Talk:Comparison of vector graphics editors

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Google

Sketchup doesn't belong in this list. It's a 3D program, not a vector graphics one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.5.232.14 (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Have to agree here. SketchUp may be able to export to PDF and print line drawings, but it is NOT a vector graphics editor any more than most 3D and CAD programs. At the very least, one would expect a vector graphics editor to include traditional support for strokes and fills (both of which are handled in a completely different way in SketchUp), accurate color control (SketchUp mixes colors with it's basic light source), curves (SketchUp only offers polygonal modeling, and therefore all lines are straight and "curves" are made up of segments), import and export of common vector formats (SkethUp only offers basic rendered output to PDF and transfer of common CAD and 3D formats). Also referring to it's max 3D dimensions as a page size and some arbitrary number for 3D camera control as a 2D zoom is ridiculous.

If anything, Layout (which only comes with the ~$500 Pro version of SketchUp) could be considered a vector graphics program, but only as much so as the layout mode of AutoCAD. It offers stroke and fill control, curves, page layouts, and exports to PDF (yet not much else, and good luck getting an SVG or AI file into it), but since it's more of a supporting mode for SketchUp and not very useful of accessible on it's own, probably should not be here either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.178.138.55 (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

✅ Removed. Nikk ca (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

In the general table, the names Corel and Adobe have a link while OpenOffice and Inkscape Team doesn't have a link. There is however a good community website for both of those projects. When checking the source code from the general table for updating some information. I see that there is no link where the names adobe and Corel are, how does this works? Thelennonorth (talk) 14:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, those are wikilinks. When you click Adobe or Corel in the table, you'll open their pages on Wikipedia that discuss both companies. Wikilinks are created by putting double square brackets ([[ and ]]) around a term that has a page on Wikipedia. For more info check Wikipedia:Tutorial (Wikipedia links) and Help:Link. — A. Rad (talk) 07:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Article aim and impartiality

Impartiality

Oh boy. In its current state, the article is pretty much a joke. No real comparison between apps is being made. I added some links and put it into a sensible stub category. I'm afraid I don't know anything about the various editors, so I can't put even a stub-worthy amount of information into this. --Moritz 9 July 2005 13:31 (UTC)

  • What this article really needs, to be worthy of its current title is a table actually comparing the features of the programs depending on certain criteria. An example of this is in the Comparison of operating systems and Comparison of text editors articles, but comparing just CorelDraw and Illustrator wouldn't be very informative to say it's comparing all vector graphics editors - So Freehand should be added as well. --Wackymacs 07:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The use of partial for inkscape is biased and inconsistent. Many of the other vector applications (including industry standard applications) have incomplete support for eps yet are designated by a green boxed yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.53.94.158 (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Strong free program bias?

It seems like there is a significant bias in the tone adopted toward the various programs discussed here. Illustrator is the industry standard for a reason, and after the learning curve it is a more powerful program than the open-source options. It seems to me like the Inkscape hype should be toned down, and the Illustrator section fleshed out, if this article intends to be an honest comparison. Each Inkscape feature mentioned as notable has been included in Illustrator for several years. It seems misleading to gush about Inkscape's use of SVG, and criticize for only adopting SVG "recently", given that Adobe has been involved in the definition of SVG longer than Inkscape has existed as a product. I appreciate that open source software is beneficial to the society, but this article should attempt neutrality. --jacobolus (t) 14:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

That prose at the beginning of the article was added by one user, and I guess no one else noticed. I was going to fix it up but it slipped my mind and never got done. So feel free to go on and heaviy modify and change the text, as it is not the result of several editors going over it but rather just one persons opinion. Qutezuce 05:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I have a problem with the use of the term "industry standard". Better for me is "market leader". Adobe Illustrator is great and all but standard suggests to me that it uses a format or had a GUI on which everyone else models their software. Last I looked .ai files had a lot of proprietary junk that didn't import well elsewhere. If we mean "sold the most copies" or "most widely used" we should say that, "industry standard" is vacuous and of uncertain meaning - marketing speak if you will. : Pbhj 15:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "industry standard" means precisely what it says: in the industries that use such products (graphic design, prepress, press, advertising), the standard piece of software in use is Adobe Illustrator. No value judgement is being made. it is a statement of fact, quantified through market share. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.149.130 (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • This article is about comparisons. The term "industry standard" has been questionably defined here. At any rate, it's more relevant in an article about Illustrator. I'd rather see present comparisons without "who's first" statements. Why not suggest more points of comparison for tables? Surely that's the best way to argue quality? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.200.196 (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The term "industry standard" is completely inappropriate for a product. If Adobe Illustrator has the biggest market share in some segment of the market, that may possibly be worth mentioning, if it can be supported by a citation to objective data. But that doesn't make it a "standard". Is Coca-Cola the "industry standard" soft drink? Barbacana (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm interested in a comparison of market share for the different editors. I can't seem to find any up to date information. Can anyone help? 204.186.62.184 (talk) 10:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think marking open source software with a green "yes" and closed source with a red "no" also violates NPOV. Doing it this way makes it look like a feature, as most of the other things that have that are. I am going to remove the color for now. Asmeurer (talkcontribs) 03:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. Open source is a feature, because it facilitates modifications that would otherwise be impossible. Cburke91 (talk) 06:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I ended up just deleting the whole column and making notes on the free ones. The column was redundant anyway, considering the license column. Asmeurer (talkcontribs) 03:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Article Aim

Rewrite

I rewrote the intro, removing the redundant "what is vector" and "what is SVG" information that is plentiful elsewhere. This article must primarily consist of tables with a brief intro. I'm also going to remove the paragraphs on individual edutors, moving that information if necessary to those editor's articles. Trapolator 02:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Update

I tried to fix what I thought were the most blatant problems, and added a couple more apps to flesh out the description. I didn't put them in the chart, though someone probably should. There is still much to do to fix this article up. There is currently no mention of PS/PDF, which are still the dominant outputs from vector graphics editors. SVG is nice, which is why both open source developers and Adobe support the standard, but PDF is still far more common.--jacobolus (t) 14:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

I've requested a move to vector graphics editors, as that is the proper encyclopedic name for an article on vector graphics editors. donhalcon 17:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. For all major types of software, we have a "what is" article, a list article, and a comparison article. They are different for a reason. Vector graphics editors should not be an exception. Trapolator 02:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)



Basic features

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI