Forum: Transit support
Topic: How unrealistic are Transit's fuzzy matches?
Poster: Dan Lucas
Post title: Pros and cons
[quote]wotswot wrote:
- lifetime licence[/quote]
The cost of which they do not publish, but I can only assume is frighteningly large, given that licences for shorter periods can cost several hundred euro each. I'd far sooner pay a smaller amount for a non-time limited licence that I can use for many years than pay a huge amount up-front. I know many people still using Studio 2015 without apparent problems.
[quote]- macros, which for me save a lot of time to-ing and fro-ing between keyboard and mouse[/quote]
This is true. Studio has support for plugins (important, in my opinion), but not macros at the user level. There are third-party workarounds that help, notably AutoHotkey, a scripting language can be applied to virtually any Windows application. I'd file this in the "nice to have" category.
Personally I would prefer SDL to spend some man-hours on fixing or improving other areas of the application that need attention, rather than spend time on adding a macro function. Which brings us nicely to...
[quote]- "horizontal layout" option[/quote]
Something I believe people have been requesting for many years. There is still no sign of it. This is a major problem for some people, and surely it wouldn't be that hard for SDL to implement?
[quote]the load and save options in Find/Replace, with which I've built up an extensive library of F&R items over the years[/quote]
I think this is a new feature in Studio 2021. If so, it took them long enough. It's just administrative functions of the kind you'd give to the developer intern to tackle over the course of the summer.
[quote]- the "bubble windows" option for many windows, saving valuable screen space, whereas in Studio you have to use the mouse and click on tabs to see different windows.[/quote]
Horses for courses. Having briefly experienced (perhaps like yourself) the world of Dos applications back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when user interfaces could vary dramatically according to the whim of the developer, I appreciate the standard Windows approach. I dislike quirky interfaces intensely, so Transit's "bubble windows" were an annoyance for me - and you can't change an UI wholesale.
Personal choice, at the end of the day. Arguably Transit has had its day, but it's a mature and capable application. Better to have many options for CAT software rather than just a couple. It's been interesting to watch Memsource make significant inroads among my client base in just a couple of years. I suspect SDL's market position isn't as secure as we might have thought even five years ago.
And that's before we consider what the acquisition of SDL by RWS means for Studio in the long term. More resources or less? Higher prices or lower? More dynamic development or benign neglect? Worrying times.
Regards,
Dan
[Edited at 2021-01-17 12:51 GMT]
Topic: How unrealistic are Transit's fuzzy matches?
Poster: Dan Lucas
Post title: Pros and cons
[quote]wotswot wrote:
- lifetime licence[/quote]
The cost of which they do not publish, but I can only assume is frighteningly large, given that licences for shorter periods can cost several hundred euro each. I'd far sooner pay a smaller amount for a non-time limited licence that I can use for many years than pay a huge amount up-front. I know many people still using Studio 2015 without apparent problems.
[quote]- macros, which for me save a lot of time to-ing and fro-ing between keyboard and mouse[/quote]
This is true. Studio has support for plugins (important, in my opinion), but not macros at the user level. There are third-party workarounds that help, notably AutoHotkey, a scripting language can be applied to virtually any Windows application. I'd file this in the "nice to have" category.
Personally I would prefer SDL to spend some man-hours on fixing or improving other areas of the application that need attention, rather than spend time on adding a macro function. Which brings us nicely to...
[quote]- "horizontal layout" option[/quote]
Something I believe people have been requesting for many years. There is still no sign of it. This is a major problem for some people, and surely it wouldn't be that hard for SDL to implement?
[quote]the load and save options in Find/Replace, with which I've built up an extensive library of F&R items over the years[/quote]
I think this is a new feature in Studio 2021. If so, it took them long enough. It's just administrative functions of the kind you'd give to the developer intern to tackle over the course of the summer.
[quote]- the "bubble windows" option for many windows, saving valuable screen space, whereas in Studio you have to use the mouse and click on tabs to see different windows.[/quote]
Horses for courses. Having briefly experienced (perhaps like yourself) the world of Dos applications back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when user interfaces could vary dramatically according to the whim of the developer, I appreciate the standard Windows approach. I dislike quirky interfaces intensely, so Transit's "bubble windows" were an annoyance for me - and you can't change an UI wholesale.
Personal choice, at the end of the day. Arguably Transit has had its day, but it's a mature and capable application. Better to have many options for CAT software rather than just a couple. It's been interesting to watch Memsource make significant inroads among my client base in just a couple of years. I suspect SDL's market position isn't as secure as we might have thought even five years ago.
And that's before we consider what the acquisition of SDL by RWS means for Studio in the long term. More resources or less? Higher prices or lower? More dynamic development or benign neglect? Worrying times.
Regards,
Dan
[Edited at 2021-01-17 12:51 GMT]
