Web Hosting Talk : Web Hosting Main Forums : Web Design and Content : Just Curious

[ReardenTech]

I notice a lot of fellow designers use photoshop, I am curious how many like myself use Fireworks instead. And if you have used both, why you like one over the other.

As for me, as a coldfusion developer also, I like the way you can easily intergrate all the macromedia products which is why I like Fireworks. Dreamweaver makes it easy to edit graphics on the go with fireworks without having to reslice anything.

[tarun hari]

adobe photoshop is a true graphics development program, fireworks is somewhat of a mix. I dont code much so I use photoshop as I design heavily. As for interigating it with flash It is usually a pain to exort pngs etc but I purchaced psd2fla which is a great tool, so for me photoshop is overall way better!

[Rich2k]

I'm a full time cold fusion developer and a Macromedia Certified Developer for Dreamweaver MX. I simply can't stand fireworks. I don't find it intuative enough compared to photoshop.

[DeltaBlue]

I dont like the way in which fireworks is all vector based, makes doing some stuff much harder than it needs to be...

i use both, but as time has gone on, been using less and less of fireworks and more of photoshop

[adaml]

Mmmm? I love Fireworks?! I cant stand photoshop, it has better addons and everything can be done more easily. But fireworks has more just harder to work. Which i think is better for graphic designers?!

And Studio MX comes with great addons and they all interegate which is always a bonus.

But i recknon it comes down to you as a personally choose!

Does anyone know if Studio MX 2004 is anygood?

[ReardenTech]

Studio MX 2004 has not been released yet. But I read where it is supposed to have better CSS handling in Dreamweaver 2004. I think it stinks that they release Studio MX not that long ago and they want to charge $499 to upgrade to MX2004.

[Rich2k]

It's ok when you don't pay for it yourself

[switch]

Studio MX 2004 really does rock. Hell, Flash MX 2004 Pro it almost worth it alone

Anyhow, for my image needs, nothing is better then Photoshop. It's all about power and control. Fireworks is a good, solid program, but nothing next to Photoshop.

[zoobie]

Dreamweaver and the new FP are the most stolen "editors" on the net.

What lamers don't understand is that they make soon to be obsolete code using the old <strong><font><etc> tags that will be dropped by major browsers at the end of 2005...a mere 18 months away. It will not display in new browsers after that. But since you didn't pay for it anyway...who cares...right?

What lamers REALLY don't understand is that these editors open and close tags every mistake you make...The nice thing is, search engines take a look at the content vs size and penalize you for slow page loading.

Sweet....

[Rich2k]

Rubbish.

They will not drop those tags as if someone uses an HTML 3.2 doctype a browser will HAVE to support it.

In HTML 4.0 and XHTML 1.0 Transitional they are deprecated which means you can still use them, they just might not be there in the future versions.

They don't exist in XHTML 1.1 as it's very strict but you can't suddenly make all browsers ONLY use XHTML 1.1, it would be suicide and break almost all sites on the web (you'd be amazed how many sites use those tags). In fact the W3C recommend using <em> and <strong> instead of <i> and <b>!!!

Give me a legitimate source for that information and I might believe you.

The definition of deprecated from the W3C

A deprecated element or attribute is one that has been outdated by newer constructs. Deprecated elements are defined in the reference manual in appropriate locations, but are clearly marked as deprecated. Deprecated elements may become obsolete in future versions of HTML.
User agents should continue to support deprecated elements for reasons of backward compatibility.

The <font> tag is deprecated and thus by the W3C's own guidelines should still be supported for compatibility