Is upgrading to SDL Studio 2014 worth the buy or should I get a new CAT? Thread poster: Vincent Lemma
|
|---|
Hello All,
I am faced with a decision to make: upgrade from SDL 2009 to SDL 2014 or get a new CAT entirely.
A client has updated their working file formats to idml cloud, which SDL 2009 does not handle, and the only solution for me to continue working with this client is to update my CAT, or invest in a whole new CAT that handles said formats.
Taking a look at features vs. cost, I see that currently there is a great deal on DejaVu here on ProZ. I have no acquainta... See more Hello All,
I am faced with a decision to make: upgrade from SDL 2009 to SDL 2014 or get a new CAT entirely.
A client has updated their working file formats to idml cloud, which SDL 2009 does not handle, and the only solution for me to continue working with this client is to update my CAT, or invest in a whole new CAT that handles said formats.
Taking a look at features vs. cost, I see that currently there is a great deal on DejaVu here on ProZ. I have no acquaintance with this CAT, but would do the job nicely for what I need. Furthermore, it seems that DejaVu pffers many of the features that SDL 2014 does not, which require add-ons at an extra cost.
Of course, SDL continues to remain the CAT that is most widely used and this is not to underestimate, though I have a feeling that it really isn't worth the investment when other CATs offer many additional built in features.
Again, I do not own SDL 2014 and have experience only with SDL and Transit, thus cannot state any facts, just mere impressions.
I would greatly appreciate a debate on the issue. Last note, the client requiring SDL 2014 offers a modest amount of work, while currently I manage to use SDL 2009 for the bulk of my affairs.
Kindly,
Vincent ▲ Collapse
| | | | | What about Across PE | Mar 10, 2014 |
Hello Vincent,
I'd advise you to test the Personal Edition of Across, which is a free one for freelancers.
If this works for your, it could be a perfect solution. For $0.
| | | | Vincent Lemma 
Italy
Local time: 11:47
Italian to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Thanks Abdullah | Mar 10, 2014 |
Thanks for the advice, I have no ties to any one CAT producer; therefore, I will take a look at this platform as well. It is nice to have a broad perspective on things.
| | | | Emma Goldsmith
Spain
Local time: 11:47
Member (2004)
Spanish to English
| Features you're missing in Studio 2009 | Mar 10, 2014 |
Yes, it's definitely worth upgrading to Studio 2014. Not just because some agencies require it, but more because of all the new features that you haven't got in Studio 2009 (in addition to the filetype limitations of your old version):
Features added in Studio 2011:
1. Processing of legacy bilingual Workbench files.
2. Track changes in target and source segments
3. Export the sdlxliff file as a bilingual table in Word
4. MS Word spellchecker inside Studio (ma... See more Yes, it's definitely worth upgrading to Studio 2014. Not just because some agencies require it, but more because of all the new features that you haven't got in Studio 2009 (in addition to the filetype limitations of your old version):
Features added in Studio 2011:
1. Processing of legacy bilingual Workbench files.
2. Track changes in target and source segments
3. Export the sdlxliff file as a bilingual table in Word
4. MS Word spellchecker inside Studio (major benefit of adding words in Studio to your Word custom dictionary)
5. Source segment editing
6. Find and replace with Regex
More features that were added in Studio 2014:
1. Auto concordance when no match is found
2. More and better OpenExchange apps
3. Comments added in Studio can be retained in Word files
4. Quickmerge of files whenever you want
5. Improved file analysis features
6. More options for locked segments
7. Many more filter options and shortcut options
You can read more about these features in my blog post on Studio 2014: http://signsandsymptomsoftranslation.com/2013/10/09/studio-2014-part-2/
Yes, other CAT tools have some or all of the above features, and it would be a very interesting exercise to download demos of several different tools to compare them for yourself.
However, unless you're an expert CAT tool user, I'd recommend choosing one and sticking with it (CAT hopping brings its own problems), and you should probably go with the one that most of your agencies use.
My two cents,
Emma
[Edited at 2014-03-10 09:58 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Vincent Lemma wrote:
Hello All,
I am faced with a decision to make: upgrade from SDL 2009 to SDL 2014 or get a new CAT entirely.
A client has updated their working file formats to idml cloud, which SDL 2009 does not handle, and the only solution for me to continue working with this client is to update my CAT, or invest in a whole new CAT that handles said formats.
Taking a look at features vs. cost, I see that currently there is a great deal on DejaVu here on ProZ. I have no acquaintance with this CAT, but would do the job nicely for what I need. Furthermore, it seems that DejaVu pffers many of the features that SDL 2014 does not, which require add-ons at an extra cost.
Of course, SDL continues to remain the CAT that is most widely used and this is not to underestimate, though I have a feeling that it really isn't worth the investment when other CATs offer many additional built in features.
Again, I do not own SDL 2014 and have experience only with SDL and Transit, thus cannot state any facts, just mere impressions.
I would greatly appreciate a debate on the issue. Last note, the client requiring SDL 2014 offers a modest amount of work, while currently I manage to use SDL 2009 for the bulk of my affairs.
Kindly,
Vincent
2014 has a set of new functions (under the hood) that make it worth the jump (especially as an upgrade...i am less sure as a first purchase as there is much more choice). What you have to expect (seen from my perspective to date) is:
Good sides:
A) A definitely better processing of your projects over 2009/2011.
B) Merging files and other small things make it better. That cut my proofreading/amending of repetitions over multiple files much much quicker and the function is indeed implemented much better than in other competitors. Very seamless i'd say. It's not that other CATs don't have it. The key point is the way Studio has it implemented is quick and intuitive, for me. Others weren't so good in designing similar functions.
C) Less bugs compared to old 2009/2011
D) Better control on some review functions
E) Marginally quicker project setup (faster apparently)
Bad sides:
A) A set of new bugs that may be very irritating, especially when compared to platforms that have none or less. I have a whole range of error messages showing, especially with big projects
B) The usual slowliness in processing some jobs, big jobs with lots of pics, and the Java issue
C) TMs are not leveraged fully as some content is lost
D) Searches in Review mode tend to be inaccurate or doesn't work at all if some symbols are invoved (dashes, hyphens sometimes etc.)
D) Multiterm often doesn't find terms that are there, same is for concordance.
E) Error check and numbers are weak as ever.
F) Occasional crashes (less than 2009/2011)
Sometimes issues don't show (small projects, small TMs, small glossarier), sometimes they show up (big projects, huge TMs, huge glossaries).
Same issues can be fixed with technical solutions that require a bit of trafficking, whereas other platforms don't require that complicacy. You setup your project and go.
My advice is that if you are upgrading from a previous version then it's worth every Euro as the investment is low and the new functions are worth, even with bugs and limitations. However, i'd suggest trying else too. There is such a wide choice at the moment that there is no reason to be bound to one solution only. All of them offer trial versions. It's also good to have an idea of how other platforms work.
DejaVu, MemoQ and StarTransit are really good tools if you are planning for a shift. I am not fond of Across (It didn't even install on my PC and support was slow and the fixes suggested didn't work which had me unable to even test it when i tried to install it one year ago).
Hope this helps
Enrico
| | | | Lifeng Yang (X)
China
Local time: 17:47
English to Chinese
+ ...
| Atril is good, Across is awkward, now I'm with SDL. | Mar 10, 2014 |
I just finished a revision task with my cilent's Across server.
That's the worse CAT experience I ever got.
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 11:47
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
I'd advise you to test the Personal Edition of Across, which is a free one for freelancers.
Always back up your entire computer before installing Across. And don't do it in the middle of jobs, unless you have a spare, fully functional computer as backup.
| | | | Steven Segaert
Estonia
Local time: 12:47
Member (2012)
English to Dutch
+ ...
| Not sure if it matters much these days | Mar 10, 2014 |
I personally prefer MemoQ, and I also have a license to Studio 2011. I bought that one because I bought the whole "industry standard" and "clients require it" nonsense.
The truth is, I have one (1) client who sends me Studio packages. And I can manage these fine with MemoQ: import Studio package - translate - export return package. No problems. Sdlxiff? No problems. Etcetera.
In fact, I do believe that many (if not most) of the CAT-tools on the market today can do jus... See more I personally prefer MemoQ, and I also have a license to Studio 2011. I bought that one because I bought the whole "industry standard" and "clients require it" nonsense.
The truth is, I have one (1) client who sends me Studio packages. And I can manage these fine with MemoQ: import Studio package - translate - export return package. No problems. Sdlxiff? No problems. Etcetera.
In fact, I do believe that many (if not most) of the CAT-tools on the market today can do just about the same and offer sufficient interoperability for you not to have to care what tool your client wants you to use. I have only found one exception to that: the case where a client wants you to connect to their online "Studio" translation memory or term base. That seems to be something you can't do using other tools, but that is also the only example I have.
Other than that, it is personal preference more than anything else. I have tried many of the available tools, and picked the one that I found most comfortable to use. And once I managed basic use, I started to dig into the more advanced features.
If you like Studio 2009 and have become a happy "power user", than it is probably best to stay in that product line. If you're not really comfortable with Studio and would rather try something else, there are enough opportunities to do so.
MemoQ, for example, has a 45-day full trial available, and the new version even has a "start wizzard" that takes you on a tour through a bunch of the features.
Things I like:
- web search integrated in the tool
- autosuggest from the very first word in the term base
- Livedocs to easily re-use older translations and reference materials
- no 5 clicks to get anything done
- clean interface
Things I don't like:
- QA misses certain details that Studio picks up
- terminology management could be better
That's about it. Try before you buy . ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
| If you like Studio 2009, go for the update | Mar 11, 2014 |
I liked Studio 2009, and found 2011 was far more stable - it did not seize up over tags and 'errors' that were not in fact errors but differences between different languages...
And there were a few other things I definitely thought were improvements.
There are even more with Studio 2014. It takes a little while to find all the features on the 'ribbon' at the top, but if that's your problem, all it takes is a little patience while you explore.
As far as I am... See more I liked Studio 2009, and found 2011 was far more stable - it did not seize up over tags and 'errors' that were not in fact errors but differences between different languages...
And there were a few other things I definitely thought were improvements.
There are even more with Studio 2014. It takes a little while to find all the features on the 'ribbon' at the top, but if that's your problem, all it takes is a little patience while you explore.
As far as I am concerned, terminology management is one of the biggest reasons for using a CAT. Multiterm is still slightly sensitive to Java issues, but when it works, it is well worth the small amount of effort required to keep it up to date and reliable.
And when it doesn't - well, that is why I subscribe to SDL's hotline. All updates and necessities are included in the subscription (PSMA), so it is the least expensive option if you want the whole package.
I have tried MemoQ and Wordfast, and come back to Studio. Most of my clients use Trados in one version or another, but that is fine by me.
So my vote is for Studio 2014. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Jenn Mercer
United States
Local time: 05:47
Member (2009)
French to English
I have been using Trados since the first version of Studio and I love 2014. It is smoother, faster, and easier to find the various options than earlier versions.
| | | | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Is upgrading to SDL Studio 2014 worth the buy or should I get a new CAT? | Anycount & Translation Office 3000 | Translation Office 3000
Translation Office 3000 is an advanced accounting tool for freelance translators and small agencies. TO3000 easily and seamlessly integrates with the business life of professional freelance translators.
More info » |
| | Trados Business Manager Lite | Create customer quotes and invoices from within Trados Studio
Trados Business Manager Lite helps to simplify and speed up some of the daily tasks, such as invoicing and reporting, associated with running your freelance translation business.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news related to CAT tools
