WOW... Adobe to Acquire Macromedia in $3.4B Deal [Archive]

teedubya

04-18-2005, 08:29 AM

Being a Graphic Artist, I find this unreal. Im speechless at this moment.

-----------------

Adobe to Acquire Macromedia in $3.4B Deal
Monday April 18, 7:26 am ET

Adobe to Acquire Macromedia in an All-Stock Transaction Valued at $3.4 Billion
SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) -- Adobe Systems Inc., one of the world's largest providers of document-design software, will acquire Macromedia Inc. in an all-stock transaction valued at approximately $3.4 billion, the companies announced Monday. Adobe's software includes the popular Acrobat and Photoshop program.

San Francisco-based Macromedia makes the Dreamweaver and Flash web-design software. Combining the two businesses, the companies said, will allow them to create more powerful software programs that can be used across multiple operating systems, which should pave the way for expansion into new markets. Under terms of the deal, approved by the companies' boards of directors, Macromedia stockholders will receive 0.69 shares of Adobe common stock for every share of their Macromedia common stock. That will result in Macromedia stockholders owning about 18 percent of the combined company when the deal closes.

The transaction, contingent upon the approval of both companies' stockholders, is expected to be complete by the fall. It also requires the approval of federal regulators. "Customers are calling for integrated software solutions that enable them to create, manage and deliver a wide range of compelling content and applications -- from documents and images to audio and video," said Bruce Chizen, chief executive officer of Adobe. Chizen will remain as chief executive of the combined company and Adobe's Shantanu Narayenb will continue as president and chief operating officer. Macromedia CEO Stephen Elop will join Adobe as president of worldwide field operations.

The companies said they are in the midst of developing "integration plans" that will build on their similarities. They made no mention of layoffs. Adobe employs 3,700 people in offices around the world. It reported revenues of $1.295 billion for fiscal 2003.

"While we anticipate the integration team will identify opportunities for cost savings by the time the acquisition closes, the primary motivation for the two companies' joining is to continue to expand and grow our business into new markets," Chizen said.

HC_Chief

04-18-2005, 08:34 AM

Kewl.
Makes sense - I don't know a single web designer/graphic artist that doesn't use an app developed by both companies.

I wonder if Photoshop 8 will include Flash tools? :D

Ali - check out <a href="http://www.cgnetworks.com">CGNetworks</a> some time (if you haven't already) - it's my favorite CG site.

Also check out ZBrush - it is AMAZING! Takes some time to get used to the controls and interface, but it comes with a nice tutorial and MAN, is it powerful.

NewChief

04-18-2005, 09:00 AM

Interesting. I wonder if they'll get rid of Freehand? That would be cool. My wife is supposed to use Freehand at her new job, but she doesn't know it. She wants to use PS or Illustrator instead.

jcroft

04-18-2005, 09:02 AM

This is both scary and cool at the same time. Integration of PDF and SVG with Flash would be awesome. However, the thought of some of Macromedia's terrific web design apps (Fireworks, Dreamweaver) getting scrapped in favor of Adobe's inferior competitors (ImageReady, GoLive) is frightening.

Also, this means that Adobe has virtually zero competition in the creative design marketplace. I'm a big Adobe fan and always have been, but a monopoly has to scare you a bit, no matter who it is.

HC_Chief

04-18-2005, 09:05 AM

Also, this means that Adobe has virtually zero competition in the creative design marketplace. I'm a big Adobe fan and always have been, but a monopoly has to scare you a bit, no matter who it is.

?!
There are tons of competing apps out there. The only Adobe product that is THE app - the one that pretty much all graphic designer uses, is Photoshop.

Wrasse

04-18-2005, 09:18 AM

HC_Chief

04-18-2005, 09:20 AM

This should be interesting...

I'm mainly an Adobe/Corel guy when it comes to graphic design. As for web programming...I prefer notepad or some of my own creations so I haven't had the chance to use many of the Macromedia products (not big into their GUIs and I also don't put together much flash stuff). Anyhoo...if it makes PS and Image Ready that much better, it's all good. :)

I bet you would like DreamWeaver - the auto-generated HTML is actually clean. There is very little editing required (if at all) to ensure the site is optimally designed.

ChiefsOne

04-18-2005, 09:21 AM

NewChief

04-18-2005, 09:23 AM

I used to use Freehand more than Illustrator, but more of the maket uses Illustator. There are some functions in Freehand that I like better, plus it some of the tasks are simpler to do in Freehand.

Hopefully they will combine the two and take the best from each.

We loaded up Freehand on our machine the other day. We've hardly had time to look at it, but I'm not exactly impressed. It seems to have some 3-D rendering capabilities? But my wife is making 2-dimensional greeting cards, fabric prints, and patterns...not any kind of models. I don't understand why her company doesn't just use PS/Illustrator as the standard for the type of work they do. Of course, my wife would prefer to work with U4ia, because she's a textile/fashion design type.

Wrasse

04-18-2005, 09:26 AM

I bet you would like DreamWeaver - the auto-generated HTML is actually clean. There is very little editing required (if at all) to ensure the site is optimally designed.
I've heard nothing but great things about DreamWeaver. I'd love to toy around with it at some point but with my focus moving more towards .NET, I'd have to understand how well both systems fit together.

jcroft

04-18-2005, 09:29 AM

?!
There are tons of competing apps out there. The only Adobe product that is THE app - the one that pretty much all graphic designer uses, is Photoshop.

Are you serious? Name one app that doesn't comes from Adobe or Macromedia that any professional designer would consider using.

And you are suggesting that Photoshop is the be-all-end-all? Photoshop doesn't really do vectors -- and a LOT of design work requires vectors.

Jeff
Professional designer.

jcroft

04-18-2005, 09:30 AM

This should be interesting...

I'm mainly an Adobe/Corel guy when it comes to graphic design. As for web programming...I prefer notepad or some of my own creations so I haven't had the chance to use many of the Macromedia products (not big into their GUIs and I also don't put together much flash stuff). Anyhoo...if it makes PS and Image Ready that much better, it's all good. :)

Programming is a different beast. Programmers use text editors. Designers don't. These days, very few people are "web master" types who do it all. most people are specialists. There are too many jack of all trades, anymore.

The creative types use, almost exclusively, Adobe and Macromedia apps.

jcroft

04-18-2005, 09:32 AM

I bet you would like DreamWeaver - the auto-generated HTML is actually clean. There is very little editing required (if at all) to ensure the site is optimally designed.

Dreamweaver generates very clean, good HTML and XHTML, but if he is a programmer, he has no need for it. A text editor will do just fine.

Wrasse

04-18-2005, 09:32 AM

Are you serious? Name one app that doesn't comes from Adobe or Macromedia that any professional designer would consider using.

Jeff
Professional designer.
I'm not sure how 'professional' I am when it comes to the graphic design department (I'm more a programmer that is forced to design pages for the company due to size), but I really don't care for Illustrator and use Corel Draw instead.

If other pros would consider this...well I don't have a clue. :)

redfan

04-18-2005, 09:33 AM

Are you serious? Name one app that doesn't comes from Adobe or Macromedia that any professional designer would consider using.

And you are suggesting that Photoshop is the be-all-end-all? Photoshop doesn't really do vectors -- and a LOT of design work requires vectors.

Jeff
Professional designer.

The GIMP, but I'm not sure how many pros actually use it.

jcroft

04-18-2005, 09:33 AM

We loaded up Freehand on our machine the other day. We've hardly had time to look at it, but I'm not exactly impressed. It seems to have some 3-D rendering capabilities? But my wife is making 2-dimensional greeting cards, fabric prints, and patterns...not any kind of models. I don't understand why her company doesn't just use PS/Illustrator as the standard for the type of work they do. Of course, my wife would prefer to work with U4ia, because she's a textile/fashion design type.

There are a lot of Freehand shops out there. Yes, Illustrator is still the gold standard for vector work, but there are probably more Freehand users than you think. it's a good program (although I personally prefer Illustrator). If she's familiar with Illustrator, she won't have too much of a learning curve to use Freehand. The concepts are all similar.

jcroft

04-18-2005, 09:35 AM

The GIMP, but I'm not sure how many pros actually use it.

The GIMP is great, but it doesn't do anything Photoshop doesn't, and most design shops are going to be using supported software by a major company.

Also, the GIMP, like Photoshop, is a bitmap app, not a vector one.

jcroft

04-18-2005, 09:36 AM

If other pros would consider this...well I don't have a clue. :)

Not many. There may be a handful of Corel-based professionals out there, but there's no way Corel has more than a 1% marketshare in the professional space.

jcroft

04-18-2005, 10:03 AM

I've got it. Adobe should combine Freehand and Illustrator and call it ---- Frustrator.

HC_Chief

04-18-2005, 10:04 AM

Are you serious? Name one app that doesn't comes from Adobe or Macromedia that any professional designer would consider using.

How about 5? :p

3D Studio Max - THE game-development tool.
Maya - quickly gaining popularity in game-dev as well as typical 3D/2D.
RenderMan - Pixar.
Lightwave - Used in entertainment (M&M commercials done w/ Lightwave).
ZBrush (this one is frigging awesome).

jcroft

04-18-2005, 10:17 AM

How about 5? :p

3D Studio Max - THE game-development tool.
Maya - quickly gaining popularity in game-dev as well as typical 3D/2D.
RenderMan - Pixar.
Lightwave - Used in entertainment (M&M commercials done w/ Lightwave).
ZBrush (this one is frigging awesome).

Uhm, none of these qualify as professional graphic design apps. You're talking mostly about 3D tools here. They're all great programs, but not really what I was talking about (although maybe I wasn't clear).

The typical graphic designer needs a bitmap and a vector 2D app. The web designer also needs animation tools, optimization tools, CSS editors, and possibly XHTML/HTML GUI tools (if they don't write their own HTML).

Of those tools, basically all of the professional-grade options are either Macromedia or Adobe.

HC_Chief

04-18-2005, 10:39 AM

Uhm, none of these qualify as professional graphic design apps. You're talking mostly about 3D tools here.

Wow, guess you've never used these tools? They are spectacular for 2D; not just for 3D. They are very expensive however, so a lot of people are not exposed to them.

Check out <a href="http://www.cgnetworks.com">CG Networks</a> some time. They have galleries there... the 2D work done w/ 3DS Max 7 is unreal. "Photo-realistic" doesn't do it justice ;)

jcroft

04-18-2005, 10:42 AM

Wow, guess you've never used these tools? They are spectacular for 2D; not just for 3D. They are very expensive however, so a lot of people are not exposed to them.

Check out <a href="http://www.cgnetworks.com">CG Networks</a> some time. They have galleries there... the 2D work done w/ 3DS Max 7 is unreal. "Photo-realistic" doesn't do it justice ;)

I've not used most of them, because I'm not a 3D designer. Surely you don't expect people really to use these tools in place of Photoshop or Illustrator, right?

How good are these apps for photo editing or logo design? They may well be able to cut it, but why would say, a logo designer, choose a hella expensive 3D app over the gold standard in vector apps, Illustrator, when it's much cheaper and he doesn't need 3D tools?

My point remains in tact here. You mention some good apps, but none of them are considered competitors to Adobe's flagship products (Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, GoLive, etc.)

|Zach|

04-18-2005, 10:43 AM

I've got it. Adobe should combine Freehand and Illustrator and call it ---- Frustrator.
ROFL

As a learning wannabe graphic designer I find illustrator frustrating. There are a lot of things it does really well but I get really frustrated with the way it handles layers and how they interact with eachother. I think Photoshop does a better job with that.

jcroft

04-18-2005, 10:46 AM

ROFL

As a learning wannabe graphic designer I find illustrator frustrating. There are a lot of things it does really well but I get really frustrated with the way it handles layers and how they interact with eachother. I think Photoshop does a better job with that.

Comparing Photoshop and Illustrator is apples and oranges. The layering model of Photoshop makes sense for bitmap work, but I don't see how it could apply to vector work very well...

picasso

04-18-2005, 01:06 PM

Adobe being the standard for MAC heads around the industry and Macromedia being the quicker more fluent program for any designer using a PC (GAG!!!! IF YOU USE COREL - YOU CANADIAN GRAPHIC DESIGNER PIECE OF CRAP!!!!) this is going to suck cross platform. Illustrator is a frickin HOG on a pc!!! It takes forever for it to load if your company doesn't invest in Adobe PS fonts and chooses to go with true type and doesn't use adobe type manager. Maybe the only plus is Adobe will incorporate some of their other recent aquisitions such as Cool Edit Studio now Adobe Audition into Flash for multitrack sound editing. IMHO Adobe is going to totally screw up Flash and Dreamweaver integrating it with their array of other design programs. The same way they screwed up Illustrator by incoporating bitmap features in a vector design program. At least Freehand kept it simple and loaded clean and in my opinion was the better vector program with fewer steps to get to the end result. Freehand had a multitude of vector tools with way better results. The only downside to Freehand was how the color libraries were Pantone representations and that they didn't have Adobe color management. Photoshop is definitely the #1 design staple program, especially for output, but for those out there that have never tried Fireworks you do not know what you were missing. Awesome filters and better control over masking as well as modifying the effects directly with fantastic detail. Macromedia was also flawlessly integrated from Freehand to Fireworks to Flash to Dreamweaver. Adobe on the other hand is a hodge podge confused case of self proclaimed integration that is false. Between there multipage layout programs in Pagemaker and their latest multipage program Indesign that work totally independent of each other and Illustrator and Photoshop that gets confused in how it translates images and text BUT says that they support both vector and rastor art is a joke.
One thing is for sure, they just boosted the sale of Macs globally in the design field and eliminated a huge crop of designers in the next five years due to cost. I just hope Adobe doesn't screw it up to much. :banghead: :cuss:

jcroft

04-18-2005, 01:11 PM

I don't really think it's true that Adobe is more popular on Mac and Macromedia on PC. I work with plenty of Mac-based designers that use Macromedia products all the time (and I qualify myself -- even though i use both platform regularly, I certainly have many Macromedia products installed on my Powerbook). I think it boils down to what you're designing. Those in interactive/multimedia/web tend to prefer Macromedia while those in print and photography tend to lean toward Adobe.

If it's at all true that more Mac shops use Adobe, I'd say the only reason is that the two (Apple and Adobe) have been working in the creative market a lot longer than the other two (Microsoft and Macromedia). in other words, these shops probably formed a relationship with Adobe ages ago and have just stuck with it. I doubt it's really a reflection on the strength of their products. I think pretty much everyone knows that Macromedia has become king in the web/interactive arena.

ChiefsOne

04-18-2005, 01:26 PM

jcroft

04-18-2005, 01:30 PM

The more I think about this merger, the more I think Adobe and Macromedia are teaming up against Microsoft here. Until today, there were two viable competitors against Flash for the application/media-rich web marketplace: SVG (open standard backed by Adobe), and Avalon/XAML (Microsoft, in Longhorn). The only other one worth considering is Ajax, but it is in it's infancy and it's supporters (the web standards community) are also generally supports of Flash and SVG.

Now, SVG and Flash (and go ahead and toss in PDF) are on the same side and ready for a full-on battle for the browser with Microsoft and XAML. You can bet the Ajax crowd will be playing on Adobe's side of the fence, as well.

Of course, Flash already has the major head start, and if Adobe can give it a good push while Microsoft is continuing to delay Longhorn, MS may not stand a chance.

And, in case anyone couldn't have guessed: Avalon/XAML is for Windows only, whereas SVG and Flash operate on Linux and Mac OS as well.

HC_Chief

04-18-2005, 01:40 PM

Well I guess it depends on what you want to design. If it's simple logo 2D, Photoshop may even be overkill. If you want to design complex images, Photoshop is still the most widely used... but typically for touch-ups and layering post-design in a more powerful tool such as Maya, 3DS Max, Lightwave or ZBrush. Why use layers to construct a 3D image when a more suitable tool exists? ;)

Are vector graphics really that important any more? The whole point was smaller file size. With the proliferation of broadband, I wouldn't expect them to be as important?

jcroft

04-18-2005, 01:44 PM

Well I guess it depends on what you want to design. If it's simple logo 2D, Photoshop may even be overkill.

Photoshop for a logo? I wouldn't even know where to begin creating a logo or logotype in Photoshop. That's just absurd. Logos MUST be created in vectors. I wouldn't even consider giving my business to any "logo designer" who uses Photoshop for drawing logos or logotypes.

If you want to design complex images, Photoshop is still the most widely used... but typically for touch-ups and layering post-design in a more powerful tool such as Maya, 3DS Max, Lightwave or ZBrush. Why use layers to construct a 3D image when a more suitable tool exists? ;)

There are certainly times to use a 3D tool. But, neither Adobe nor Macromedia competes in this market, so I don't think it's relevant to this merger.

Are vector graphics really that important any more? The whole point was smaller file size. With the proliferation of broadband, I wouldn't expect them to be as important?

The point for vector has nothing to do with file size. The point is scalability. Logos are always created as vectors so that they can be scaled infinitely without degradation, say, for use on a billboard. Nearly every graphic design professional who works in print or web spends at least half of his/her time in vector apps. They are most certainly still important.

HC_Chief

04-18-2005, 01:50 PM

Ahh... that makes sense. So that's how "true type" fonts are created? I've never really done any font creation. I worked for a publishing company that had tens of thousands of them.... I should have taken the time to really learn Illustrator then. The font business is very lucrative.

As for Photoshop not competing in the 3D business, I disagree. Photoshop layers can very easily be used to create complex 3D images... but it's a hell of a lot of work in comparison to a 3D modeling tool. Adobe also makes Premiere. When integrated w/ Photoshop, 3D animation is entirely possible. Again, a lot more work than say 3DS Max.

jcroft

04-18-2005, 02:00 PM

As for Photoshop not competing in the 3D business, I disagree. Photoshop layers can very easily be used to create complex 3D images... but it's a hell of a lot of work in comparison to a 3D modeling tool. Adobe also makes Premiere. When integrated w/ Photoshop, 3D animation is entirely possible. Again, a lot more work than say 3DS Max.

I know that Photoshop CAN be used for 3D imaging, but that's not it's primary purpose, and I don't think Adobe considers, say, 3DStudio Max to be a competitor to Photoshop. They are totally different applications which can produce some of the same results in certain circumstances. But they aren't competitors.

I would think Adobe's main competitors look something like this (you'll see that most of them are Macromedia):

Photoshop: Has no real competitor, although possibly Macromedia Fireworks for certain uses.

ImageReady: Macromedia Fireworks, which is a great deal better.

Illustrator: Macromedia Freehand is the main competitor.

Acrobat: Macromedia Flash paper is the main competitor.

SVG (which isn't a product, so much as a technology): Macromedia Flash is the main competitor (and clear leader in this race).

Premiere: Apple Final Cut Pro is the main competitor, though there are others. Macromedia doesn't compete in this market.

GoLive: Macromedia Dreamweaver is the main competitor.

InDesign: Quark Xpress is the main competitor. No Macromedia here.

So basically, Adobe eliminated most of their competition on their flagship products by acquiring Macromedia. They also gain Macromedia's web/interactive products that lead in market Adobe didn't previously compete in (WPS, Flex, ColdFusion, Contribute, etc.).

HC_Chief

04-18-2005, 02:05 PM

Wrasse

04-18-2005, 02:11 PM

GAG!!!! IF YOU USE COREL - YOU CANADIAN GRAPHIC DESIGNER PIECE OF CRAP!!!!
Wow...I've been called some things but...

Canadian?

Hmmm...

** Doesn't feel like he fits in because he's created logos in Photoshop using the built-in vector tools available with the application **

jcroft

04-18-2005, 02:11 PM

InDesign? Is that formerly PageMaker?

Again, worked for pblishing company... had to support Pagemaker, Quark, Illustrator, Photoshop, Font Manager (this one was insane... they had so many fonts, if you attempted to put them on one system it would take over a day to boot! AFM allowed use to use font packages /per project page, which was really slick).

It's not really formerly PageMaker, but it replaced PageMaker. In other words, it's not an upgrade to PageMaker, but a whole new app, written from the ground up, to take Pm's spot in the product lineup. Came out a few years ago. It's very nice. I prefer it to Quark, myself.

AFM was really nice back in the day. I'm not sure how widely used it still is. Mac OS X has it's own font manager that let's you set up font groups and such, plus there are more advanced font managers available (Suitcase comes to mind). I don't think too many people still use AFM, but I could be wrong about that...

picasso

04-18-2005, 02:15 PM

I don't really think it's true that Adobe is more popular on Mac and Macromedia on PC. I work with plenty of Mac-based designers that use Macromedia products all the time. I think it boils down to what you're designing. Those in interactive/multimedia/web tend to prefer Macromedia while those in print and photography tend to lean toward Adobe.

If it's at all true that more Mac shops use Adobe, I'd say the only reason is that the two (Apple and Adobe) have been working in the creative market a lot longer than the other two (Microsoft and Macromedia). in other words, these shops probably formed a relationship with Adobe ages ago and have just stuck with it. I doubt it's really a reflection on the strength of their products. I think pretty much everyone knows that Macromedia has become king in the web/interactive arena.

My experience is this:

PC Shop:
In a PC shop they use Adobe and Macromedia and they may have a Mac on there desk as well. But in many shops they still haven't cured the communication problems between both platforms on their network. But for shops that go PC they prefer the Macromedia environment because of how the program allows them to use fonts. It is a money issue. The PC shop owners can't justify $2800 to purchase a font library or the cost of a Mac for each of their designers at $3000 a piece. Immediate expense concerns are the main reasons for this without looking at the advantages of a Mac environment in the future. So Macromedia programs become the tool of choice. Due to the flawless integration for web and print for small individual projects to large multimillion dollar campaigns that include everything. Freehand integrated with Photoshop or Fireworks - for print, Dreamweaver and flash - for web.

Mac shop:
In a Mac shop they use Adobe for print and Macromedia for web. Usually they are higher end shops or design firms, ad agencies where money is not an issue and a contractual agreement has been established. It is of professional preference and precision needs when it comes to output that these Macs are required. Color management etc...
Expenses are not an issue and upgrades are well maintained for quality. There is a higher education level of designer tools and technique as it applies to the end product. Illustrator, Pagemaker integrated with Photoshop - for Print. Dreamweaver and Flash - for web.

When you compare what both products deliver and the association that both have to each platform, Mac users prefer more programs made by Adobe. PC users prefer more programs made by Macromedia. And if a designer on a PC prefers to use Adobe Illustrator over Freehand then they haven't worked on both platforms for a long enough period of time and they haven't been a designer long enough to develope an understanding of the problems and the benefits in comparison to one another. I have seen people that only have Illustrator experience in a vector program start to work in Freehand and say "Why doesn't Illustrator do this?" On another note I have seen people in Corel that don't know anything before or after and in looking at Illustrator and Freehand they say "I am sticking with Corel!" (LOSERS!!!!)

HC_Chief

04-18-2005, 02:18 PM

Makes sense. AFM was back in the day... around '95 or so. I'm not surprised it has since been replaced/antiquated. For the time, it was seriously high-tech ;)

The page layout monkey (I call them that because they were unskilled laborers who we trained to press function keys) would open the page template, import the fonts, flow-in images, then save. Then do the same for the next page, etc. The cool thing was they would work folders from multiple books. We worked long & hard w/ Adobe to perfect the process. I found Adobe engineers and programmers to be highly responsive and very knowlegeable. (unlike the Apple dipwads... they couldn't even tell me how the encapsulation of Appletalk takes place: within TCP/IP or vice verssa?)

jcroft

04-18-2005, 02:21 PM

** Doesn't feel like he fits in because he's created logos in Photoshop using the built-in vector tools available with the application **

I suppose that's acceptable. Still not sure why you'd rather use Photoshop's limited selection of vector tools than Illustrator's complete set, but the point was that it's essential that your logo be vector. So I guess you are okay in my book. :)

jcroft

04-18-2005, 02:24 PM

When you compare what both products deliver and the association that both have to each platform, Mac users prefer more programs made by Adobe. PC users prefer more programs made by Macromedia. And if a designer on a PC prefers to use Adobe Illustrator over Freehand then they haven't worked on both platforms for a long enough period of time and they haven't been a designer long enough to develope an understanding of the problems and the benefits in comparison to one another. I have seen people that only have Illustrator experience in a vector program start to work in Freehand and say "Why doesn't Illustrator do this?" On another note I have seen people in Corel that don't know anything before or after and in looking at Illustrator and Freehand they say "I am sticking with Corel!" (LOSERS!!!!)

You might be right about the PC vs. Mac thing. I guess most of the people I work with use both platforms and both companies' software.

Freehand definitely has some nice things about it. I still prefer Illustrator, but I won't complain one bit if some of Freehand's feature end up in the next version of Illustrator.

jcroft

04-18-2005, 02:25 PM

(unlike the Apple dipwads... they couldn't even tell me how the encapsulation of Appletalk takes place: within TCP/IP or vice verssa?)

I remember that thread. :)

Did you ever et your answer? I'm not positive (not a real big networking guy), but I think the Appletalk is encapsulated in the TCP/IP packets.

But I don't even know many people who use AppleTalk much anymore -- seems irrelevant with all the other technologies supported by Mac OS X and other platforms (SMB, WebDAV, NFS, etc.)

picasso

04-18-2005, 02:32 PM

Wow...I've been called some things but...

Canadian?

Hmmm...

** Doesn't feel like he fits in because he's created logos in Photoshop using the built-in vector tools available with the application **

I wasn't directing it to you but.....
Corel SUCKS!!!!!
If you want to use a program that has everything that Adobe or Macromedia has with PhotoPaint, Trace, Mosaic, Chart, Show, and Move and only costs you $300 go for it.
But if they can't tell you it's a peice of crap with everything your getting, compare the price of the software to leading software and that should answer it for you.

Listen, any program like Corel, that has more compatability with any Microsoft program than with professional design programs needs to rot on the shelf. It's wanna be designer software. I am getting ill now. :Lin:

Wrasse

04-18-2005, 02:36 PM

I suppose that's acceptable. Still not sure why you'd rather use Photoshop's limited selection of vector tools than Illustrator's complete set, but the point was that it's essential that your logo be vector. So I guess you are okay in my book. :)
Heh...I only used it once or twice for a logo. It was when vectors were first introduced into Photoshop (6?) and I wanted to see what it could do.

ChiefsOne

04-18-2005, 02:50 PM

I agree with some and disagree with some points on this thread, but not going to try to answer it all.

I am a Mac guy, always will be. I have been using Quark, Photoshop and Illustrator on a daily basis for the past 16 years.

Quark for layout of multiple pages.
Photoshop for anything to do with photos and single or two page designs.
Illustrator for logos and text manipulation, some single sheet jobs.

Always use Illustrator for designing logos, but sometimes have to take them into photoshop to get the look you want. No problem at all as long as you have the basic/original logo to enlarge and work from in larger format.

ChiefsOne

04-18-2005, 02:51 PM

BTW Corel sucks and is not even in the same category as Adobe products or Freehand.

ChiefsOne

04-18-2005, 02:52 PM

I would say 98% of the design world uses Macs and Adobe products. Exceptions are signs shops and quick printers.

Wrasse

04-18-2005, 03:06 PM

BTW Corel sucks and is not even in the same category as Adobe products or Freehand.
You know...I understand that Corel doesn't have the 'power' of Illustrator and I've got a copy of both...and if Adobe would make Illustrator more intuitive, I'd probably use it more for the limited vector graphics that I create. :)

Then again...I haven't upgraded since 7...so maybe it's gotten less cumbersome. I'd love to hear that it has...because then I'd upgrade.

Maybe I should use Freehand? It sounds like the better choice...but it may not be around for much longer...

HC_Chief

04-18-2005, 03:07 PM

I remember that thread. :)

Did you ever et your answer? I'm not positive (not a real big networking guy), but I think the Appletalk is encapsulated in the TCP/IP packets.

But I don't even know many people who use AppleTalk much anymore -- seems irrelevant with all the other technologies supported by Mac OS X and other platforms (SMB, WebDAV, NFS, etc.)

heh, no. I think Appletalk actually encapsulated the TCP/IP packets. The reason I think that is a company I was supporting had a MAC TAN (tiny-ass network) for their design dept. They had not yet switched completely to TCP/IP. They wanted to use IP to connect to the company network, but Appletalk internally. A standard router wouldn't cut it, so I contacted Apple in regards to what hardware was necessary to complete the job. The router they suggested (can't recall the make/model, nor do I want to ;)) could handle it. So, that must mean it's an Appletalk router which can also route IP. The IP routers would not work.

Of course, it could just be Appletalk taking out the IP routers w/ floods. Appletalk was ignorant in that capacity. Rather than carrier sense, it did a carrier announce. In other words, appletalk systems would sit on the network and broadcast their presence at regular intervals. The broadcasts could take down hardware (not unlike a DoS attack... same basic principle) if enough Macs were on the segment running their gawddamn "mouths".