Why not reporting on DSO is better than Cube,DSO is more denormalized?

Hi,
As it is said that for better reporting response, all dataware house solution are denormalized. Normalized tables take more time in executing report.
Then why not reporting on DSO is better than Cube?
Cube is said to have multidimensional structure. But DSO has more denormalized data than cube.
Please correct me..." Cube is not completely denormalized". It has links between fact table and dimension tables.
Thanks !!

Cube reporting is the part of standrad datawarehousing design. Please read kimballs DWH books for more details.
Please help us keep the forums clean and open useful information only.
For more information search on help.sap.com and you will get lots of material on this topic.
Regards.
Den
Edited by: Dennis on Nov 2, 2010 10:57 PM

Similar Messages

Why is Acrobat Comment via Email better than Word?

I have to do a major presentation on Commenting using Acrobat
Commenting via email. I have used Adobe Captivate to create a great
presentation but I have just anticipated that someone will ask me
why they should use Adobe rather than Word. Although I am convinced
Word must be inferior to Acrobat I don't know exactly why.
I have to do the presentation Monday afternoon. Can anyone
give me a great list of reasons?

Thanks I did some thinking and here are a few more:
More ways to comment e.g. call outs, high lighter, thought
bubbles, arrows as well as text edits.
Security.
Better tracking; who has it been sent to, remind recalcitrant
reviewees, sort comments, ability to invite new members. Many
people can easily contribute.
The author is in total control of the document.
No issues with mixing up versions.

What's better than Illustrator?

I've been using Illustrator for many years and several versions. My usage is nominal and occasional/once a week, and I don't get very sophisticated for my needs, so it has been OK so far. I do not do commercial work but know Ai is the "de-facto std".
But I read this forum often and see many criticisms of Ai and I do have occasional issues with Illy with tools and UI....just not as easy or robust as it could/should be...cumbersome at times.
I see JET and others here make great use of Illy but also criticize (justifiably) it for not being as good as other vector tools.
I know there are competitors, Inkscape is free, others less costly than Illy; and seemingly better/easier/faster to use...at least for some things.
So my question: What is better than Illustrator (I'm using CS5) and why? What can they do better than Ai? Is it worth having a second program and learning (tho I suspect the learning curve should be easy as they do similar things but have different GUI). Or replacing Illy with something?
Pro's/Con's that would make one make the effort to try/use something else? I don't even know what out there is better than Illy. I've searched www and got a few hints but nothing very significant.
Am I wasting my time looking?
Your feedback welcomed to help me decide whether to explore/trial other programs.

I see JET and others here...criticize (justifiably) it for not being as good as other vector tools.
I can't speak for "and others", but since I'm the only one you mention by name:
If you've already deemed the criticism justifiable, then you must already know what that criticism says. When I criticize Illustrator, I don't just say "Illustrator is crap" and leave it at that, unsupported. I'm careful to explain myself with facts pertinent to the context of the discussion. I actually own and know how to use the other programs to which I compare. I've often posted lists of comparitive features.
I've always used my real name here and sign all my posts with my initials. So finding my comments is not difficult.
I know there are competitors, Inkscape is free, others less costly than Illy; and seemingly better/easier/faster to use...at least for some things. So my question: What is better than Illustrator (I'm using CS5) and why? What can they do better than Ai?
Didn't you just answer your own question? Other than the broadly general things you just mentioned, what program do you want to compare, and for doing what? Surely you're not asking someone to do an exhaustive feature-by-feature comparison between Illustrator and all similar programs in this one thread?
All you've said about what you use Illustrator for is that your use is nominal, occasional, unsophisticated, and non-commerical. Mine isn't. Commerical graphics has been my livelihood for over 40 years. Vector-based illustration is both a speciality and a passion.
I...knowAi is the "de-facto std"
"Defacto standard" is self-fulfilling. It's effectively equivalent to saying "More people use Illustrator because more people use Illustrator."
So what? More people ride Vespa scooters than KTM motorcycles. But which one would you call "professional quality"? You can use either one to pick up a gallon of orange juice at the corner store. But if you enter an enduro, the KTM will get the job done with alot less stress.
The myth is that most software buyers choose the best. That's as naive as the faith that most voters do.
Illustrator has been slothfully resting on its "defacto standard" haunches since the dark ages (AKA the 80s). "Defacto standard" be hanged.
I do have occasional issues with Illy with tools and UI....just not as easy or robust as it could/should be...cumbersome at times.
Okay. What issues? State something specific and users actually familiar with other programs can compare.
This is the 21st century. There's really little new under the sun here. A 2D drawing program is just an interface pasted on top of mostly the same old geometric functionality. The competitive advantage goes to the offering that best (easy) and most fully (robust) empowers the user. The multiplication of easy and robust yields elegance. That's a term I've never applied to Illustrator. Illustrator is one of the oldest of the bunch, lounging under the sun for so long it's at risk of skin cancer. Yet it still fails to provide basic functionality users of other drawing programs have taken for granted for decades.
Examples that may be germane to your casual, non-commerical use? Try these things in Illustrator:
Star Tool: Draw a star. Now change the number of points it has.
Arc Tool: Draw 36 degrees of a circular arc.
Label that star with a dimension.
Distribute a group of different objects along a curve.
Uniformly space Blend steps along a non-uniform curve.
Attach a Blend to a closed path and have the first/last instances properly positioned.
Knife Tool: Cut across an open unfilled path.
Connect a text label to an object that stays connected when you move it.
Paste a simple graphic into a text string so that it flows with the text.
Perform a Find/Replace on carriage returns.
Round Corners: Apply it to an accute or obtuse angle and have it actually yield the radius you specify.
Crop a raster image.
Rotate something. Go back later and find out what its rotation angle is.
Pathfinders: Use them without wrecking existing fills/strokes.
I could go on (and have). How long a list do you want? All the features/functions associated with the above basic operations (and many more) are substandard, half-baked, or even non-existent in Illustrator. This is "professional"-grade software? No, it's largely consumerish rubbish sold at exhorbitant prices just because it's the "defacto standard."
Is it worth having a second program and learning...
Obviously, it is to me (and a third, and a fourth, and...). As I've said many times in this forum, I don't know how anyone can legitimately claim to compare two programs if they've only got workaday familiarity with one.
As with any other endeavor, the more drawing programs you're comfortable with, the less arduous it is to pick up another, because you tend to pick up on the underlying principles involved, as opposed to just becomming habituated to a particular program's command locations and procedures by rote.
But you've been using AI for "many years" and find it to be "OK". So if you're happy with it, use it.
I have a cheap, consumerish Ryobi table saw and it's "OK." But I didn't pay a professional-grade price for it, either. And I'm sure not going to write glorious reviews on it, call it "professional," and get all fearfully brand-loyal defensive about it if someone dares suggest I might ought to learn to use a different one. My use of it, like yours, is merely occasional. But I also presently need to build a TV cabinet, and I'm dreading it. If I were to open a cabinet shop, I'd be much more discriminating, and would do my own homework to make an informed decision.
Or replacing Illy with something?
One doesn't have to "replace." There's nothing any more wrong with using more than one 2D drawing program than there is with using more than one 3D modeling program, or raster imaging program, or page layout program, or word processor, or video edting program, or....
Pro's/Con's that would make one make the effort to try/use something else?
That depends on what one is doing with it. Not knowing that, I can again only offer generalities that matter to me: If you've only ever used one program of a particulat kind, you're rather in the dark regarding functionality that you may be missing that may be important to you. (Second-degree ignorance: You don't know what you don't know.) If you're mission-dependent upon that one program, you're also kind of captive to the whims and agenda of its vendor.
That very well may not matter to you, given your nominal, occasional, unsophisticated, and non-commerical use. And if so, that's fine.
I don't even know what out there is better than Illy. I've searched www and got a few hints but nothing very significant.
But you just said you've been reading a bunch of posts here which mention other programs.
Am I wasting my time looking?
Only you can answer that about your time. Time is all any of us have.
Your feedback welcomed to help me decide whether to explore/trial other programs.
No offense, but frankly it sounds like you're just not motivated enough to do your own homework. If you are sufficiently motivated, visit the websites of other drawing program vendors. Read the features lists. Dowload the demos, read the documentation, and try them out. Visit the programs' user forums. Or, if it's really not that important to you, don't.
If you've got questions about specific functionality and/or specific programs, be more specific about what you do (or want to do).
JET

Overriding doPost() better than service() method

why overriding doPost() or doGet() is better than service() method
in servlets
thanx

One reason is to help break your code up into more manageable pieces. For example, let's say you have a page that displays a list of Employees when called via GET, but also includes a FORM that lets you delete employees based on checkboxes included on the form with a SUBMIT button. If you use the doService, you'll probably have to do something like this:
doService(request, response) {
if (request.getMethod().equals("get")) {
// handle GET logic
else {
// handle POST logic
}However, if you have two separate methods, it makes the logic a little simpler. For example:
doGet(request, response) {
// handle GET logic
doPost(request, response) {
// handle POST logic
}The distinction is fairly minor, but I do think the code is cleaner without having to check for gets and posts. With that said, I have plenty of servlets that use the doService() method because there is no distinction in those servlets between the doGet() and doPost() functionality.
Michael

Data model that takes part of data to DSO and part to cube

Hello experts,
I have a question about the data model I am currently working on. This model is about a reservation agency, where a customer contacts the agency through a sales representative and makes a reservation for a certain event. He later has the option of confirming or cancelling the reservation. We will be receiving data for future reservations every day, with the updated status of future and recently past reservations, sales representative in charge of the reservations, income that will be perceived from each reservation (if the reservation is confirmed) or that was perceived if the event already took place, and more.
I have found the need to use a DSO to update the reservation status of incoming reservations, as well as other fields. I am loading from a flat file with 20 fields, and the destination is a cube, after the data gets cleansed in the DSO, where there are 2 key fields (reservation code and reservation date). However, not all the remaining data from the flat file needs to get updated. Out of the other 18 fields, only around 9 may change on an update, while the others will never change (for example, the customer name, confirmation date and event name will not change, while the sales representative, reservation status and income perceived can change from one day to another).
I was designing a model in which the DSO contained all 18 non-key fields as data fields, so that everything got updated and passed to the cube, but then I thought that perhaps since many fields will not change, it would be better if the DSO only updated those fields that could actually change, while the other fields "jumped" directly to the cube. After the DSO updates the changing fields, the others will already be in the cube. This way, the DSO would receive and have to process less amount of data, making the DSO tables smaller and the process more efficient. But I cannot find a proper way to do this from a single data source, since the data has to pass from the data source to the DSO and then through a transformation from the DSO to the cube.
Is there a way to accomplish this, or should I just have all fields go through the DSO and from there to the cube?

Hi, thanks for the suggestion. The reservation code, as of right now, is not master data, and it is unique almost always, except for rare occurences where the same customer makes several reservations, each one for a different date (that is why for the DSO I am using as key fields both reservation date and reservation code). Because of that and the fact that there are lots of reservations made each day, we had defined that object without master data (since the master data table would be huge in a short amount of time). Perhaps I should change it to become master data? Or what should we do?

Can anyone tell me why javaFX better than applet?

I just have read the example of javaFX.And I have a question.
From the example.I don't see any good in javaFX.below is my opinion:
1.It seems like that the javaFX application is deploy as a applet or jnlp.This is what swing can also do;
2.javaFX's expression is sucks.Why don't use xml to declare the UI? I think as the application becomes larger,it is so difficult to maintain the project.But if I use swing or applet,I think it is better for me to maintain the project using oop.
3.I think what javaFX can do is also can be done by swing,why javaFX?
any apply is appreciated,thanks very much

Hi
1. JavaFx it is build over the Java2D and Swing. In fact it can not run without this 2 component ( at least now ). So what you can do in JavaFX you can also do on Swing and Java2D
2. I don't think xml syntax it is good to describe stuff like this . XML was design to store data not actions. When you design user interface you must declare what components or shape do you want to draw on the screen but also you must write the interaction between them . I don't think you can do this easy and nice in XML. Look at the Flex approach . They used for declaration of the GUI an XML and for comportment ActionScript. I don't like this because i must learn and study two "languages" to make a GUI.I've preferred one language.As you said it is better to use OOP . How can you do OOP in XML in a nice way ?
3. Because in JavaFX we do can more things easily . Look at this example : [http://silveiraneto.net/2008/07/31/javafx-creating-a-sphere-with-shadow/] . I don't think you can achieve the same results with Swing and Java2D with the same code line number.
Another difference between JavaFX and Swing is the syntax. The Sun want to create a language that can be used by designer and by programmer . The Swing can not be used by a designer . JavaFX used a more natural syntax. For example if you want to insert a shape in an array you must type in JavaFX :
insert Circle{radius:10} into array_variable . As you see it is more natural this syntax than Java equivalent.
Another difference it is how easy you can do things in JavaFX correctly . When you program in Java2D and Swing you must know very good the architecture of this components if you want to work correctly . You must know what is the Event Dispatch Thread and how you can used it . You must how you can work with multiple threads in Java2D and Swing . In JavaFX you don't need this . All of the tricks it is done by JavaFX ( not in this release . I hope the final release it will contains all these tricks) .
Best regards
Andrei Dore

Why Annyconecct is better than vpn client ?

why anyconnect is better than cisco vpn client ?
what is its advangatges ?
i think that both are remoteaccess vpn .
why its better ?

The other thing is that, Cisco does not support traditional VPN on Windows 8.X. I have run in to lots of issues trying to install Cisco VPN client on Windows 8.x clients.. it sometimes work and sometimes it needs registry hacks etc.. really painful setup for the network engineer. So Anyconnect is preffered.
Also, since SSL uses port 443/SSL by default, it does not need any ALG (Application Layer Gateway) functionality in remote end user's routers to operate, and will simply work with normal PAT which is always on.. with traditional IPSec VPN, since it uses ESP, you need to have AGL turned on on the user's GW router (this is normally called IPSec VPN pass through mode) and this sometimes doesn't work the way you want specially on the older residential routers. When this happens you really don't have any other option for those users.. and your only response would be "Sorry your router does not support this kind of VPN or your router does something strange with the VPN so Please upgrade your router" which is something the normal residential user don't want to hear.. and something you want to tell them..
So SSL VPN is the way to go..
please rate helpful posts :)

Why is mac better than pc?

Hi guys.
I'm doing a speech on why macs are better than pcs and have to come up with two college-level citations to support the point. Would you guys be able to help me with that? All I need is some data that can help me support the point.
Thank you !

Funny ... as my wife worked on her masters a couple years ago, Cal State Fullerton would not allow ANY citations from the Internet.
But here's some background info for you ...
http://www.apple.com/mac/
You say you're a new MacBook Pro user ... What do YOU think about your new Mac?
I was a Windows devotee for about 20 years. Until my wife brought home a co-worker's 17" MBP for me to play with. And I turned it on and played with it. And played with it. Realized it was about 3am the next morning - it was so enjoyably engrossing. I ordered my own that very day, and haven't looked back for a moment. Like excellent shoes that you can FEEL make a difference in your posture and spinal health, switching to a Mac was darned near a religious experience for me.
And I am not alone ... (grin)
Good luck with your research.
Clint Bradford
Riverside CA US

HT1771 why did apple erase ichat? its so much better than messages and now I cant video chat with my ichat buddies

why did apple erase ichat? its so much better than messages and now I cant video chat with my ichat buddies!!!

HI,
Apple did not erase iChat.
Messages in Mountain Lion is iChat +
The plus bit is the fact you can iMessage iOS devices.
All the other features that were in iChat are still there.
If you upgraded Lion to get to Mountain Lion then in System Preferences > Mail, Contacts and Calendars you probably list all the iChat Accounts (Screen Names and IDs).
You may need to enable them for Messages.
They should also show up in Messages Menu > Preference > Accounts
Once those accounts (AIM and Jabber) are Enabled they can be viewed in a Combined Buddy List
Windows Menu > Buddies (Or using CMD + 1 Keystrokes)
In the General Section of the Preferences you can Unlink these Buddy lists.
The Green icons or highlight a Buddy and then using the Buddies Menu or the icons at the Bottom of the Buddy list can be used the same way to start Video or Audio Only chats.
The iMessage "Account" is only for texting iOS devices or other people using their Apple ID on a Mac in Messages.
It is an account "in addition to" rather than "taking over from" the services that iChat can join.
9:22 PM Thursday; December 6, 2012
Please, if posting Logs, do not post any Log info after the line "Binary Images for iChat"
 iMac 2.5Ghz 5i 2011 (Mountain Lion 10.8.2)
 G4/1GhzDual MDD (Leopard 10.5.8)
 MacBookPro 2Gb (Snow Leopard 10.6.8)
 Mac OS X (10.6.8),
 Couple of iPhones and an iPad
"Limit the Logs to the Bits above Binary Images."  No, Seriously

Why A is better than B/G for Voice over WLAN

Hello all,
Now this post has some questions and statements in that you guys know all about and would like your valued advise and corrections/confirmations on the points.
Why A is better than B/G for voice:
B/G is congested, ie BT, Microwaves. Lots of other WLANs etc etc etc - FACT!
More non-overlapping channels - FACT!
The scatter and reflection on A is better than B/G. The idea being, the higher the frequency, the better the scatter. Would this be correct?
Higher frequencies produce better penetration results through walls, I have read. Or is it worse. Cisco say worse in the document "2.4 GHz waveform of 802.11b and 802.11g can pass through many walls. The 5 GHz waveform of 802.11a has approximately half the tendency for a given power to transmit suitable amounts of energy through walls because of its higher frequency" Ref: enterprise mobility guide. I am a little confused on this ?
A travels thru water and other moisture better than B/G, thus damp walls, wet walls, open areas (lets say between two buildings) would handle A better than B/G?
The Fresnel Zone (clearance required of an obstacle without degrading signal) is better on the A band due to a small wavelength size. Would this be a major factor for an RF design engineer? Any more technical "dummies guide" to this subject would be good?
OFDM handles signalling shortcomings like multipath fade better that previous modulations techniques (I know that G 11Mbps and above uses this also). Anyone have an English explanation to why this is? Also, please look at the graphic attached that shows the enterprise mobility guide in chaper 3, the table. What is the difference between the modulation and transmission type as many people refer to DSSS and OFDM as "modulation" I am a little confuse by this table.
Can anyone give me any more reasons and facts, and clarify any of the points above so when someone comes to me and says, "ahh, just roll out voice on B/G" I can say well this is why not?
Many thx indeed,
Ken

You have some good questions. The main reason why people are moving voice to 802.11a is the fact that there is more congestion in the 2.4GhZ spectrum. For example in a downtown area building. There are so many wifi devices out in the 2.4Ghz along with all the other interference that you get on that spectrum. 802.11a, the 5Ghz is a shorter wavelength, so the more it is susceptible to attenuation. The lower the frequency the better the signal can travel through various materials. Look at cell phones.... they are in the 800mhz or lower spectrum and they have greater distances than higher frequencies. Another reason is that if you have guest access, you have to look at devices you need supported. There might be legacy 802.11b clients or newer clients that only support 802.11b or 802.11g. So now the 5Ghz is open which give you more bandwidth for voice.
Water is an RF killer no matter if you use 2.4Ghz or 5Ghz.

Why Arraylist better than vector?

Hi,
Why Arraylist better than vector?.....i heared about it that fast then vector......how it's possible ?.....how can we find out....?

ArrayList is faster then vector.because in vector class all the methods are synchronized.so it is obvoiusly slow.Not everything that appears obvious is actually true.
add more object into Arraylist and vector say(1000).we have a method called currentTimeMillis() in System class .
use that and try to iterate both (arraylist,vector) objectIf you had ever done this test (use 100000 rather than 1000 as the resolution of currentTimeMillis() is too course), then you would know that Vector is faster more often than not:new List()      new List(N)
Add+Iterate     Add+Iterate     Add Only        Iterate Only
ArList Vector ArList Vector ArList Vector ArList Vector
609     516     250     250     63      94      109     125
562     516     250     266     78      94      125     109
609     500     266     250     78      93      141     110
532     547     250     265     62      93      110     125
547     500     250     265     78      94      125     109
547     500     266     265     62      94      109     109
547     500     250     281     78      78      125     109
ms averaged over 7 runs:
565     511     255     263     71      91      121     114
jdk 1.4.2_07 Windows client
N = 1000000 The vector wins when you don't know the size it's going to end up (its capacity increases by 2 rather than 1.5 each time it grows, so there are fewer array allocations). There's no significant difference between the two on iteration. It is only when you are adding to a Vector that already has sufficient capacity that there's a measurable difference.
Anything that requires contension on the locks will probably adversely affect the Vector's performance.
Pete

HT4759 Why did apple support Windows better than Mac in iCloud?

Why did apple support Windows better than Mac in iCloud?

chewy cabeza wrote:
Why did apple support Windows better than Mac in iCloud?
From your point of view and the framing of your question, Apple does indeed support WIndows better than Mac for the limited issue of iCloud.
chewy cabeza wrote:
...YET, Leopard and Snow Leopard are NOT iCloud compatible. How can that be justified? Obviously, Apple can make iCloud available to Snow Leopard, but disdains us...
Historically speaking, Apple has rarely gone backwards in its OS development. Once they have released a new OS with new technology, I can only think of one example of when they backtracked: They released TrueType technology in System 7 and then released System 6.0.8, which included TrueType technology for continuing System 6 users.
So it is part of their culture to move forward and not backwards. Other examples:
• Inclusion of the then novel SONY 3.5" disk drive in its release of the first Macintosh (and not the industry standard 5.25" drive); after its use in the Lisa and adoption for the Apple II series of computers.
• Elimination of the floppy drive completely in the release of the first iMac.
• Use of then novel AAC audio compression as "state of the art" compression for the iPod release in 2001 instead of the outdated mp3 standard.
• Refusal to allow use of FLASH in iPod Touch/iPhone/iPads.
How could they justify these decisions? The marketplace justified them for Apple!
So, yes, they could release 10.6.9 with iCloud support. But why now, if not then?

Why is hyper-v better than virtualbox?

We have 4-5 people in a software development environment with access to 4 servers, each with 2 quad-core or dual-core cpu's (core-based, before nehalem), and 8gb or 16gb RAM, so I think we have a good amount of power for virtualization. Total, we have a
team foundation server, oracle server, web server, 2 virtualization servers, and multiple workstations, some virtualized, some not.
When we started virtualizing about a year ago, for whatever reason, and although everyone has an MSDN sub, we started using VirtualBox instead of Hyper-V. I'm no expert (and that's why I'm here) but I think they operate at different levels of interaction
with the hardware, and that VirtualBox is a bad idea for this environment.
Can someone give some good reasons why we should be using Hyper-V? Also is it possible to convert the virtual machines?
And then I would like to know if it's okay to also be virtualizing our web server and oracle server, etc. We have only been virtualizing workstations. I think we really need to make good use of virtualization if we are going to be doing it at all.
Advice welcome also for virtualization best practices, backups, management, infrastructure design, etc. I would like to start with a domain controller, and maybe a Lync server so we can share desktops, etc. Thanks for all input!

In my opinion Hyper-V is only better if your using Hyper-V to host servers, like Microsoft SharePoint, Active Directory, Sql Server, or even MySql to provide resources.
If you intend to be using Virtualizatio to develop software, like Working with SharePoint from a developer standpoint, building asp.net web applications, or even doing C++, desktop applications, or Android, Php etc, if you are going to be physically on the
VM using it as your environment to write code and design, then Oracle VirtualBox is better than Hyper-V.
With hyper-v your limited to using The Connect console, or Remote Desktop Protocol to see the virtual machine. The RDP console leaves much to be desired. It only gives you the option to use all of your monitors or one, it won't do 2 if you have
3. I like to use my third monitor to keep my email open, and pdf documentation, or word documents and use the other two monitors for my VM so I can see multiple code windows in Visual Studio at the same time (VS2010). Oracle handles multi monitors
so much better. And if I want to surface an adroid phone through USB to my VM, oracle is the only way to go there, or maybe VMWare, but VirtualBox is free.
However, Hyper-V is now native to Windows 8 desktop version and windows 8 server version. And most companies dealing with microsoft products use Hyper-V for their VM's, so from a multi developer environment, it makes sense for us to use Hyper-V with
windows 8 because all of our servers run on Hyper-V. If we need to troubleshoot something we can grab a copy of the latest server VM backup and spin it up locally on Hyper-V with windows 8 without having to do any conversions.
But from a developer standpoint it is really hard for me to leave VirtualBox. If RDP could work my 2 of my monitors and not all 3 or 4 of them I would have no complaints. Third part RDP sofware isn't any better, it could never compare to the
deep integration and speed of windows RDP. My main issue is, if RDP can do all of my monitors why can't it do just 2 of them, seems like a big thing to leave out in my opinion, it's so frustrating. It's such an awesome part of windows with such
a huge annoying handicap. I've actually thought about just having another computer for my third monitor, like a tablet or something on a stand. Sure you can SPAN a monitor in Windows so it acts like one monitor and I can tell RDP to go full screen
but it has a width limit and then I need extra software on the VM to handle the big resolution like 2 screens instead of one.
My Blog: http://www.thesug.org/Blogs/ryan_mann1/default.aspx Website: Under Construction

Why is illustrator better than corel?

hello forumers.
im an illustrator freak,but my annoying boss wants me to learn corel ;-( ,i need some facts why illustrator is better than corel so i can shove his face in it if possible.
VIVA illi
thank you very much.

Do not, I repeat do not, ask James or Scott or Hans.
Indeed.
Only ask Jacob, who is still using a four-version out-of-date copy of Illustrator and who tries to personify it as a female idol.
If the comparison is to be "fair" (which it clearly will not be, at least from your perspective), it should compare Corel Draw X4 to Illustrator CS3 or CS4. Release dates being what they were, X4 would more legitimately be considered Draw's answer to CS3; since it long predates CS4.
Talking about earlier versions of either program is not very meaningful, except in the sense of history of development. When I compare the release histories of Draw, FreeHand, Canvas, and Illustrator, Illustrator comes in an often-embarrassing last in terms of features long taken-for-granted in other programs.
im an illustrator freak,but my annoying boss wants me to learn corel...i need some facts [that] I can shove his face..
Shove in your boss's face? For presenting you an opportunity to escape fearful dependency upon a single software?
i need the pros and cons...to outline to him why illustrator is better...
Why don't you simply welcome this opportunity to actually know something about that which you claim a completely bogus "preference"?
Were you at all interested in gaining input that would help you help your boss reach a rational and objective decision, you would at least describe something about the kind of work your boss pays you to do. What kind of business employs you? Is the Macintosh platform even relevant to your boss's business market? How large a workgroup is affected by the software choice? What kind of artwork does that workgroup produce? How is it delivered? What are its initial content sources? Who are the end-users of the artwork? In how many different ways is it delivered, and in what formats?
Yet here you are, soliciting predisposed "why Illustrator is 'better' than Draw" advice from a handful of users who, so far, admit themselves having either no, or practically no, experience with Draw! If that's not blind-leading-the-blind, I don't know what is.
You are by admission predisposed toward Illustrator, even though you are not at all equipped to say why. Reason is pointless with so irrational a mindset. Since no one responding yet seems to actually know anything about Draw, I will instead offer some ammunition I hope your boss uses to see if you are even objective enough to consider it.
The following is a just-off-the-top list. Should you actually try to counter it, you should be prepared for more:
General:
Lower cost, both initially and in upgrades
Better support for non-current versions
Faster performance
Better support for several vertical-market industries (signage, embroidery, engineering-related)
More robust CAD and more business-centric import/export formats
Better multiple page implementation
Better-organized interface
Highly-customizable workspace
Features:
User-defined drawing scales
Reliable snaps
Dimension tools
Callout tools
Connector lines
Flowchart Tools
No-nonsense, 2D vector face extrusion
Live shape primitives
Smart Drawing tools (freehand shape recognition)
Virtual Segment tool
Ability to properly cut/crop vector and raster content
Contour tool (multiple parallels)
Export selection only
Barcodes
Print Merge
Bundle for Output Bureau
Scan directly into Draw
Trim (not merely mask) vector artwork to any path
Fit Text To Path
Text stats
Export artwork as Type 1 font.
Lens Fills (live details)
Live Perspective
Object Data (spreadsheet-formatted database of user-defined object data fields)
Fillet / Chamfer / Scallop
User-defined Arrowheads
Shared Features Better Implemented in Draw:
Mesh Grads
Dynamic Guides (with increment snaps)
Independent control over Snaps for Guides, Grid, Objects, Dynamic Grids
Property Bar (far more sensible and useable than AI's poorly-designed and buggy Control Panel)
Status Bar with context-sensitive instructions
Elastic Mode (vs. AI's Reshape tool)
Add/remove/line/curve/cusp/symmetrical curve commands properly implemented for all nodes (points) in a selected path
Logarithmic and Symmetrical spirals
Macro Recording (vs. AI Actions)
Envelopes (retract envelope handles without wrecking artwork)
Old-Saw Arguements Based on Overstatement, if not Myths:
Adobe's cross-app "integration" is more hype than substantive advantage.
Illustrator's text handing is worst among Adobe apps and worst-of-class among its direct competitors.
Draw opens and creates PDFs just fine.
Claims of AI superiority regarding importing of raster images is practically immaterial. In fact, Corel Draw's interaction with Corel PhotoPaint is at least as "smooth and seamless" as AI/PS, if not more so.
Using vector artwork created in Draw (or any other mainstream Bezier drawing program) in page-layout programs is no more difficult than using AI. This stuff has been being done for decades.
Again, this is just a beginning. You do yourself a huge disservice by declaring (let alone attempting to defend) a "preference" to the only choice with which you have experience (and evidently only beginning experience at that). That's true regardless of which program you claim to "favor." How can one, with any trace of intellectual honesty, claim to have a "favorite" of anything--when one has no exposure to any of the considered alternatives?
Since you already have Illustrator, you should absolutely welcome your Boss's willingness to provide you a current copy of Corel Draw. Here's an opportunity for you--at no personal cost--to actually learn something about another program; to potentially have some clue as to what you're talking about when you claim to "prefer" one over the other; to benefit from knowing more than one particular tool, and to overcome the fear of learning your way around more than one offering among similar programs. For all you know, you may be arguing against the program you would actually end up preferring.
I could also build a bullet list of better-than-Draw AI features. It would not be as long as its opposite. Nor would the AI-favoring listings be as broadly practical.
Fact is, anyone can build a bullet list to favor any of them. (Just look at the sides of the boxes, or each vendor's self-serving "competitive comparisons" on their respective websites.) Fact is, all of them are really rather mediocre; mostly 20+ years-old technology.
You really should have no axe to grind in this, unless you can state something specific to your work that strongly favors the relatively few functional advantages of AI.
JET

Everyone told me final cut is better than Premiere... why is nothing simple

Final cut pro users, please help!
I've just spent a fortune on a brand new mac and final cut Pro 7 on the recommendation of countless people. After reading a lot of forums and web pages and many hours of wasted time I've installed Windows XP on my Mac and my old copy of adobe premiere 2.0 - this actually works!
Maybe I'm just new and don't understand it yet, but here are my main problems.
1. Even after installing codecs that now (Eventually!) run all the MPEG and AVI files in Quick time, once the video goes into FCP it cannot render it. Every piece of advice on the internet about using AVI says "Convert them to MOV files separately and then import them". But why?!? why can't I just get a codec that will handle the files in FCP? Why must I spend hours converting my whole library so that I can even start editing?
2. Once converted to MP4 (Outside of FCP) I still find I have to manually render everything... everytime I cut up video in the timeline or add filters or transitions I have to re-render those clips. In Premiere it automatically renders any changes you make so you can watch back the changes straight away. Is there a way to set this up on FCP so it renders each time I make an edit?
All this amounts to is that using FCP takes WAY longer to do anything than with Premiere. Can anyone tell me how to fix the problems? I've been an expert PC user for 10+ years, but I'm stumped by the Mac, please help!
Thanks!

If you have lots and lots of different codecs to deal with, and you want to edit them all in their current state without converting, then get the application that does that for you. FCP is NOT that application. It, like Avid, is designed to work with specific codecs in real time. FCP has a long list, but nothing you listed is on it. What you see in the EASY SETUPS is what you need to have.
Adobe Premiere, Sony Vegas, Edius...those are designed to deal with multiple codecs in their native form. But they too might have some issues because, simply put, not every codec is designed to be editable.
Saying that "FCP is better than Premeire," that has to be qualified. Better at WHAT? Because Premiere is better when it comes to certain workflows, and FCP is better at others. Then Avid comes along and it the best thing for even other workflows. For your specific needs, no, FCP is not better. Premiere is.
It's like saying a hammer is better than a screwdriver. Well, if you have to put a nail into wood, yes it is. But then if you have a screw, a hammer is not the best thing, and will make a mess of things.
Shane

Why not reporting on DSO is better than Cube,DSO is more denormalized?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for