Get real! Rather fold Illustrator into Freehand and get a real killer app…Freehand Supreme XYZ.

  • J C — 3:58 AM on February 26, 2008

    I started my career on Corel… way back and developed a near holy fear of Freehand. But as the fates conspired, I ended up having to use Freehand and boy am I happy to say I’ve since fallen in love (and not at the expense of other software such as Illustrator). Freehand is like a giant virtual light-table! Absolutely wonderful! I am pretty sure that is also the reason for it’s continued support by many designers. Sure there are some graphic updates needed and some streamlining as well (in fact it would be nice to have Illustrator and PS brilliant colour handling – specially to digital printers ps or pcl). Adobe would do well to continue working on and holding on to FH.
    [And thereby continue to split resources between it and Illustrator, rather than combining efforts to make one best-of solution? Sorry, but that makes no sense to me. –J.]

  • John Joslin — 4:10 AM on February 27, 2008

    Your answer makes sense; but only if there were an assurance that the many unique and valuable features of FreeHand are woven into Illustrator. These have been documented at length on the Adobe forums.
    Otherwise sell it!

  • Gregory Wostrel — 10:03 AM on February 28, 2008

    @toby
    then keep using Freehand, for crying out loud.
    But, I have to say, it sounds to me like subconsciously you simply don’t want to switch. I mean “i still haven’t worked out how to join 2 points quickly”? select two pints and press command+j is so complex? or “taking a class wouldn’t help, it’s not me, it’s the software” – really? I work with a woman who is the fastest person on Illustrator I have ever seen and she flies through stuff, copy/pasting/selecting/moving/scaling/locking/grouping/masking/cropping like a demon (and she started out on Freehand). It takes time (just like it did for Freehand) but it happens.
    Besides, as a creative pro you should be able to get some work done in any of the leading graphics apps, IMO. For instance, I really liked GoLive, but I knew that I needed to know Dreamweaver because a client doesn’t want to hear about my preference for a program, plus I don’t like to put limits on my employability when I could do something about it.
    my 2 cents.

  • no way — 9:00 PM on March 06, 2008

    forget struggling with illustrator. freehand is the real quick deal. illustrator is by far more complicate to handle and this for the every day 100 times using commands. this makes 1 hour for sure longer work on illustrator. why should i work on hour more? for suporting a monopoly?

  • Miguel Monteiro — 8:56 PM on March 19, 2008

    Freehand rules, I love it and don’t want to stop using it. Adobe should keep developing and improving Freehand, that wouldn’t harm illustrator. And would be a way to keep users from switching to Corel Draw, or even better making Corel Draw users switch to Freehand. Just make Freehand work well with PostScriptm, adjust the colour handling, it would be the rebirth of a great software.
    Releasing a new improved version would make fans from all over the world buy it resulting in a boom in sales for adobe, and make all Freehand users love Adobe.

  • Scott G — 6:57 AM on May 08, 2008

    Cnet just announced that GoLive and FreeHand will be discontinued. You need to take down this webpage!

  • Jack — 7:24 AM on May 28, 2008

    Yeah, it seems like there should have been some blog post specific to this decision to kill Golive. I’m currently using Dreamweaver to manage all my existing Golive sites, and I have to say how appalled I am that Adobe gave DW precedence, considering what a sloppy, clunky piece of crap this software is compared to GL. It’s barely up to Adobe GUI standards and can’t even handle smart objects or maintain relative URL paths when you use Library objects.

  • Ann Shelbourne — 10:54 AM on May 28, 2008

    There is nothing to stop us from continuing to use GL if we want to.
    That’s what I am doing but, like you, I was bitterly disappointed by Adobe’s decision to abandon the far-superiior GL for DW

  • John McArthur — 4:50 PM on May 28, 2008

    I’ve been with FreeHand since it came out. I think late 80’s. It’s a far better program for my graphic business. Over the years I guess Illustrator corrected their shortcomings but AI still has only one working page. I bought a new 17″ MacBook Pro but FreeHand MX will not open. I’m sick about the loss of this fine program.

  • Mattyg — 8:02 AM on July 22, 2008

    Freehand is THE only multi-page layout/art/typo program I will use. Sounds like for the first time I will not upgrade to continue with this time saving software… Bring back Freehand!!!
    Thanks :)

  • PaulS — 2:30 AM on October 22, 2008

    I’m a graphic designer and to simply put it freehand is for professionals, illustrator is for wannabes
    [Obviously the market disagrees. –J.]
    an adobe equivalent of a microsoft product. Its only benefit is that it will open almost anything. I tend to use it to open difficult eps files and then copy them into freehand.
    [Wait–I thought FreeHand was perfect. –J.]
    3 essential programs in my mac are Quark freehand and photoshop. It seems the majority of us designers use this setup. Call us dinosaurs but we won’t change.
    [Okay. –J.]
    Hopefully Freehand will go OS or adobe will sell the code on.
    [That’s obviously, *obviously* not going to happen. –J.]

  • FrankG — 1:38 AM on December 20, 2008

    I just stumbled on this information today. I read quite a few posts that were listed and even though the decision on GoLive has already been made, I couldn’t help adding my half-dollars worth. : )
    I just received a book (Dec. 19, 2008) that I purchased on Amazon called “Adobe GoLive CS2 – Official JavaScript Reference”. It talks about the “SDK” – Software Development Kit that is part of the GoLive program.
    Our company is getting back into doing more websites for our customers along with the Custom Printed Business Promotional items that we do for our customers to promote their businesses. (Business cards, letterhead, key chains, apparel, pens, websites, banners, over 700,000 + items)
    Our motto is “from Business Cards to Websites”. That being said, we use a combination of Adobe Products to meet our customers needs/requirements. (CREATIVE SUITE 2, includes GoLive 8.0.1)
    We have been exposed to DreamWeaver and can appreciate its features. We have both, the GoLive CS 2 & DreamWeaver 8.0 Software titles.
    I, as a member of our Graphics and Technical Dept. (lead) will continue to learn and use GoLive CS2 as well as well as learn DW 8. We have tons of training materials both in print (Classroom in a Book Series) as well as on CD & DVD for the various products/ software that our Company has.
    Why are so many afraid of the lack of support for these programs, GoLive specifically? Adobe can decide not to support these programs (that goes for any programs by any company for that matter), but the fact remains that the Internet, in GoLive’s case, still uses PHP, JavaScript, SQL, CSS, XML, .jpg, etc. and as long as the Internet supports those things, GoLive, even in its last unsupported, unrevised, un-updated state can & will continue to create Great websites.
    Tables in HTML may be on their way out, but is that because of Adobe? No! The Internet drives what will remain in the content of web pages today and in the future. So I know I can still use GoLive CS2 today & 5 Years from now with our Creative Suite 2 Applications to create websites for our customers using Smart Objects, the grid and the CS2 Integration capability of the CS 2 Suite. How did we ever live without all the added tools and menus and . . . before? Just fine I’m sure.
    We do not plan to upgrade our applications for a few years! Even then, we can still use GoLive CS2 to Create Websites. Most revisions give you basically the same previous version with a few over-priced additions anyway.
    Look at CS3 & CS4! The Icons (now letters, AI, Dw, Fl, Ps?), even the program layout has been changed and we would have to re-learn where all the pallets and tools are! I don’t mind learning, but in this case it’s not necessary and does not make practical business sense. A few nice added features in CS 3, but . . .
    We’ll stay with CS 2 for awhile thanks. (I recently completed a Photoshop CS3 course (Dec. 15th, 2008 @ a community college) Even the college did not have any of the latest Versions of the Adobe Products that are being taught! What does that tell you? My Instructor who is one of the heads of the CIS Dept. there stated that the college would be skipping the latest version of Adobe products and would not be upgrading. The added features do not justify the cost. I would agree! Even if we did decide to upgrade in the future, we would wait for the CS7 Version! CS 4 would then be priced very attractively for the added features then. : )
    We have yet to tap all the features of our CS2 software and I’ve read every “CS 2 Classroom in a book” training manual in print! I still don’t know how to do everything the software Suite is capable of! (Don’t need most if anyway unless the customer wants something special and is Paying for it)
    Unnecessary! We always wait until everyone else has helped Microsoft fix all the BUGS & Incompatibilities in their software and operating systems before we get a later version of any software. How many people had problems with Windows Vista messing up their computers when it came out? We still have Windows XP on our machines. Our computers & network work just fine! No need to keep up with the Jones’s!
    We look at Adobe Software or any other Software the same way. As long as we can still create great work and make a living with the software we have, who cares who supports it!
    You can still hand draw a logo, scan it in and manipulate it with “Paint” if you had too! The World still supports that program!
    Our strength is in our knowledge of the software we have and the work process that is built around that software, supported & revised or not.
    Back to my GoLive CS2 Official JavaScript Reference Book! (just received Dec. 19th, 2008)
    : )
    Frank

  • Paramvir Singh — 12:37 PM on May 09, 2009

    this comment may have come too late, but I was really disappointed to hear about Freehand’s plight. I had learnt Illustrator BEFORE learning Freehand, in about 1995 or so, THEN i picked up Freehand and never looked back. Even today, I find Illustrator a pain to work with, though I am grappling with it, because I have little choice. I think developers at Illustrator should work in Graphic Design shops on Freehand for some time, THEN go back and recode Illustrator all over again. Its slow, it requires many more clicks to work the basic, some things it just cant do at all, and its basically a work flow irritant.
    PLUS it makes very very heavy files.
    cant adobe SEE all of this? all of its bloated software? InDesign is heavy and slow, so is the new versions of Flash and all Adobe apps? Why is Adobe READER a 210MB application? its just supposed to read, right? Preview does that as well, and its lighter and faster…
    Adobe, please, either revive Freehand or sell it to someone who is more sensible…

  • Chris — 7:44 AM on September 15, 2009

    Paramvir Singh is completely right! Something about the ‘professional use’ with Illustrator:
    Multipage Support in Illustrator? still a joke because the Artboard numbers cannot be changed afterwards, still no ‘soft separation’ within a text, extremly slow, heavy files, the mask instead of pasting inside feature is complete crap, embedded pictures cannot be taken out of the file, the text editing is slow like stumbling through slag, a complete joke, you can’t click through the layers, oh man, the list of Illustrator Bugs is endless.
    Freehand will be no longer supported & won’t run on Snow Leopard, CS5 won’t support PPC Macs that often are necessary to work properly with Freehand, it’s a shame, because Freehand was ten times better and is really needed for heavy, multipage vector jobs, especially for quick but extensive layouts that cannot be done with indesign (complex vectors..).
    Photoshop and Indesign are great software, but because they aren’t able to replace Freehand, it’s a desaster that Illustrator is a big step into the past. I’m working hard in the Design Business for 10 years and really feel fooled by Adobe, and with me every Designer i talked to that used Freehand for some years.
    John, it’s not about ‘don’t wanna leave an old program’, i’m sure Adobe still does not understand or ignore what basic features are still missing in Illustrator CS4.
    This software may be good to make an Illustration, but otherwise it’s pretty bad, even the Path-Tool is still worse than in in FH.
    Now, before i finish, let me explain shortly why “pasting inside” is another feature that is really needed in Illustrator, too (i explain it
    because some people try to claim the opposite although objectively not true):
    in Freehand, you just had to select the Object to paste inside and then select “paste inside” – done.
    In Illustrator you have to create a form, fill it (to use it as a mask), and put it over the object to trim first.
    what, if the object under the mask is only slightly bigger then the mask itself. It can become almost impossible to select both objects then.
    Also, the undo function often destroys it’s content (i had sent Adobe several files in the past, first, some mails back after months to solve the Bugs, then, no answer and no solution.
    Same with the Central European/Greek/Cyrillic Font Desaster.
    WHY the hell did you implement an import Feature with the ability to select
    “convert to outlines” (of what you claim to keep the original Artwork when importing Freehand Files).
    It does not. it completely fails, the Artwork with such fonts is completely destroyed afterwards, nearly no character is the same when using this feature.
    I also sent you files months ago, still no solution.
    You need more examples of terrible handling`? i could fill a book and sell it for big bucks like Adobe does.
    I’m really pissed of!

  • Bez Palmer — 4:06 PM on September 18, 2009

    Greetings,
    I write today as part of an effort to solicit advice in a matter of great concern to many who rely upon computer software for their livelihoods and the implications of Adobe’s (legal adjective removed) behavior upon those individuals. As the matter is outlined quite clearly on our organization’s web site, I will refer you there for further explanation.
    http://www.freefreehand.org
    Though our site has been live for just over a week, we now claim membership numbers approaching 2,000. If we can only raise awareness and reach the full extent of our potential audience, our belief is that our numbers will rise into the tens of thousand or perhaps greater.
    Once it’s clear that we represent a substantial community, we believe we may have more sway in the issue at hand. Efforts are currently focused on the question: how can we reach our audience in order to build the community? At this point we are an organization of minimal financial resources, but we hope to change that through donations in the near future.
    A number of online media outlets have reported the founding of our organization, but in Europe only. Oddly, the U.S. media seems intent on ignoring us.
    So far we have contacted the following organizations:
    EFF
    Free Software Foundation
    Free Software Foundation Europe
    The Federal Trade Commission
    The European Commission’s antitrust enforcement agency
    The California Attorneys General
    Consumer Union
    Public Interest Research Group
    Graphic Artists Guild
    We appreciate any advice you have to offer as we build our grassroots campaign. In part this is fueled by the fact that Adobe’s business practices have caused real harm to individuals and small businesses, and in part by the fact that, in principal if not in actual legal fact, Adobe has crossed the line in establishing a monopoly in vector editing software.
    regards,
    FreeFreehand.org

  • Chris — 6:09 AM on September 29, 2009

    (concerning the reaction of John Nack to PaulS – Comment)
    “I’m a graphic designer and to simply put it freehand is for professionals, illustrator is for wannabes”
    [Obviously the market disagrees. –J.]
    > obviously we in this Blog mainly disagree about your opinion, but you of course intentionally ignore this.
    “an adobe equivalent of a microsoft product. Its only benefit is that it will open almost anything. I tend to use it to open difficult eps files and then copy them into freehand.”
    [Wait–I thought FreeHand was perfect. –J.]
    > very arrogant and again overlooking the major bugs of illustrator – we all wished the Adobe Support would be half as active as your comments. The closed-minded ‘more money is better’ thinking of adobe reflects once again the ‘quality’ of their software.
    “Hopefully Freehand will go OS or adobe will sell the code on.”
    [That’s obviously, *obviously* not going to happen. –J.]
    > well, let’s see, there are more than enough Designers out there to force you soon!

  • Charles brooks — 1:04 AM on December 24, 2009

    How To Make money with affiliate programs Today. Affiliate marketing is the easier and probably the most effective method to make money from the internet. It is basically, a kind of selling technique where potential buyers from your website are directed to the websites of sellers. For every click, the website owner gets a small commission.
    http://www.onlineuniversalwork.com

  • davidbaer — 3:21 AM on January 11, 2010

    How To Make money with affiliate programs Today. Affiliate marketing is the easier and probably the most effective method to make money from the internet. It is basically, a kind of selling technique where potential buyers from your website are directed to the websites of sellers. For every click, the website owner gets a small commission.
    http://www.onlineuniversalwork.com

Copyright © 2014 Adobe Systems Incorporated. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy and Cookies (Updated)