PDA

View Full Version : Who Came First



MetroStars
12-16-2003, 08:45 PM
I like Fireworks 100 times more than Adobe Phototshop...
but who wos on the Graphic scene first

Adobe or Macromedia Fireworks

Wolfmight
12-16-2003, 09:20 PM
i pretty sure Adobe PS1 was out first..

camille
12-16-2003, 11:44 PM
There's slight difference when they were launched. Adobe is the pioneer.

Marius24
12-17-2003, 12:08 AM
Originally posted by MetroStars@16 December 2003 - 19:45
I like Fireworks 100 times more than Adobe Phototshop...
u may prefer fireworks but photoshop is alot powerfuler (sp) and more widely used :)

Illuminati
12-17-2003, 12:37 AM
If I was being brutally honest, these Photoshop vs Fireworks debates on multiple forums have started to be LOL material for me. The reason is that these are (abeit unnoticible by non-users) somewhat different.

Fireworks is used primarily to create vector graphics - This is because of their crispness and their smaller size compared to similar bitmap images; this makes them effective at their purpose of web images (Remember that Macromedia Studio, despite its almost swiss-army status, is designed mainly for web development)

Photoshop is used for exactly what is on the tin - Photos. Some bright spark however had learnt the potential of PS and so has become more than just editing photos. But its main use is still to create/edit bitmap graphics - Larger file size most times but looks a damn sight better.

In effect, comparing FW & PS is like comparing shampoo and soap, when in fact both are used for different things.

If you truly wanted to compared Macromedia and Adobe, try Fireworks vs Illustrator or Dreamweaver/Flash vs GoLive - Macromedia has no equivalent of Photoshop ;)

MetroStars
12-17-2003, 02:56 PM
dam gud answer Illuminati

Wizzandabe
12-17-2003, 04:33 PM
Well, iv heard of Fireworks a long time before Photoshop, but Foreworks, is a fucking cunt, its shit! Ps, it a lot better. ;)

TRshady
12-17-2003, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by Illuminati@17 December 2003 - 00:37
If I was being brutally honest, these Photoshop vs Fireworks debates on multiple forums have started to be LOL material for me. The reason is that these are (abeit unnoticible by non-users) somewhat different.

Fireworks is used primarily to create vector graphics - This is because of their crispness and their smaller size compared to similar bitmap images; this makes them effective at their purpose of web images (Remember that Macromedia Studio, despite its almost swiss-army status, is designed mainly for web development)

Photoshop is used for exactly what is on the tin - Photos. Some bright spark however had learnt the potential of PS and so has become more than just editing photos. But its main use is still to create/edit bitmap graphics - Larger file size most times but looks a damn sight better.

In effect, comparing FW & PS is like comparing shampoo and soap, when in fact both are used for different things.

If you truly wanted to compared Macromedia and Adobe, try Fireworks vs Illustrator or Dreamweaver/Flash vs GoLive - Macromedia has no equivalent of Photoshop ;)
Thats that sorted then. :P

slimboyfatz
12-18-2003, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by Illuminati@17 December 2003 - 01:37
If I was being brutally honest, these Photoshop vs Fireworks debates on multiple forums have started to be LOL material for me.  The reason is that these are (abeit unnoticible by non-users) somewhat different. 

Fireworks is used primarily to create vector graphics - This is because of their crispness and their smaller size compared to similar bitmap images; this makes them effective at their purpose of web images (Remember that Macromedia Studio, despite its almost swiss-army status, is designed mainly for web development)

Photoshop is used for exactly what is on the tin - Photos.  Some bright spark however had learnt the potential of PS and so has become more than just editing photos.  But its main use is still to create/edit bitmap graphics - Larger file size most times but looks a damn sight better. 

In effect, comparing FW & PS is like comparing shampoo and soap, when in fact both are used for different things. 

If you truly wanted to compared Macromedia and Adobe, try Fireworks vs Illustrator or Dreamweaver/Flash vs GoLive - Macromedia has no equivalent of Photoshop ;)
Very good point...I've been using the Macromedia and Adobe software for a fair while now (since DW2 and Illustrator 6 :blink: ) and i use Photoshop and Illustrator primarily for web graphics , never really touched on Fireworks at all...adobe has done me proud for all these years..and having Imageready bundled with photoshop is a bonus..strange i've never used Golive but i think Dreamweaver is the dogs anyway..jus' keeps getting better... ;)

In reply to the first question...Adobe was there years before Macromedia...
Good idea this 'Internetworld'....lets keep it going!!! ;)

Explosive
12-18-2003, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by Wolfmight@16 December 2003 - 22:20
i pretty sure Adobe PS1 was out first..
Nice signature!

sparsely
12-19-2003, 01:34 AM
Originally posted by whoever
alot powerfuler (sp)

more powerful :rolleyes:
and yeah, illuminati hit the nail on the head.
fireworks=illustrator, not photoshop

wienerschnitzel
12-20-2003, 08:10 AM
fireworks doesn't really = illustrator.
fireworks = a little of illustrator and a little of photoshop + image ready.

I like fireworks because its quick and has all the features you need to web design. That what it was designed for. They just mimic some of photoshop for image editing and added vector stuff. Compressed images on the web don't need the highest image quality. I didn't need any of the features that photoshop had and fireworks didn't so i stopped using it. Actually I only use it with adobe after effects and encore.

CoolMac
01-06-2004, 01:27 AM
i thin the egg :P

lectrospin
01-18-2004, 09:46 AM
i can remember macromedia had a different name, cant remember what it was though. Adobe were well established at this point but i'm not sure when macromedia previous incarnation was founded. Its a silly debate seen as they are different programs for different uses but as far as i knoe fireworks is quite a young program and photoshop predates it by many years.

NightStalker
01-19-2004, 12:54 AM
Well.. Adobe was founded in 1982, and Macromedia was founded in 1992.

It would seem as if Photoshop would have came out frist. ;)

Regards, NightStalker.

slimboyfatz
02-09-2004, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by NightStalker@19 January 2004 - 01:54
Well.. Adobe was founded in 1982, and Macromedia was founded in 1992.

It would seem as if Photoshop would have came out frist. ;)

Regards, NightStalker.
Smart arse!!! :lol:

NightStalker
02-09-2004, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by slimboyfatz+9 February 2004 - 08:14--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (slimboyfatz @ 9 February 2004 - 08:14)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-NightStalker@19 January 2004 - 01:54
Well.. Adobe was founded in 1982, and Macromedia was founded in 1992.

It would seem as if Photoshop would have came out frist.&nbsp; ;)

Regards, NightStalker.
Smart arse&#33;&#33;&#33; :lol: [/b][/quote]
"The truth shall set you free&#33;" :clap:

Keikan
02-29-2004, 12:27 AM
Fireworks suck ass

PHOTOSHOP OWNS ALL&#33;&#33;&#33;

and I know this because I have to use it in school

Illuminati
02-29-2004, 01:24 AM
Originally posted by NightStalker@19 January 2004 - 01:54
Well.. Adobe was founded in 1982, and Macromedia was founded in 1992.

It would seem as if Photoshop would have came out frist.&nbsp; ;)

Regards, NightStalker.
Ah, but Nintendo was around for a century as a Japanese playing card manufacturer before they created the NES/Famicom. Likewise, Microsoft was around for six years with BASIC before the real big advancement called MS-DOS was licenced to IBM :)

Which was the first company running/the oldest company means f*** all. What matters is what time each specific thing was released ;)

EDIT: What I said above got me interested in finding out when each product came out, so I did some research :) Photoshop began in 1988 as a personal project but officially became 1.0 in 1990, two years after Adobe got it and started further development on it. Fireworks 1.0 was created in 1998 in the same year as Dreamweaver and Flash, but Macromedia spans back to 1984 under the name of MacroMind. It became MacroMind-Paracomp in 1991 after the two merged and Macromedia in 1992 after they merged with Authorware.

Damn - It&#39;s amazing the history you learn :D I&#39;ll post source links later :)


Fireworks suck ass

PHOTOSHOP OWNS ALL&#33;&#33;&#33;

and I know this because I have to use it in school

In the same retrospect - Macs and Linux suck all, and Windows rules all. How do I know this? Because I have to use it constantly at college.

Outrageous, you betcha. That&#39;s the point. :rolleyes:

(Side Note - Damn, it&#39;s been a while since I&#39;ve been this pedantic. It&#39;s almost refreshing :lol:)

benxuk
03-22-2004, 12:43 AM
Originally posted by Illuminati@17 December 2003 - 00:37
If I was being brutally honest, these Photoshop vs Fireworks debates on multiple forums have started to be LOL material for me. The reason is that these are (abeit unnoticible by non-users) somewhat different.

Fireworks is used primarily to create vector graphics - This is because of their crispness and their smaller size compared to similar bitmap images; this makes them effective at their purpose of web images (Remember that Macromedia Studio, despite its almost swiss-army status, is designed mainly for web development)

Photoshop is used for exactly what is on the tin - Photos. Some bright spark however had learnt the potential of PS and so has become more than just editing photos. But its main use is still to create/edit bitmap graphics - Larger file size most times but looks a damn sight better.

In effect, comparing FW & PS is like comparing shampoo and soap, when in fact both are used for different things.

If you truly wanted to compared Macromedia and Adobe, try Fireworks vs Illustrator or Dreamweaver/Flash vs GoLive - Macromedia has no equivalent of Photoshop ;)
couldn&#39;t agree more, very :lol: material