Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Xaaron Swiftblade · Nov 25, 2003, 12:51 PM

I know this is a very heated question, and there are some very obvious answers one way or the other as far as specific programs, but overall, what's everyone's opinion on these? If you had to use one set but not the other, which would you choose?

MojoRising022 · Nov 25, 2003, 01:01 PM

For the most part these are very different animals. I use both, but for very different purposes.

First, no comparable Macromedia product exists for Photoshop or InDesign. Also, no comparable Adobe product exists for Flash (Live Motion was recently axed and was an abomination to begin with).

Head to head comparisons (opinions):
- Illustrator is light years ahead of Freehand for print work and in it's feature set, but Freehand is much more useful when the ultimate output is in Flash.

- DreamWeaver has a much more robust feature set than Go Live. I personally could not se using Go Live for anything more than a small, HTML-only site. DW 04 suffers froms erious sppeed issues though.

- Fireworks is a much better program than Image Ready. There is just no comparison here. Image Ready should be merged with Photoshop.

All in all, Macromedia is a batter suite for web-centered work and Adobe provides a much better solution for print.

Severed Hand of Skywalker · Nov 25, 2003, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by MojoRising022:
For the most part these are very different animals. I use both, but for very different purposes.

Ya, Macromedia is JUNK and the new Adobe Suite is incredible.

voodoo · Nov 25, 2003, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker:
Ya, Macromedia is JUNK and the new Adobe Suite is incredible.

I totally dig the Adobe CS. It is good stuff.

Haven't tried the Macromedia MX2004 suite - I'm not into making websites and shait like that. Print only

And in print Adobe is a friend. XCept I much rather use XPress

XPress 6 is good. Kind of like Photoshop 7. It isn't a Photoshop CS but it is still good. Next version of XPress will be very interesting.

Severed Hand of Skywalker · Nov 25, 2003, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by voodoo:

XPress 6 is good. Kind of like Photoshop 7. It isn't a Photoshop CS but it is still good. Next version of XPress will be very interesting.

What? I use xpress 6 at work ever day for 6 hours for the past month and it is the buggiest crap I have ever used! The only plus side is that it is OSX native. We tried switching to inDesign 3 and it was a dream but our printer doesn't support it so we had to go back!

voodoo · Nov 25, 2003, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker:
What? I use xpress 6 at work ever day for 6 hours for the past month and it is the buggiest crap I have ever used! The only plus side is that it is OSX native. We tried switching to inDesign 3 and it was a dream but our printer doesn't support it so we had to go back!

XPress 6 buggy? In a world where people accept Office and OS 10.3 as a ok XPress 6 is pretty darn good. Guess we'we come to accept that software is a bit buggy.

mishap · Nov 25, 2003, 05:50 PM

Creative Suite and StudioMX are very different. I dont see myself choosing one over the other. I think they are both must haves.

I personally use CS for all my print work Photoshop, InDesign, and Illustrator. (except for using ImageReady for a few things)

I dont use fireworks or freehand.

i do all my web work in MX. I know everyone isnt happy with the new dreamweaver update. but, i think the update is great. Also, i have several clients that want to edit and add their own content... this works great for me and them. I can use dreamweaver to set up the site and later when they want to add more content, they can through templates i set up by using dreamweaver...they add new content with an affordable program (macromedia contribute)

There is no replacement for Flash in Adobe CS --must have

There is no replacement for Photoshop in MX --must have

So unless you do limited work, both products are essential

protohootie · Nov 25, 2003, 06:20 PM

I tend to use ALL Adobe but there's something about the way GoLive works (or doesn't) to me that just keeps me in Dreamweaver... I'm able to get a lot more done in DWMX than I EVER can in GoLive.

So for me it's Adobe, AND Macromedia only.

PH

mishap · Nov 25, 2003, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by protohootie:
I tend to use ALL Adobe but there's something about the way GoLive works (or doesn't) to me that just keeps me in Dreamweaver... I'm able to get a lot more done in DWMX than I EVER can in GoLive.

So for me it's Adobe, AND Macromedia only.

PH

I agree. When i use GoLive it feels amateur-ish--which may be fine for some people who do small sites.

LightWaver-67 · Nov 25, 2003, 08:43 PM

I am an Illustrator user when it comes to Vector-based apps. Freehand & Illustrator both have their strengths & weaknesses, but I much prefer Illustrator.

One feature I WISH Illustrator had that Freehand does is multiple-pages in a document.

In the big-picture, I know InDesign can do just that, but in a one-to-one comparison of illustration applications I often wished AI had multiple pages.

Between both options, my usage is:

Pixel-based: Photoshop
Vector-based: Illustrator
Web: Dreamweaver (hands-down)
Page layout: InDesign (although I must use QXP at work)
Multimedia: Director (no comparison)

Both companies make great products and for those who have invested time into either side of the fence, they usually stay in that camp (myself included).

:dragonflypro: · 02:09 PM

The only comparable apps, as mentioned are DW/FW to GL/IR.

And there is no comparison of much merit.

DW, while suffering from a really bad case of 9-ness, is significantly more productive for me for websites than GL.. despite its pathetic speed issues.

I tried GL, it is pretty and I really wanted to like it. It has some well thought out features...but just misses the basics all too easy. Like lacking simple things in favor of old-school design method, such as just inserting a table (DW: cmd-shft-T / GL: go over and double click table icon on pallete-no keystroke I can find)

FW is kind of an odd duck app, but I LOVE it. Its multi-method (vector/raster) object model is great for web site graphics. Hard-core photo editing still requires PS... never any way around that..but for menus, button and widgets it is awesome. And, integration with DW is great.

IR, on the other hand.... it is like PS web-lite. I have to switch apps for 50% of image editing things. I don't think I ever figured out it's logic... it basically seems to slice and compress..and FW has it readily beat in that departmentt. Just give PS a web toggle button and stop making me launch a whole other app.

Other wise, IL is pref to FH for all but pre -Flash work, nothing in MM is on par with ID and nothing in CS does Flash.

The best arsenal...well both.

For a web designer... MM MX04 + PS.

T

philzilla · Nov 26, 2003, 05:09 AM

Originally posted by :dragonflypro::
For a web designer... MM MX04 + PS.

yep, that's the ticket, for all the reasons stated already. just outright calling the MM stuff "junk" with no reason is a bit lame.

MojoRising022 · Nov 26, 2003, 01:28 PM

MX 2004 is hardly junk. It has serious performance issues - no doubt - but the feature set of the individual applications is nothing short of staggering and the integration between apps is phenomenal. Nothing compares to the suite's overall functionality.

Xaaron Swiftblade · Nov 26, 2003, 04:06 PM

I understood when asking that neither package could compensate completely for the other, so in asking my main objective was to find which specific apps are disposable. And since I don't do much print work, it seems the combo of StudioMX + PS is the best bet. I'm really looking forward to doing vector graphics (haven't even touched 'em - scared of the pen tool in PS) and it seems Freehand might not be all that Illustrator is, but it's close (Atleast closer than Golive is to Dreamweaver).

Now all I gotta do is come up with the money for everything!

Thanx everyone - and if anyone has anymore to contribute, feel free!

kovacs · Nov 26, 2003, 04:40 PM

Try the demo versions from their website first... I'm an adobe man myself maybe because most things I do are graphics related and not web related, I much prefer the look and feel of adobe apps over the Macromedia ones. I like Golive but have to admit Dreamweaver is much better ( still don't like the GUI and speed of the app )....Freehand is a total mess and I much prefer Illustrator.

Helvetica Neue · Nov 27, 2003, 05:03 AM

Originally posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker:
We tried switching to inDesign 3 and it was a dream but our printer doesn't support it so we had to go back!

That's some service your SERVICE PROVIDER gives you!

Can't take pdf files either?

voodoo · Nov 27, 2003, 06:06 AM

Originally posted by Helvetica Neue:
That's some service your SERVICE PROVIDER gives you!

Can't take pdf files either?

They probably have to be able to edit the files at the printers. That ain't gonna happen with a pdf.

godzookie2k · Nov 27, 2003, 06:10 AM

Photoshop CS is the only cs upgrade I'm going with. Dreamweaver MX2004 is a goddamn godsend, though I have been hearing good reviews on golive, apparently its surprisingly good. I haven't used it yet. Flash MX pro 2004 is good, but I might move back to MX on flash. but yeah, both serve different purposes.

I still use quark 4.

mishap · Nov 27, 2003, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by Helvetica Neue:
That's some service your SERVICE PROVIDER gives you!

Can't take pdf files either?

I agree, at this point if a printer doesnt take InDesign files... time to change printers. A printer should always accept whatever format you are giving a file to them in...InDesign, Illustrator, Quark, whaterver...they make their money from you. Hell, you are paying for the time on the machines (or your client), why should you be using quark if you dont need to.

If a printer only accepts Quark up to this point, that is just damn lazy.