Here's the lowdown, as concerns newspapers:

Last November, Aldus released FreeHand 4.0, a major upgrade from FreeHand 3.11 that aimed to be an Illustrator-killer.

Answering the requests of users, it introduced new features such as a completely revamped text-editing system that allowed automatic runarounds, jumps, H&J, powerful tab support and more.

It sported a completely revamped user interface. Instead of using dozens of nested, modal dialog boxes, controls were placed in about a dozen small floating palettes that could be positioned anywhere on the screen, collapsed to a tiny strip and kept open at all times.

Not so welcome was FreeHand's new, larger memory footprint, and a markedly slower response time than 3.11, especially when using the fancy new text features.

The Knight-Ridder/Tribune graphics department advised subscribers that it would be switching to the new version in April 1994. As the months went by, though, the date got pushed back. Reports from the field indicated that newspapers were slow to adopt the new software.

Users listed a host of problems. Some sites reported printing problems; most simply complained that the speed issues, the change in user interface and the awkward implementation of some features made the tool hard to use on deadline.

Then events snowballed. Aldus and Adobe announced their intention to merge. While users of FreeHand and Illustrator were surprised by the announcement, apparently so was FreeHand developer Altsys -- President Jim von Ehr said he was told of the merger plan one day before the public was informed.

Altsys' contract with Aldus stipulated that Aldus could not market any products that would compete with FreeHand. Illustrator was undeniably such a product, so Altsys wanted FreeHand back. Aldus balked; von Ehr rolled up his sleeves and threatened to sue.

This got action: The Federal Trade Commission ruled that FreeHand must go back to its developer. The transfer was slated for July 15, 1995, but in August, it was announced that the date had been advanced to Jan. 15, 1995.

This development didn't relieve the tension among decision makers at the AP and KRT. By this time, Knight-Ridder had postponed adoption several times, while the AP had issued advisories suggesting that users put Adobe Illustrator in their budgets for next year.

George Rorick, director of Knight-Ridder/Tribune Graphics, cited widespread resistance and complaints from newspaper art departments as a major reason for re-evaluating the jump to version 4.

"We're getting a lot of complaints about it being too slow, that using type is too awkward. ... There have been a lot of problems," Rorick said.

John Monahan, AP director of graphics, voiced similar concerns: "FreeHand 3.11 is a passionately loved program. FreeHand 4 is not, yet. It's hard to nail down what's wrong, but it's not there yet."

Gannett's Steve Reed said, "With FreeHand [3] you can get into a certain rhythm; but they screwed it up."

The complaints are widespread and fairly consistent.

The new user interface is radically changed, and experienced users are finding it hard to become accustomed. Monahan points out that the transition from FreeHand 2 to FreeHand 3 was very smooth, whereas moving from 3 to 4 is like learning a whole new program.

"New users really like it," said Rorick, "but [FreeHand 3] power users have to start all over with it."

Reed finds that the text tool "nickel-and-dimes your time away; it takes two or three functions where I used one function before."

Using type in the new version is also a problem. Some users dislike the new emphasis on type; they maintain FreeHand should concentrate on being a drawing program. Rorick discounts this complaint with a reminder that newspaper graphics are dependent on copy. But he and others wish there were an option to edit type as in FreeHand 3.

This is ironic, as that method -- editing type in a floating window, rather than directly in place -- was a major source of complaints by users of previous versions. So Altsys changed it. Users got what they asked for -- and regret it.

Perhaps more troubling than the interface for editing type, though, is the speed problem that accompanies version 4. While the new FreeHand provides powerful new type features -- automatic wrapping around objects, H&J, sophisticated tabs, etc. -- the program slows down dramatically when editing copy.

It's easy to type faster than FreeHand can display the words, so the user needs to pause every few words to let the program redraw the image.

And finally, a number of sites report problems with printing from the new version. Chuck Sholdt, director of Weather Central in Madison, Wis., said many of his customers had problems printing files he sent out in FreeHand 4.

What's a paper -- or wire service -- to do?FreeHand 3 has been superseded, and we all know what happens to old software. If you buy a new machine, where are you going to get an old version of software for it? Where will support come from?

And what happens if the company that sold the software is merging with its biggest competitor and the software you use is going back to a little developer in Texas?

Just what are your options?

Monahan, Rorick and Reed agree that FreeHand and Illustrator are the only two programs worth considering. MacDraw Pro was rejected the last time we had this discussion. Dark-horse Canvas from Deneba has never been a serious contender; newspaper users have been put off by its emphasis on a plethora of special-purpose tools over streamlined functionality and stability.

So if it's a showdown between Illustrator and FreeHand, how does one choose?

"If you take FreeHand 4.0b versus Illustrator 5.5 and compare them fairly," Gannett's Reed said, "you'll see that Illustrator poses more problems."

Illustrator is noticeably slower than FreeHand 4, he said, and less intuitive. While some functions may be easier, the pen tool works differently, and masking is a nightmare compared with FreeHand's implementation, Reed said.

Since speed and ease-of-use are the main arguments against FreeHand 4, what's to be gained by switching to a program with similar problems?

Another issue is the time it takes to learn the new FreeHand. But as there is a similar learning curve associated with Illustrator, that's a wash, too.

There's another issue: the legacy of years of FreeHand use. Rorick points to his archive of 12,000 images and says he'd really rather not have to convert them all. Reed, too, is a confirmed FreeHand fan and doesn't want to switch.

But all three agree they would switch if, in Reed's words, "a product offers a better way to get the job done -- or we're forced to because the current product won't get the job done."

Then there's the company behind the product. Adobe is a huge, solid, forward-thinking company. There's no argument that it has the ability to support and maintain products.

Altsys, with a staff of 60, is an intriguing little company with a great reputation as a PostScript wizard -- its font-editing software, Fontographer, is FreeHand's grandpappy and gets rave reviews consistently. Altsys is the sort of spitfire entrepreneurial shop people want to see win.

But will it be able to take on the market Aldus built?

Monahan, who would rather not have to choose one or the other drawing program, sees perhaps one way to avoid these religious wars: Adobe's PDF (Portable Document Format, as uninspired a name and acronym as they get). By using PDF, Monahan said, it would be possible to draw in the program of your choice and be confident people on the other end could edit your graphic in the (different) products of their choice.

It's a great idea, and a promising technology. Unfortunately, it's not mature enough to allow seamless transfer between applications -- and right now, Illustrator is the only application that can read PDF documents.

Decision time nears for Monahan, and because he's the Associated Press, what he does will likely shape the near future for newspapers and the software companies involved. It's hard to resist when the AP says it is going to change formats. Unless you have serious wherewithal, you do what the AP does.

So there's the challenge. The cure may be as bad as the disease, but the major players are in the uncomfortable position of having to do something soon.

For its part, Aldus got wind of the brewing storm and arranged for Altsys President von Ehr and Brian Welter, Altsys' marketing manager for FreeHand, to meet with Monahan, Reed, Rorick and several others in mid-August in Washington, D.C.

This in itself was rather interesting: It's pretty clear what Adobe would like newspapers to do, and similarly clear what Altsys would like, but where could Aldus fit into this? FreeHand still belonged to Aldus, but not for long, and then those executives would be part of Adobe.

What would Aldus say? Well, it turns out the FTC enjoined Aldus to promote FreeHand for the duration just as if it were never going to leave. So the Aldus muckies went to Washington to sell it.

Evidently no one alerted the software folks as to how news types deal with suppliers ("cordial" is not a word that would apply). According to Welter, it was the most brutal meeting he'd ever been in.

Altsys executives admitted they'd made some mistakes in preparing FreeHand 4, losing sight of the central issues of speed and usability. They committed Altsys to a couple of strategies to make things right, and emphasized they wanted to keep the newspaper market as happy customers.

Monahan and Rorick were pleased to see the president of the company there; according to Rorick, it lent weight to Altsys' commitment. Welter said, "We bought some time."

Altsys and Aldus made several commitments:

So the wire folks agreed to hold off on a decision until they see what's forthcoming from Altsys.

They all see problems with switching from FreeHand 3.

They don't particularly want to switch to Illustrator

They sure don't like FreeHand 4.

So there will be a period of evaluation. Rorick summed up the situation this way:

"If they speed up the application and address the problems, we'll stay with it.

"If they don't, a year from now we'll be using Illustrator."

-- Val Cohen

From THE COLE PAPERS, October 1994, Copyright (c) 1994, All Rights Reserved.