Adobe Creative Studio 2 vs Macromedia MX Studio 8

[viperice]

Hi,

Im looking to start web development with nice looking graphics etc and im quite new to it! I can code web pages but im looking to start doing it using a GUI to make smarter looking sites.

What would I be better off choosing to get myself started? Im looking for e.g. pro's and con's for example: MX studio is better but Creative Studio is easyer. I really dont know and i dont want to fork out for something that im not going to like/be able to use! Im using Mac OX X 10.4.4 if anyone needs to know that.

If people could just give me some advice I would really apricate it!

Thanks,
Ben.

[fryke]

Hm. I'd say they're totally different. Do you intend to work with bitmap graphics more or with vector art? Do you intend to create webgraphics as JPEG, GIF, PNG or do you want to get into Flash-programming?

Now that Adobe has bought Macromedia, I'd say it's a bit "safer" to start with Adobe CS 2, if what you want to do is to just start somewhere... And you can't really beat Photoshop. Illustrator vs. FreeHand is like vi vs. emacs: An age-old war, and it all depends on what people are _used_ to, so if you're not used to creating vector art _yet_, you're free to choose. I've always used Illustrator and never could really work with FreeHand, so I'm biased.

[Lt Major Burns]

they come from drastically different backgrounds. The mx studio has grown up from motion graphics and webdesign, wheras the adobe suite has grown up from print based media.

i would say that the adobe suite is better for producing graphics, visuals, wheras the mx suite is superior for applying those visuals to a motion/web/screen project.

you could produce a world-class website on both, but i think your problem here is inexperience. i would say before you spalsh out on these expensive suites, get some adequate training in both, and then you can decide for yourself. i really don't think this something we can answer, as it's mainly personal preference. it's taken me 10 years to get the level i am on photoshop, it took me 6 months of intensive training to be able to animate effectively (ie not crap) on flash. these programs are amazinlgy complex, and they don't suffer fools easily. the learning curve for any of the apps within each suite is immense.

i would get training on the different disciplines, using an institutions copies of these programs before even thinking in investing in your own.

[mdnky]

Originally Posted by viperice

I can code web pages but im looking to start doing it using a GUI to make smarter looking sites.

Using a GUI based program isn't going to help your sites look any better really, so don't rely on that happening. If you can already code well, then maybe looking into a good text-editor program (BBEdit, TextWrangler [free], skEdit, etc.) would be a better choice.

If a GUI based app is a must-have for you, then DreamWeaver is probably going to be the best pick. They have a better hand coding feature than GoLive does, which is a much needed feature. There's other reasons to pick DW over GL, but many are based on personal preferences. I for one think GL's interface is a bit hard to digest (it is similar to other Adobe apps), but then again I used DW quite a bit before trying GL and was used to the way you do things in DW.

If Flash (the scourge of the internet) is something you'll need capability with then the Macromedia Suite is the hands down winner. Personally I'd suggest staying as far away from Flash as possible...it's great for minor supporting roles in websites, but a usability and accessibility nightmare for actual total site development.

For Web graphics it's a split. I've always preferred Fireworks over Photoshop, as it's specific purpose is more geared towards web apps, but I've kept a copy of both (I like Photoshop better for print work). Right now I don't have the Macromedia Apps (have Studio MX 2004) installed on my new PowerBook, as I never got around to doing it. In fact all I've installed from the CS bundle was Photoshop and InDesign...I very rarely (if ever) use Illustrator/Freehand.

Right now I use BBEdit, Photoshop CS, and Transmit for all sites. Print work is done via InDesign CS and Photoshop CS. I was going to upgrade CS to CS2 when I bought the PowerBook (my iBook didn't meet CS2's specs) last month, but found out Adobe will be releasing CS3 by the summer of 2006. Since the new Intel Macs are out, I doubt it'll even be that far out now. I don't see them wasting the time/money to recode CS2 into a Universal when they have a new version already less than six months from release and a perfect reason to force an upgrade. I'd now expect a release sometime in spring or early summer at the latest.

So it might be worth waiting a few months if possible. If not, I'm not sure how your financial situation is...but if you can swing $1900, then maybe the Web Bundle is the thing to grab. It includes Creative Suite 2 Premium as well as Studio 8 in one bundle ($1899 full, $899 upgrade). The upgrade version requires a version of Studio (MX or MX2004) and a version of Creative Suite (CS Standard or Premium). You might be able to pick-up an unused copy of both on the net and buy the upgrade version of the bundle for less than the full price...though it might not be worth the time/effort required in the end (depends on how much you could save).

[viperice]

Originally Posted by fryke

Hm. I'd say they're totally different. Do you intend to work with bitmap graphics more or with vector art? Do you intend to create webgraphics as JPEG, GIF, PNG or do you want to get into Flash-programming?

Now that Adobe has bought Macromedia, I'd say it's a bit "safer" to start with Adobe CS 2, if what you want to do is to just start somewhere... And you can't really beat Photoshop. Illustrator vs. FreeHand is like vi vs. emacs: An age-old war, and it all depends on what people are _used_ to, so if you're not used to creating vector art _yet_, you're free to choose. I've always used Illustrator and never could really work with FreeHand, so I'm biased.

To be honest I have never used vector art, I dont even know what is is :| so I would say bitmap graphics to start with! Im not a noob with computers I have quite a vast *NIX experiance and I am currently a windows computer technication I have just never even really bothered with graphics, but I have now reached a stage where I am very interested to learn . Also I have never tried flash, apart from just a play around so I think im going to stay away from that for now too.

they come from drastically different backgrounds. The mx studio has grown up from motion graphics and webdesign, wheras the adobe suite has grown up from print based media.

i would say that the adobe suite is better for producing graphics, visuals, wheras the mx suite is superior for applying those visuals to a motion/web/screen project.

you could produce a world-class website on both, but i think your problem here is inexperience. i would say before you spalsh out on these expensive suites, get some adequate training in both, and then you can decide for yourself. i really don't think this something we can answer, as it's mainly personal preference. it's taken me 10 years to get the level i am on photoshop, it took me 6 months of intensive training to be able to animate effectively (ie not crap) on flash. these programs are amazinlgy complex, and they don't suffer fools easily. the learning curve for any of the apps within each suite is immense.

i would get training on the different disciplines, using an institutions copies of these programs before even thinking in investing in your own.

I think you are very correct, from what I can tell alot is personal preferance and experiance and quite possibly to sampler style testing courses in each would do the trick

mdnky: Your post was a bit long to quote so I will just reply from what i can tell maybe a mixture between different apps is the best bet, again going on personal preferance for different jobs. I do not have the money to pay for the web bundle

For Web graphics it's a split. I've always preferred Fireworks over Photoshop, as it's specific purpose is more geared towards web apps, but I've kept a copy of both (I like Photoshop better for print work).

What do you mean for print work? Like static images and fireworks better for things like moving web images? If this is the case then I think photoshop would be better for me for now as I am very inexperianced with graphics and I can still make a nice looking website using static gfx and once I learn that then I can get to grips with moving images.

Thanks for your input guys, much apricated

Regards,
Ben.

[Lt Major Burns]

print = 300dpi - posters, magazines, leaflets, flyers etc.

screen = 72 dpi - motion, video, web, cd-rom etc.

web design you work to the size on screen, at 100%, for print design you work at resolutions 4 times that, so you get clarity when you print.

[mdnky]

Originally Posted by viperice

What do you mean for print work? Like static images and fireworks better for things like moving web images? If this is the case then I think photoshop would be better for me for now as I am very inexperianced with graphics and I can still make a nice looking website using static gfx and once I learn that then I can get to grips with moving images.

By print I mean non-web design (magazines, business cards, flyers, posters, etc.). Not really related to what you're looking for, but that was the reason I loaded Photoshop and didn't load Fireworks on the new laptop. Photoshop is more than capable for web work, it's just Fireworks is a bit more optimized for it. I had to fly home for the holidays a few days after getting the laptop, so I had way too many things to do and not near enough time. I'll probably load it here in the next few weeks when things slow down a bit.

If all you're going to do is web-based images, then Fireworks is probably the better choice. You can even do decent images for print work, it's just not as smooth as Photoshop is in that area. Fireworks will accept most Photoshop plug-ins/filters too.

It might be worth waiting a few months if possible to see what Adobe does with the merger and upcoming CS3 (or whatever they call it). Word is they'll be canning GoLive in favor of DreamWeaver (or renaming DW as GoLive) and combining AfterEffects and FireWorks. Just make sure your system meets the requirements for whatever you choose to buy.

[fryke]

I'd say Photoshop is pretty sure to survive, though. It's _the_ gold standard for (bitmap based) graphics.