Illustrator Compatibility Question: CS3 to CC2022

[rossmosh]

Long story short, we use a very old version of Illustrator in the shop (CS3) for a variety of reasons. Many not very good reasons, but it is what it is.

I'm trying to work with a design service to push some of my overflow work to them as I'm needed more in doing business related tasks. I have a job I do every year. I asked them to update the text for this year. They're claiming they have to completely redo all of my files to work in CS2022.

I think they're blowing smoke up my ass, but I don't like to accuse anyone of anything until I know for sure. While I'm very familiar with the fact that there have been a lot of changes since my old CS3, primarily with artboards, I also work with a lot of other companies, and they're all able to open my files and work with them natively as far as I know. I do ask companies on an occassion and they've never complained. Sometimes they're confused with using layers or variables, but once I point it out, they figure out the rest no problem.

So long story short: Is there anyone willing to confirm this file opens up properly? It should have 3 layers and 1 Variable, with 3 Data Sets.

 

[Solventinkjet]

In my experience with Illustrator it works the other way around. Usually the new versions can open older ones but not the other way around.

 

[Zoogee World]

Opened fine for me. I saw 3 layers, only of which 1 was visible (other 2 are hidden) and 3 data sets. Never have used the variables before, so not sure what that is, but it all looks fine to me and I use the newest version of Illustrator CC.

Also, by design service, do you mean one of those cheap asian/indian services. If so, I would advise against using them for many reasons and use a local design firm (You might pay extra, but it will be worth it in the long run.)

 

[rossmosh]

Thanks for confirming what I already expected.

And yes, it's Kimp.io. I thought I could potentially get away with it because it's really just changing copy on items like that. It's genuinely low level "design" work. It's barely design work. It's typsetting and basic Illustrator functions. I just don't have the time to sit at the computer and focus on inserting the copy on jobs like this. I figured people with high levels of experience could knock out this type of work pretty easily.

I wouldn't recommend this company at all. Even for the low price.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

In my experience with Illustrator it works the other way around. Usually the new versions can open older ones but not the other way around.

This is the case with most programs in my experience. Only time that it would be different is if there was a major re-write or deprecation/removal of some functionality that was used in the older file that is no longer in the newer version. To my knowledge, that would be the only reason for something like this not to work.

 

[Bobby H]

I'm trying to work with a design service to push some of my overflow work to them as I'm needed more in doing business related tasks. I have a job I do every year. I asked them to update the text for this year. They're claiming they have to completely redo all of my files to work in CS2022.

Every version of Adobe Illustrator I've used (from the current version going all the way back to the early 1990's) has been able to open AI files from any prior version format, even 35 year old files in version 1.0. The main headaches I deal with when receiving customer provided Illustrator files is active text set in fonts I don't have or missing linked objects that should have been embedded.

It's very rare for a creative software vendor to remove compatibility with prior versions of the application. But it does happen. Corel has done it a couple times. The first was in the mid-late 1990's when they shut off version 1 & 2 compatibility in CorelDRAW, making version 3 CDR files the oldest that could be opened or imported. Then they shut off compatibility with CDR versions 4 & 5 more recently. Apple drew a lot more attention with its very controversial upgrade of Final Cut from version 7 to X. The upgrade had no backward compatibility with prior version FCP projects, which seriously angered a lot of long time professional users.

 

[Adam Vreeke]

As Zoogee stated, everything is there once Village font was downloaded. There should be absolutely no problem working with this file. Attached a screenshot of it open in 2022 for proof.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

Then they shut off compatibility with CDR versions 4 & 5 more recently.

I think back in 2019 they supported 7 thru 21, but back in 2021, it is now 15 (x5) thru 23. I'm surprised that they haven't cut x5 yet, unless they did it with 2022.

 

[netsol]

Thanks for confirming what I already expected.

And yes, it's Kimp.io. I thought I could potentially get away with it because it's really just changing copy on items like that. It's genuinely low level "design" work. It's barely design work. It's typsetting and basic Illustrator functions. I just don't have the time to sit at the computer and focus on inserting the copy on jobs like this. I figured people with high levels of experience could knock out this type of work pretty easily.

I wouldn't recommend this company at all. Even for the low price.

Obviously they can't be bothered to perform simple, repetitive tasks.

Probably a company to be avoided at any price

 

[Bobby H]

I think back in 2019 they supported 7 thru 21, but back in 2021, it is now 15 (x5) thru 23. I'm surprised that they haven't cut x5 yet, unless they did it with 2022.

The current version of CorelDRAW (2022) and past 2 versions can save CDR files down no earlier than version X5 format. I don't remember how far back CorelDRAW 2019 could save back (that was one buggy version). CorelDRAW 2018 could save CDR files back as far as version 11.

What I'm talking about however is the application's ability to open existing, old archived files. For a long time CorelDRAW could open files as far back as version 3 format. For the past few versions CorelDRAW has only been able to open CDR files in version 6 format and later. And when it opens CDR files in versions 7-12 it often barfs up a warning dialog box about an invalid fill or some other nonsense.

This is one category where Illustrator beats CorelDRAW handily. Not only can the current version of Illustrator open AI files made in ANY prior version, it can save AI (and EPS) files back farther too. It's possible to save down to any "CS" version and even farther back to versions 10, 9, 8 and 3. Everyone knows certain features and effects are going to "break" the farther back a file is saved. Nevertheless, the AI, EPS and PDF formats all work as important file exchange formats for a pretty wide variety of creative applications. Being able to save down to version formats that are as much as 30 years old gives users some pretty valuable flexibility for sharing files with other users or importing artwork assets into other applications.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

The current version of CorelDRAW (2022) and past 2 versions can save CDR files down no earlier than version X5 format. I don't remember how far back CorelDRAW 2019 could save back (that was one buggy version). CorelDRAW 2018 could save CDR files back as far as version 11.

What I'm talking about however is the application's ability to open existing, old archived files. For a long time CorelDRAW could open files as far back as version 3 format. For the past few versions CorelDRAW has only been able to open CDR files in version 6 format and later. And when it opens CDR files in versions 7-12 it often barfs up a warning dialog box about an invalid fill or some other nonsense.

This is one category where Illustrator beats CorelDRAW handily. Not only can the current version of Illustrator open AI files made in ANY prior version, it can save AI (and EPS) files back farther too. It's possible to save down to any "CS" version and even farther back to versions 10, 9, 8 and 3. Everyone knows certain features and effects are going to "break" the farther back a file is saved. Nevertheless, the AI, EPS and PDF formats all work as important file exchange formats for a pretty wide variety of creative applications. Being able to save down to version formats that are as much as 30 years old gives users some pretty valuable flexibility for sharing files with other users or importing artwork assets into other applications.

There were a couple of open source projects to were trying to reverse the CDR and related formats (I think it's the older formats that have the best support as well). I think one is stalled due to the death of the lead dev. The other, I think is going on and has been integrated into other projects as well. I think Inkscape even uses one of them, but I can't remember which one. Scribus may or may not use the same one.

 

[Bobby H]

Inkscape can import early CDR files, but with very mixed results from what I've seen with my own collection of files (dating back to 1993). I think it's a major failure on the part of Corel to not at least allow the application to open existing CDR files from any prior version. This seriously hurts the viability of the CDR format as a long term archival format. If Corel is just going to arbitrarily cut off file-open capability for a growing number of old CDR version formats it will put the archived files of long time users in jeopardy.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

Inkscape can import early CDR files, but with very mixed results from what I've seen with my own collection of files (dating back to 1993). I think it's a major failure on the part of Corel to not at least allow the application to open existing CDR files from any prior version. This seriously hurts the viability of the CDR format as a long term archival format. If Corel is just going to arbitrarily cut off file-open capability for a growing number of old CDR version formats it will put the archived files of long time users in jeopardy.

The mixed results could either be due to the library itself and/or due to how Inkscape handles things and what is or isn't translated. Of course, most programs have a hard time with reading the proprietary format from a competitor, so that's really just par for the course all the way around.

I would say any archival format that is proprietary in nature is not the best archival format, because if that program goes bust at some point, how are those old files going to be opened? Or if for some reason no longer running that specific program, all those archived files are no longer worth anything, unless able to convert it to something else. There really needs to be a USD type of format for the 2D space, that way it doesn't violate the proprietary nature of a program like Ai or Draw, but would allow for some type of exchange to other programs. SVG does have that possibility, but it would need one of the big companies behind it for that type of endeavor and I doubt that would happen.

 

[Bobby H]

The SVG format needs a LOT of very serious, major improvements before it could be used as any sort of "universal" vector graphics archive format. I've followed developments of the SVG format for over 20 years. In the early 2000's I was excited about it for what it might do to improve web graphics design. It took well into the 2010's before all the leading web browsers incorporated acceptable support of the SVG format. Any further improvements are moving glacier slow. The Open Source angle is no guarantee SVG will survive well into the future either.

Applications like CorelDRAW, Adobe Illustrator and others must do destructive things to art files in the export process to SVG. If the files are to remain fully editable they must be maintained in their original, proprietary formats.

Illustrator gets around some of those limits with their own flavor of PDFs saved with Illustrator editing capability left intact. It's essentially an Illustrator file with Illustrator AI data included inside a PDF container. Other applications, such as CorelDRAW, tend to create PDFs with far less edit-friendly results.

The PDF format is farther along than SVG in terms of being a universal format for graphics. However, the folks at Adobe who created PDF insist PDFs are not meant for further editing after their creation. They'll tell any Illustrator user to stick with the AI format if they want to do further editing or pull uncompromised assets from that file. At least with the Illustrator file format there are fewer pitfalls with using it.

It's not like I'm rooting for Corel to go out of business and/or discontinue CorelDRAW. I have many thousands of CDR files going back almost 30 years. But the future for that company definitely looks very murky. Adobe may be the big "evil" corporate giant so many love to hate. But assets saved in their proprietary formats appear to be more future-proof than anything else I see on the market.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

PDF is an open standard as well if I am not mistaken. I think it was opened back in 2008, if I recall correctly.

While being open source is not a sure thing, being open source does have advantages that closed source doesn't have.

But for any format to have support, it must have a lot of people (and especially companies) backing it. Why USD is doing fairly well in terms of tv/movie animation needs or gITF for games. Have a lot of big boys behind the support and wanting to make it work for exchanging files across different pipelines.

Web standards does have some funky things going on with it. I have seen browsers drop functionality (local web app functionality) despite there being a standard about how that is to be implemented. So, I have to wonder if something is going on there.

 

[SignMeUpGraphics]

This is the case with most programs in my experience. Only time that it would be different is if there was a major re-write or deprecation/removal of some functionality that was used in the older file that is no longer in the newer version. To my knowledge, that would be the only reason for something like this not to work.

Or if you're AutoDesk and do it on purpose. I absolutely despise their practices.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

Or if you're AutoDesk and do it on purpose. I absolutely despise their practices.

Sometimes it's not with a malignant intent, but times where it does appear to be so, kinda make it hard not to think about the other times as well.

But really, the biggest thing is that it appears to be more about locking in the customer in the most aggressive way and not through innovation. A lot of things appear to be more iteration. While bug fixes in a quick reliable manner is to be applauded, that's iteration. Some features, I could care less about being there (others may and that's fine, although I can think of one that's kinda iffy (it has it's pros, but the one con would be a big one in my mind and it would affect archival as well, at least in my mind), but that used to be how you got people to upgrade, you had to sell those new features). Some took years/decades to get there and the competition has had those features in some manner for a long time until it was implemented (and I think there was one person on here that would argue the one that I'm thinking about was done in kinda a hacky way, which does tend to happen in a 30+ year old codebase while trying not to affect other functionality, so I can't really fault them there).

And of course, not all of those programs are written 100% by the owners of the program. There is quite a lot of 3rd party blobs in there as well, and that can be yanked out at a moment's notice (which we have seen, one in a very big way, another, I can't remember how that was resolved, but there was one other as well), which means functionality using the functionality of those blobs is no longer there in future versions, at least not to the capability of what it was before.

Now, most on here know I have gone caca with regard to this stuff, so it is quite possible this is ramblings of a madman.

 

[Bobby H]

PDF is an open standard as well if I am not mistaken. I think it was opened back in 2008, if I recall correctly.

The core part of PDF was indeed made open source in 2008, even published by the International Organization for Standardization as ISO 32000.

Adobe's own flavor of PDF, such as PDF version 1.7, contains proprietary technologies from Adobe. They're not part of the ISO specification and not well supported or supported at all by other third party versions of PDF.

As I said earlier, PDF is not an edit-friendly format. It is primarily geared for document distribution, read-only and print. The tricks PDF uses to maintain compatibility on a wide variety of computing environments introduces a lot of destructive garbage into the file. When a PDF is opened in Adobe Illustrator or other applications all sorts of unpredictable things can happen to "break" the document. Lots of closed paths are broken open or even turned into stroked line segments. Blocks of body text are often broken into many individual text string segments. Clipping masks within clipping masks multiple times over are very common. So are lots of duplicate objects with no fill and no outline stroke. The Vector First Aid plugin for Adobe Illustrator can automatically solve a lot of those problems, but it is not perfect. The plugin can still leave behind lots of objects that have to be repaired manually.

When most people keep work files to archive for the long term, for many years or even decades, they want the files to be edit-friendly if/when they re-open them, just like any file they saved recently. PDF isn't good for that, not unless it is saved in the manner Illustrator does (by default) when saving PDFs in that application.

 

[LarryB]

Is all the trouble not worth not paying $20-$30/month for illustrator cloud?

 

[WildWestDesigns]

Adobe's own flavor of PDF, such as PDF version 1.7, contains proprietary technologies from Adobe. They're not part of the ISO specification and not well supported or supported at all by other third party versions of PDF.

That I actually believe has been accounted for with the latest ISO specs though(ISO 32000-2). I could have read that wrong, but I do think it has been reconciled with supposed equivalent blobs in their stead.

However, those references in ISO 32000-1, which is what you are talking about with 1.7, wasn't those specs documented on Adobe's website? While not part of the standard, I do believe at least one time, they were documented.