[I WAS the One]

I have both. I work more with freehand, because it is more complete, it feels good. Stable. Sharp. Illustrator still difficult to do simple things. what do you think?

[art_director]

i used to love freehand. now i think it's clunky and i dislike the gui.

[teszeract]

FreeHand MX. Yucky.

But gets my vote. Its better than illustrator

Oh! For FreeHand 3.1. I remember a time when I didn't need an upgrade.

[almaink]

For exporting to .eps Illustrator wins hands down. I have horror stories galor about FH .eps files printed from Quark and InDesign. Even Trapwise prints these .eps files wrong. For printing from the native program FH wins.
almaink

[I WAS the One]

let's be real people.
Freehand MX its not FreeHand 10.. I prefer 10 instead of MX, because now Freehand is turning to be a web tool, but I always use frehand for drawing and illustrations, so I keep in my hard drive both copies, the MX and the 10, and believe me, the 10 its more stable than MX...

so MX is cool, but it is like trying to do illustrations with flash MX, and we (artists) love to feel we are making something, and thats freehand 10 and below.. not MX

a point for freehand OLD SCHOOL!!!

[godzookie2k]

i too used to rock freehand back in the day, but I made the switch to illustrator around version 7 or so and haven't looked back. I can't even use freehand anymore without wincing and/or doing alot of bitching.

[Aric]

i use both but am still a Freehand man. i haven't got MX yet so i can't say much about it but i do agree that the gui is and has been getting worse and worse. BUT...there's just some tools that make freehand my choice for seps. i usually output straight from freehand (i don't use quark) so i don't have any eps problems as i seen someone else mention. my fear is that they are trying to include to many web type features and it's cluttering up and making it worse for the regular graphic artist.