Talk:Xara Designer Pro+

Update

In the meanwhile there is version 19 so this version overview is pretty outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C02:324:8D00:28C4:C4E1:A80A:1231 (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

NPOV?

"Xara X is also notable for its intuitive interface and very fast renderer." How is that a Neutral point of view? Claiming the interface is intuitive is entirely subjective and should be backed up. Description was improved to say it was easier for users familiar with Corel Draw to learn, thanks much better. —Horkana 14:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Famous Microscope Image

How is this image famous?? If I show the picture to 100 people on the street, I doubt I would get more than 2 who would have any idea what it represents, let alone call it "famous." 71.194.6.238 01:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, you don't know this picture as original Xara Xtreme vector graphic. There is something under the Microscope lens, which is only visible, if you zoom into the picture (up to 25.000% - the largest zoom factor of current vector graphics editors). --Remi de 13:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Xara X => Xara Xtreme

Xara X is no longer the official name of this excellent piece of software. —Remi de 12:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Moved. —Nightstallion (?) 11:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Propose a merge from Xara Xtreme LX to the main article Xara Xtreme

The article Xara Xtreme LX is marked as a stub and it's better to merge the facts into the main article Xara Xtreme. What's your opinion? --Remi de 12:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I've always been confused by this: What exactly is the difference? --Snarius 13:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Xara Xtreme LX is the open source version for Linux of Xara Xtreme. But therefore it isn't necessary to create a own article about Xara Xtreme LX. For the moment there are 3 different versions of Xara Xtreme available: Xara Xtreme (Windows, commercial version with commercial plugins), Xara Xtreme LX (Linux and in the near future also Mac OS X, open source) and Xara Xtreme XS (Windows, a light version of Xara Xtreme). --Remi de 10:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

After a quick look, I agree.--Chealer 00:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I've restored this because it's a different version, distinct by being open source. The project ([1], [2], [3]) currently looks inactive. But in that case it still deserves an article IMO, as a historical record. -- Trevj (talk) 06:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

The article currently contains a lot of unsourced glowing statements about Xara. These need to be sourced, and may need to be re-worked as well. For example:

Xara Xtreme is notable for its usability and very fast renderer. Xara Xtreme is also notable for being the first vector graphics software product to provide fully anti-aliased display, advanced gradient fill and transparency tools, now available in many competing products.

Among vector editors, Xara Xtreme is considered to be one of the easiest to learn, especially for those who have had some experience with CorelDRAW. In recent versions, attempts have been made to render the application appealing to web designers by adding tools for popular effects such as drop shadows, bevels, and navigation buttons. Xara Xtreme also includes tools for manipulating bitmaps.

Xara Xtreme, while not as well known as some vector drawing applications, has a rapidly growing and very loyal user base, with active forums and many user-created tutorials. Xara Xtreme is also used in Scottish high schools as part of their Graphic Design course

Most of the quoted paragraphs contain unsourced glowing claims of the product 203.109.240.93 13:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't make this article and I use Inkscape (not Xara), and though it does seem to state relative things "easiest to learn", "fast renderer", have you tried to use the program? Maybe the proof is in the pudding, and it is very easy to learn and very fast. For example, if you could make a comparison that compares this speed to that of other programs, and this is indeed faster (even if the study isn't cited), such statements show how this program is different than others. So, yes. Find sources. And rewording to remove "easiest" (make easy?) and "very fast" to fast.Althepal 04:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, this product is really notable for its usability and very fast renderer. As you know, the developers from Inkscape have oriented their User Interface after Xara Xtreme's User Interface, but why? Xara Xtreme offers a directly way to draw - not like some other tools as Adobe Illustrator with dialog boxes here and there. The difference between these two User Interface concepts are so large, that this is a outstanding feature/property of this software. The other point with Xara Xtreme very fast renderer is, that Xara Xtreme is one of the rare graphics editors, who owns a renderer developed in Assembler. The speed of this renderer makes the software the fastest vector graphics editor available. Try it by yourself. And the point with this is, that you'll find some graphics editors out there with modern features but nowadays, none of these companys makes himself the trouble to optimize their speed in this occurrence - most of them don't even know how to program assembler. And therefore the developing of a really fast graphics renderer is one of the most outstanding features of Xara Xtreme and should be mentioned here. But you're right, it's not possible to say Xara Xtreme is the "fastest" application out there if we talk about NPOV here in Wikipedia. But I think, "very fast" is no superlative for saying this. Remember, I'm not talking about marketing babble - I'm talking about real attributes of this product and I know also other well known graphics editors. --Remi de 19:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, guys. I tried BOTH Inkscape AND Xara Xtreme. Both programs are about as easy to learn to use as each other. Both programs are about as fast as each other. The video on Xara Xtreme's website (with a strong bias) states that it is the fastest and easiest to learn program in its class. The fact is, that is not true, and the video can not be used as a source for the article. Furthermore, they were comparing it to Adobe's program - not similar programs such as Sodipodi and Inkscape - to Xara, and the comparison they gave is of no use. Soooo.... Even now, the article's POV is not balanced. I suggest a thorough rewrite. Althepal 02:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I edited the article to a great extend, and I think the POV is pretty balanced now. Still, the program is not as good as some others, so I encourage people to put in facts and characteristics about the program which are negative, not just positive. There are also some fact tags that need citation. Althepal 05:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your edits and therefore reverted some of them. You're wrong, if you think, Xara Xtreme isn't as good as some others (or do you talk about the still not finished OpenSource version?). Xara Xtreme has much more features than Inkscape and if you try to create drawings with the commercial version of Xara Xtreme under Windows (free trial versions are available), you'll feel the speed difference between Xara Xtreme and other vector graphics editors. If you not willing to believe me, ask other professionell Graphic Designer's about this here. I've included a source with a speed test between Adobe Illustrator and Xara Xtreme in the article, because some Wikipedians needs facts and sources and all this stuff. --Remi de 20:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I used the trial for Xara Xtreme. It really isn't better than Inkscape and has only a couple features not found in inkscape. Have you tried Inkscape's v. 0.45? Althepal 20:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I just checked your edits. Now I don't want to get involved in edit wars, but, IMO, you are really just making the article less clear and making the POV un-neutral again. And the tag I had put on applies to the article and should be put back. I'll just leave with my opinion and let you do what you think is right. Althepal 20:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Your edit stating Inkscape's performance can be compared to Xara is far off the mark and false. It can be easily tested by anyone. (Actually, anyone who has done some complicated design with vector programs can recgonize Xara's outstanding performance instantly). All you need to do is find a vector image and import it to both Xara and Inkscape and duplicate it repeatedly, and you'll see how fast that brings down Inkscape to its knees. Inkscape has it strength, but that's not in the performance realm. You should remove the false statement regarding Xara's speed is "similar to Inkscape" from the content. You also need to remember that Inkscape has borrowed on Xara's UI design heavily when it comes to the comparison of ease of use.Wallness 04:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Wallness, Xara is not the king of speed, and this article has no right to make it seem so. And you are wrong. Inkscape is just about as fast as Xara, from my experience. I don't see any third-party tests referred to, either. I'll take your advice and test the two programs side-by-side. Althepal 05:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is still POV. E.g., it has no mention of Xara's limited SVG support. Althepal 05:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, do some test before posting your opinion again. It may help if you actually use the programs to do some design...I see you don't even understand why Remi uses Xara for bitmap editing, which again says you know very little about Xara. I don't understand why you keep trying to bring up Inkscape on a Xara page when you obviously have no familiarity with Xara - probably even not familiar with Inkscape either.Wallness 06:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't tell me what programs I'm familiar with. I've used both, Inkscape more extensively than Xara. I'm getting both programs onto a Linux platform to test them side-by-side. However, I have not noticed a difference in speed between the programs from my experience, and there is no third party test saying Xara is fastest, so this information must really be removed from the article. Althepal 18:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are my results, with two different files, of both Xara Xtreme and Inkscape running on Linux (Ubuntu). The first one was an SVG with gradient and text. Inkscape handled it fine, but Xara couldn't show the text or gradient. I converted the text to path, and Xara showed it, but not the gradient. Zooming in 8000% on the same part for both pictures, Xara seemed ever-so-slightly faster in rendering it. However, when I removed the gradient from the one shown in Inkscape (so they would be the same), there was no noticeable difference in speed. Then I tried another SVG file, this one with gradient, text, and blur. Xara was unable to show any of these, except a very bad reproduction of the gradient. Converting the document to EPS (which removes blur, I might add) and opening it in both programs again, Inkscape was fine with it, but Xara could not open it properly. Results: Inkscape and Xara have no noticeable speed difference in rendering of the same image as an SVG. Inkscape can handle various file types better than Xara (except it does not support .xar), and Xara only seems to be usable in its own .xar format. When Xara is in its own format, it is able to render images properly and quickly, as Inkscape is with SVG. BOTTOM LINE: Xara is not faster than Inkscape.

I think that takes care of it. A real test between the two programs. I think it's about time you thought about a change in your belief in Xara being so great. What experience have you had with Inkscape? Althepal 19:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I've seen online where some people say Inkscape is not stable and slow, and that it lacks features. I just want to point out, though, that they were probably using a development versions with bugs (however the most recent ones for me have been 100% stable), I don't know why people say Inkscape draws and stuff slowly; it has always been super fast for me, except with a lot of large-screen blur at high preview quality, and I could see NO difference between the speeds of the programs when testing. As far as features, Inkscape has a few good ones Xara lacks, and some features Inkscape "lacks" are really just not being noticed. You have control over distortions of objects, can easily make shadows, etc... Althepal 20:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I hate to pop you bubble, but again, your "test" shows the world that you have no idea what you are doing. The point of argument here is performance/speed, it's shocking to see your "test result" is comprised of nothing else but complaints about the ability to handle SVG import. (BTW, SVG is nothing to care abut outside of the Linux world, at least at this point. And your "test" was apparently done on Linux whereas Xara LX is already half-dead and the porting is far from finished. Also, different file format import has always been troublesome with most graphic programs - if you don't know about this, that once again shows your limited experience) The way you handled this test already gave you away. Please, keep on cruising the web and embarrassing other Inkscape users. I think after you have spilled out all the "quality posts" on the subject here, it's now safe for anyone to erase your edits here at anytime, since you have repeatedly shown the world that you don't know what you are talking about, and you showed no interest in finding the truth than trying to champion for Inkscape. As a side note to other people who happen to be reading this, I'd recommend Inkscape to everyone. It's free, it's got some really nice unique features, and it's got a huge potential ahead. But it's slow as hell compared to Xara. OTOH, everything else is slow compared to Xara, so being slow is not really that bad after all. Wallness 04:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Use google. Don't tell me you can't find many entries stating that Xara is much faster than Inkscape, and many of those entries are clearly written by Inkscape users. So everybody else is wrong and you are the only one who got it right then. Marvelous.Wallness 04:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you show me a study? Perhaps those posts were made on an older, slower version of Inkscape, or maybe they are loyal Xara users who didn't really test properly. That's why we need a real test. Sure, it could be that my tests were faulty, but Xara and Inkscape on Windows and Linux sure looked the same speed to me. Even live color modifications or blurs... We need a real test and not opinion. Althepal 21:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Wallness, you're really just blabbing. And I'm not saying that Xara is bad, either. I like it, but since Inkscape is free on all operating systems and is fully featured, it is my program of choice. Not only did I mention that Xara is not good at importing SVGs (which it claims to be able to do), but I said that the speed between the programs (even after Xara converted it to its native format) is the same. I compared them side-by-side, and I don't know how you can say that this means I know nothing of the subject. I don't know what you're doing, but Inkscape, like Xara, is like lightning. Illustrator, being a gigabite program, is naturally slow. But to the bottom line of what should be in the article, if you can't cite a real study, you can't say it is fast. You say test it out, and I did, and it is as fast as Inkscape. Got it? P.S., SVG is not just a Linux format, and it just goes to show your ignorance if you think it is. Wikipedia loves SVG, and almost all vector editors use SVG. I believe it was made by Adobe, Sun, and Microsoft, not some Linux guy, and it is one of the most popular vector formats. Althepal 06:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can only think of one good-natured reaosn why your "sid-by-side result" is so different from the consensus of pretty much ANY experienced users with Vector graphic applications on the planet: You didn't do the test correctly. I won't comment on other possible reasons. BTW, I agree that most vector programs do "support" SVG, but you don't find many people outside of the linux world use SVG that much. Wikipedia's support for SVG doesn't mean much IMHO. Also a newsflash for you: Adobe has already officially abandon future development on SVG. BTW, Adobe Illustrator is actually pretty fast in redraw, much faster than Inkscape too. It's just AI eats too much RAM, but that's another story. It's your playground here now as I have no interest in edit war with you. Enjoy it. Wallness 11:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I'm not interested in edit wars either. I just wanted a seemingly POV statement to be supported. In my test, I had the two programs open side by side. I had the image scroll to another area (the same area for both), and I saw how fast it took to render the drawing and show it up on the screen. They were the same speed. Truely, I don't see why everyone says Inkscape is slow. It is always lightning fast for me, except for very complex drawings, in which case I've noticed Xara is also not so fast. Now, I don't like being insulted for performing a test to try to prove or disprove an unsourced statement in an article, but in my policy of being a pal, let's be friends and not fight or name-call. If you want to make an edit, feel free to, just please keep in mind Wikipedia NPOV policies and cite all questionably POV statements. Althepal 21:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Althepal, please do some speed tests under Windows with the comercial version and not with the V0.7 (it's not a V1.0) under Linux, ok? And speed tests means, that you use complex drawings and tests the drawing speed and the speed to work with complex drawings. I'm not talking about some lines and some shapes. I'm talking about "real" drawings. Xara Xtreme is much more faster than you like. The only problem you has, is that you are an Inkscape fan and that you don't like to hear about the better speed of Xara Xtreme. The other problem is, that you only knows the Linux version of Xara Xtreme and this version is still a beta version. --91.33.244.31 23:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. When I get the time, perhaps I'll perform complex more tests in Windows or Mac. However, I don't think that being beta would translate into a slow program. It seems good enough to be used as this article's screenshot. I mean, talk about version 0.70, Inkscape is only version 0.45! And yes, while I am fond of Inkscape, that is not the reason I didn't want this article to talk about speed. There was just no real source for this statement, with the only test being performed by Xara and that test being between Xara Xtreme and AI, and AI is probably one of the slowest programs for vectors. If you could show a third party test between Xara and at least two other editors, I think this would be fine to put into the article. Althepal 00:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You know what? I'll grant that this is a fast editor. I made a complex drawing with Xara, and it is fast. When zoomed out, changing colors and moving objects looks a little faster than in Inkscape, but not significantly. Even with blur and many elements, it drew it fast. When zooming in on blurred objects, though, it was very slow, even slower than Inkscape. So, it is fast, but it isn't exactly correct to say that it is very fast or all around the fastest program. BTW: Where can I find the .xar file for the microscope image? I'd (really) like to see how fast that opens in Xara. Althepal 00:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Xara Xtreme under Windows

It would be possible to compile XaraXtreme for Linux in Windows? Cedric S. Graebin 16:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the Windows versions use another code base. But I think, it should not really a big problem to pay 79 bucks for the comercial Windows version... --Remi de 19:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

And it should be less of a problem to download something just like Xara for free: Inkscape, Sodipodi, Synfig. Althepal 06:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Althepal is right. But if you like to use Xara Xtreme under Windows, there is only the commercial version available. It depends on your needs and I would recommend to do a test with all these vector editors (there is also a free trial version of Xara Xtreme available under Windows). I know (and use) Adobe Illustrator, Inkscape and other (bitmap) graphic editors, but personally I prefer Xara Xtreme. --Remi de 20:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hold on a second, Remi de. What do you mean by "other (bitmap) graphic editors"? Xara's image editor is very nice, but it is nothing compared to Photoshop, GIMP, Helicon Filter, and the like, and it isn't the main part of Xara Xtreme. So what do you mean? Althepal 06:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

As I say: I know (and use) three vector graphic editors and also some other bitmap graphic editors, but I prefer Xara Xtreme. What's your problem with my statement? --Remi de 13:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I was just confused. I thought you were saying that Xara Xtreme was a bitmap editor, which it isn't. Althepal 17:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

$79 isn't exactly a lot to pay, although with Cygwin you could compile an app.. Or even a native without it? Give it a try.. --172.200.35.121 21:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)