At 09:18 AM 10/17/02 -0400, Tony wrote:
... It's interesting that there is still a significant group of folk who still prefer using fractint to "create" fractal images, rather than moving on "completely" to UF 2/3. I'd like to hear some you other fractolieri's reasons for remaining with fractint.
In my case, I'm still hobbled by my budget - just can't afford a new machine, and the old one can't run post-3.1 Windoze. Beyond that, there are other reasons that, when I eventually do get a current-tech PC, I will buy UF once and not upgrade. On the pro-Fractint side: - I don't mind doing my layering by hand. - Thanks to Fractint's parsing capability, I can replicate most of UF's capabilities given sufficient time and effort. - Fractint continues to provide me with intriguing images. (http://value.net/~mchris/fractals.htm - some links are broken) - I love Evolver! - And, of course, the two main advantages: it is free and open source. On the anti-UF side: - When UF debuted, I thought "considering the capabilities, it's not a bad deal." Of course then it was $35. Now, it's $50, with a $35 upgrade price tag (that means your old version is worth zero to fifteen dollars on "trade-in", depending on your current version). Ten dollars seems like a more reasonable upgrade fee, especially considering the following: - As with Fractint, UF enhancements are the result of input from an entire community of users. Do the creators of these new tools get a cut of that $35-per-copy added value? One thing that does really bug me: the 6-bit color magnitude. Wouldn't it be possible to create Fractint GIF palettes with 8-bit values? I know it can be done because I use a paint program to tweak certain palette entries for hypertext background images. Happy Fractalling, Bud