Is Slic3r better output software than MakerWare? Why?
Right off the bat I’m noticing that Slic3r doesn’t find my printer and allow file transfer except with an sd card. I like the fact that MakerWare allows you to send files directly to print.
Slic3r does not talk to your printer at all, it just slices, you need something like pronterface or repetier-host to send the gcode to the printer. Both of which can call slic3r for you if you don’t want it to be a separate stage
Makerware is a wrapper around machine control and a slicer, with a nice user interface. You can use Slic3r with Makerware if you want rather than skeinforge (the default slicer). Makes for a confusing world I know.
Indeed - I have a printer based on the MakerBot so the most logical choice seems to be MakerWare for all in one file preperation/slice/output. Just curious if I could get a better slice somewhere else, but it seems they all do about the same.
@Dan_Froehlich “but it seems they all do about the same.”
Are you trying to start a war here, sir?
Just for your information; there are several slcers out there, and every slicer has good and bad points. And every type has zealots, ahem, I mean followers.
Well, I’m ok just as long as it doesn’t get as bad as the VI vs.Emacs holy wars.
btw: Where’s a good slicer comparison on the most recent versions (with minimum bias)?
I’ve discovered the slicing question has some interesting subtlety to it, specifically the quality of what you get from a given set of gcode instructions is dependent on what machine type you send them to, and sometimes what environment that machine is in.
Typically slicers will attempt to ‘get back’ to previous layers in a time that prevents that layer from getting too cool if its going to be deposited on top of, but some machines are faster in X than they are in Y (or vice versa) so different paths take different amounts of time than the slicer expects. Further different machines have different ‘post cooling’ strategies so some can bridge and some can’t. Some can change the nozzle temp dynamically and some can’t. So you end up with a bazillion options in the slicer and the combinatorial number of possible outputs!
I’ve been living in that particular conundrum while trying to characterize the PET+ filament on my Replicator. Different results from different settings and different results with the same settings but on different physical machines. That leads me to believe that I’m going to have to dive all the way to the bottom of a couple of slicers to understand what the key factors are in that particular filament’s performance.
It’s not a reassuring place but its an interesting one 
The newest slic3r is quite powerful, but its known for having pretty basic toolpathing by default.
What I LOVE about slic3r is modifiers. When I make a print that needs mixed gcodes (some layers hollow, or with less perimeters, etc.), you can import a model as a modifer that tells slic3r to change X settings in that area instead of manually swapping the code. You can get some really great customization options that way.
@Dan_Froehlich I am sure you will find that the slicers do different things better than the other others. One may do thin walls better while another does infill better while another does yet another thing better. You may also find that the heat and humidity affect the print quality. Of course, drying the filament can help avoid some humidity related issues.