Professional Web Applications Themes

Fireworks MX performance very slow under XP - Macromedia Fireworks

Hello Macromedia Team, Users, I am am currently using Fireworks MX to layout pages for a Flash based website. Even though FW MX is fantastic program and has indespensible features, the performance is very, very slow. It is becoming a provebial pain in the butt. Some information about the doents we are working on: The doent size is 1016 x 712, 72dpi Doents generally 8-10 layers, with between 20 - 50 objects in layer Doents contain vector and raster based images (i.e. imported psd's, tiffs etc) Live effects etc. rarely used Using frame feature to represent different stages, animation points, ...

  1. #1

    Default Fireworks MX performance very slow under XP

    Hello Macromedia Team, Users,

    I am am currently using Fireworks MX to layout pages for a Flash based website. Even though FW MX is fantastic program and has indespensible features, the performance is very, very slow. It is becoming a provebial pain in the butt.

    Some information about the doents we are working on:

    The doent size is 1016 x 712, 72dpi
    Doents generally 8-10 layers, with between 20 - 50 objects in layer
    Doents contain vector and raster based images (i.e. imported psd's, tiffs etc)
    Live effects etc. rarely used
    Using frame feature to represent different stages, animation points, or states of a page
    Frame count generally runs to between 10 - 15 frames

    Some information about the machine these layouts are being completed on:

    Dell Box with:
    Pentium 4 2Ghz
    1GB DDR RAM
    1 x 20GB HD (Ultra ATA) (0S & App Drive)
    2 x 40GB HD (Ultra ATA) (Working/File Store Drives)
    32 MB ATI Radeon 7500 Graphics Card (Running 2 Mon, 1 21" 1600x1200, 1 17" 1280x1024)
    Windows XP OS Build 2600.xpsp2.030422-1633 (Service Pack 1)

    Problems:

    Opening and Saving the above doents very slow, whether this is from a local copy or from a network copy

    Jumping bewteen frames slow

    Text rendering of either text block or single line text extremely slow, can wait between 10sec and 1 minute for the view to update

    Moving objects whether singluar or grouped is slow

    Duplication, copying and dragging is slow, as with frame duplication.

    Object highlighting when selecting is slow to respond

    Questions/Issues:

    Now I am no dummy when it comes to computers, I have diligently read all the posts on this topic and taken the actions described. Defragmenting HD, reducing history and undo limits, re-installing and so on, but to now avail.

    Even more to point, it has been installed on clean systems that have never been worked on before and the program still responds slowly under normal working conditions. Even when you run it as the sole application with Windows services and additional add-ons at a minimum. The above mentioned problems have also been seen on Windows 2000 systems to an even greater degree... all machines with plenty of RAM, clean setups and so forth.

    If we compare a doent that has been exported to Photoshop format, with layers and all the trimmings, Photoshop runs the doent like a fast bullet. Should'nt FW be able to do the same with it's own format?

    The product is advertised as one that can handle web page design and construction, and also advertised as part of the work flow and a compliment to Flash.

    Do Macromedia have any plans to resolve this issue, rather than tell users that they must shut down other programs, defrag HD's, turn off features in the program etc, just to get it to run?

    BTW, what is the deal with MM telling people to turn off thier HW acceleration??? Should'nt the program have been designed with that in mind? PS, Illustrator etc, all deal with it fine. What is I want to use another app that uses it? I gotta reboot just to use FW? This shouldn't be happening this far up the version scale.

    My machine is above the minimum system requirements stated on the FW box and on your website. It's looking like FW can't handle a decent setup, let alone the minimum. So what is the deal?

    Damian Claassens
    Senior Art Director
    Framfab Denmark A/S
    [url]www.framfab.com[/url]


    gruuvebot webforumsuser@macromedia.com Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Fireworks MX performance very slow under XP

    How big are the TIFF's/PSD's you're importing? Dimensions and file size
    would be useful.
    How big are the source PNG's that you're having trouble with? File size is
    what I'm after here.
    How much text are you working with on a particular project?
    How many fonts do you have installed on your system?
    Do you have a significant number of styles, textures or third party
    effects/filters installed?

    Would you be interested in sending me one of your files to see whether I can
    see anything that would cause performance problems (this does not require an
    answer - if you don't mind me peeking at your file, send to
    [email]richrichiebee.ca[/email])?

    Further, as you may have seen from previous posts, Fireworks should not be
    compared to Photoshop. It is not the same application, does not work in the
    same way, and does not render in the same way. Comparing their performance
    is like comparing a car with a motorbike... they're both designed with the
    task of getting you from A to B on a set of wheels, but stick a 1000cc
    engine in a motorbike and the performance will be somewhat different than
    from a 1000cc car.

    Just one more question... is there a reason why you're not using Flash for
    your development?

    Rich


    --
    Richie Bee
    [url]www.richiebee.ca[/url]
    Team Macromedia Volunteer for Fireworks
    [url]www.macromedia.com/go/team[/url]
    Sharing Fireworks Resources
    [url]www.richiebee.ca/public[/url]
    -iii<O



    "gruuvebot" <webforumsusermacromedia.com> wrote in message
    news:bi35f2$lfr$1forums.macromedia.com...
    > Hello Macromedia Team, Users,
    >
    > I am am currently using Fireworks MX to layout pages for a Flash based
    website. Even though FW MX is fantastic program and has indespensible
    features, the performance is very, very slow. It is becoming a provebial
    pain in the butt.
    >
    > Some information about the doents we are working on:
    >
    > The doent size is 1016 x 712, 72dpi
    > Doents generally 8-10 layers, with between 20 - 50 objects in layer
    > Doents contain vector and raster based images (i.e. imported psd's,
    tiffs etc)
    > Live effects etc. rarely used
    > Using frame feature to represent different stages, animation points, or
    states of a page
    > Frame count generally runs to between 10 - 15 frames
    >
    > Some information about the machine these layouts are being completed on:
    >
    > Dell Box with:
    > Pentium 4 2Ghz
    > 1GB DDR RAM
    > 1 x 20GB HD (Ultra ATA) (0S & App Drive)
    > 2 x 40GB HD (Ultra ATA) (Working/File Store Drives)
    > 32 MB ATI Radeon 7500 Graphics Card (Running 2 Mon, 1 21" 1600x1200, 1
    17" 1280x1024)
    > Windows XP OS Build 2600.xpsp2.030422-1633 (Service Pack 1)
    >
    > Problems:
    >
    > Opening and Saving the above doents very slow, whether this is from a
    local copy or from a network copy
    >
    > Jumping bewteen frames slow
    >
    > Text rendering of either text block or single line text extremely slow,
    can wait between 10sec and 1 minute for the view to update
    >
    > Moving objects whether singluar or grouped is slow
    >
    > Duplication, copying and dragging is slow, as with frame duplication.
    >
    > Object highlighting when selecting is slow to respond
    >
    > Questions/Issues:
    >
    > Now I am no dummy when it comes to computers, I have diligently read all
    the posts on this topic and taken the actions described. Defragmenting HD,
    reducing history and undo limits, re-installing and so on, but to now avail.
    >
    > Even more to point, it has been installed on clean systems that have never
    been worked on before and the program still responds slowly under normal
    working conditions. Even when you run it as the sole application with
    Windows services and additional add-ons at a minimum. The above mentioned
    problems have also been seen on Windows 2000 systems to an even greater
    degree... all machines with plenty of RAM, clean setups and so forth.
    >
    > If we compare a doent that has been exported to Photoshop format, with
    layers and all the trimmings, Photoshop runs the doent like a fast
    bullet. Should'nt FW be able to do the same with it's own format?
    >
    > The product is advertised as one that can handle web page design and
    construction, and also advertised as part of the work flow and a compliment
    to Flash.
    >
    > Do Macromedia have any plans to resolve this issue, rather than tell users
    that they must shut down other programs, defrag HD's, turn off features in
    the program etc, just to get it to run?
    >
    > BTW, what is the deal with MM telling people to turn off thier HW
    acceleration??? Should'nt the program have been designed with that in mind?
    PS, Illustrator etc, all deal with it fine. What is I want to use another
    app that uses it? I gotta reboot just to use FW? This shouldn't be happening
    this far up the version scale.
    >
    > My machine is above the minimum system requirements stated on the FW box
    and on your website. It's looking like FW can't handle a decent setup, let
    alone the minimum. So what is the deal?
    >
    > Damian Claassens
    > Senior Art Director
    > Framfab Denmark A/S
    > [url]www.framfab.com[/url]
    >
    >

    Richiebee Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Fireworks MX performance very slow under XP

    Hi Rich,

    Thank for your timely response.

    To answer many of your questions, I have sent an example of a file we are working on to your email address. Though I was reticent to do so, I trust as a Macromedia representative you will keep it to yourself since it client work yet to be released.

    But to answer the questions so other Forum members may get some use from the dialogue:

    Example file size: 5,813 KB (5meg in normal speak)
    Amount of text: Depends on what you call a lot and a little, but here I would say moderate
    Fonts installed: Standard Windows XP system set, + an additional 50 faces, all PS T1
    Styles: What comes installed with FW MX
    Filters: Standard from FW MX installation
    3rd party FW addons/extensions: about 20, download through Macromedia Exchange i.e. Phireworx Dynamic Guides et. al.

    The reason why I compare Fireworks to Photoshop, is that many designers and developers use them to complete the same tasks, i.e. desiging web pages, whether they end up in Flash or as a HTML website.

    For example, the last project I designed, [url]www.nikefreestyle.com[/url] was designed and laid out in Photoshop 7.0, and then design elements were transfered in Flash and then animated etc.

    Many companies put a demarcation line between the art director/graphic designer and the flash developer/flash designer, though the two job areas may share many of the same features in their skill sets, there are some major differences. An obvious example would be when you have hundreds of screens and/or complicated functionalities to design, you can't flash them at the same time as desiging them - sort of two different mindsets. You will need someone to make final .SWFs while you are designing other sections of the site. Call it specialising in one person making it look cool, and the other person making it work and animate in a cool way.

    The above and below is in reference to your last remark Just one more question... is there a reason why you're not using Flash for´your development?

    We do use Flash for our development, as you can see from many of our sites. But Flash MX 6 is not what I would call a great layout program, great for animation, but not layout. Therefore the use of FW 6 (and PS 7). The files are laid out in FW 6, with a frame representing different pages or animation states of a particular section or functionality, then handed over to the Flash animation and development team.

    They then take these files and import them either directly into Flash or copy out particular components and animate and script the site. Works well as a workflow.

    BTW, 1000cc motorbikes do go fast, agreed, but again, as many posts state... is Macromedia thinking about boring out the cyclinders in FW MX to give it some more CCs to improve performance?

    I hope the above goes someway in answering your questions and coming up with a good solution.

    Regards,

    Damian Claassens
    Senior Art Director
    Framfab A/S Denmark
    [url]www.framfab.dk[/url]


    gruuvebot webforumsuser@macromedia.com Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Fireworks MX performance very slow under XP

    While correct that Team Macromedia Volunteers do not necessarily work for
    Macromedia as their employer, I would hope that all forum users would
    consider, as I do, that TM volunteers are directly representing Macromedia
    and users should expect the same level of professional integrity as they
    would from
    Macromedia Technical Support even if the same product knowledge is not
    always there.

    I have responded to the original poster directly with my thoughts.

    For the record, this seems to me to be an unusual use of Fireworks - the
    number of objects is absolutely huge. I'm not wishing to take anything away
    from the author - this is an incredibly professional looking comp, and while
    I think the logic behind using Fireworks for comping Flash storyboards is a
    good one, I don't think the developers had this extent in mind when they
    designed and tested Fireworks MX.

    Here are a few file stats.

    Physical canvas dimensions - 1016 x 712, 72 dpi.
    Number of Frames = 5
    Number of objects - Frame 1 has approx 150 objects, Frame 2 has appox 340
    objects, frame 3 has approx 290 objects, Frame 4 has approx 240 objects and
    Frame 5 has approx 150 objects...
    Each frame contains 3 unshared bitmaps of 730x730 pixels, masked, plus a few
    smaller (245x245 pixel) bitmaps. On testing, one of the larger bitmaps saved
    as a separate file creating a PNG of 1.3Mb in size. They all appear to be
    uncompressed.
    Many of the objects are grouped - some several times with no apparent
    additional objects.

    I could be wrong, but this doesn't seem to be the same kind of complaint
    others have.


    Rich


    --
    Richie Bee
    [url]www.richiebee.ca[/url]
    Team Macromedia Volunteer for Fireworks
    [url]www.macromedia.com/go/team[/url]
    Sharing Fireworks Resources
    [url]www.richiebee.ca/public[/url]
    -iii<O




    "Craig Hartel" <mpp_milquetoastSANSSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:bi3skb$p25$1forums.macromedia.com...
    > Gruuvebot,
    >
    > Just for your information, this being a public forum, you are not
    > necessarily dealing strictly with Macromedia people. There are many
    > Macromedia formal volunteers as well as a whole community of like-minded
    > people at various skill levels. In your conversation with RichieBee, you
    > state that you prefer that "as a Macromedia representative you will keep
    it
    > to yourself..." in reference to the image you sent to him. RichieBee is
    not
    > an employee of Macromedia, rather, he is one of the community members who
    > often lends his experience and expertise to those in need of answers or
    > advice. I am sure that you have no worries about him keeping your
    image(s)
    > private and confidential.
    >
    > Also, other people have had similar instances of slowdowns with Fireworks.
    > In my opinion, it seems to be a very hard thing to adequately pin down,
    > because others, such as myself, have LOTS of extensions, styles, and other
    > stuff loaded and FW doesn't slow down at all for me. That is not to say
    > that it won't, it's just that in the two years I have been using the
    > software, the only noticeable slowdown I have is when FW actually loads,
    and
    > this is because of the large number of styles and patterns that I have
    > available to use.
    >
    > You have done a great job by describing your problem as well as giving
    ample
    > information about the system you are running with. I hope that you are
    able
    > to discover the problem and get back to a very productive pace. FW is a
    > great tool.
    >
    > Also, I am wondering if you have other programs running in the background
    > that may be impacting on your computer performance. I heard that XP hogs
    a
    > lot of resources if you have the INDEXING service on. In XP PRO, the OS
    > will defrag your hard drives on the fly if you allow it, which would
    > obviously be a performance hit on your machine.
    >
    > May I suggest that you also explore ways to tweak your OS as well as
    > Fireworks? It may be the combination of the two where you find the most
    > success.
    >
    > Best of luck, and please keep us informed of your progress!!
    >
    > Craig.
    >
    >


    Richiebee Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Fireworks MX performance very slow under XP

    Many will be watching this post. Since the full post to the originator is
    not shown - perhaps the originator would be happy to share the detail. The
    original post was detailed and raised many issues which, with respect, still
    seem unanswered. This forum is about the sharing of information - please,
    when information is available, do that and share . . . .?

    Best Regards
    Andy
    /?


    Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Fireworks MX performance very slow under XP


    "Richiebee" <richrichiebee.ca> wrote in message
    news:bi6evr$lre$1forums.macromedia.com...
    > While correct that Team Macromedia Volunteers do not necessarily work for
    > Macromedia as their employer, I would hope that all forum users would
    > consider, as I do, that TM volunteers are directly representing Macromedia
    > and users should expect the same level of professional integrity as they
    > would from
    > Macromedia Technical Support even if the same product knowledge is not
    > always there.
    ROFL. TMM Memebers, being real users, often have way more product knowledge
    than tech support. Tech support may or may not use the product on a daily
    basis. Not saying that all tech support representatives are ignorant of
    their products, just that you can't always assume they'll know the products
    from daily use of them. If they don't use them daily, then they will only
    know what's in their tech support database.

    -Amy


    Amy Blankenship Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Fireworks MX performance very slow under XP

    Thanks as ever for your contribution.

    You miss the point that TMM's do not have inside information on the creation
    or reasoning behind why things happen the way they do. Knowledge is
    therefore sketchy and not necessarily accurate - it is often based on
    discovery, not fact. I'm not saying that Tech Support can do any better in
    the first place, but they have access to more resources than TMM's.

    The primary focus remains that forum users should be able to trust TMM's as
    representatives of Macromedia in the same way that they trust Tech Support.


    Rich


    "Amy Blankenship" <amymagnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
    news:bi7v0i$coo$1forums.macromedia.com...
    > ROFL. TMM Memebers, being real users, often have way more product
    knowledge
    > than tech support. Tech support may or may not use the product on a daily
    > basis. Not saying that all tech support representatives are ignorant of
    > their products, just that you can't always assume they'll know the
    products
    > from daily use of them. If they don't use them daily, then they will only
    > know what's in their tech support database.
    >
    > -Amy
    >
    >

    Richiebee Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: Fireworks MX performance very slow under XP

    Hello,

    Thanks the replies and for checking through my file. Though this thread is seems to splitting into two issues, I thought I would reply to give you an update.

    I am confused that the last poster thinks that the use of Fireworks as a comping tool for constructing pages that will eventually be taken into Flash is an unusual use of the program. If you ask me, I think it is a great use. The vector based objects from Fireworks directly translate into flash, pixel perfect positioing and so on... all make it an ideal candidate for laying out web pages. Try doing that with Photoshop or something similar... it can become a real hassle. I am sure some designers will know what I mean.

    Nevertheless, Richard made some good points on the number of objects per layer, grouping, bitmap imports and so on. I have made ammendments to the file in question as directed, but only saw a marginal improvement in performance.

    There are a lot of objects in the file. In the heat of production, as I might like to put it, you just need to get the job done, rather than actively thinking that '...if I import a bitmap into my doent it will impair the peformance of the program....'

    Sure we could clean up the file a bit, but really I mean, it is not that complicated a file. And furthermore the number of objects per layer... is it really that many? Heaven forbid a digital illustrator were to use the program. Under that rationale, I think the program would come to a halt.

    Just for the record too... the whole file is running in 72dpi... a 640x640 bitmap 72dpi is not that big a file to import into a doent. And why shouldn't we use masking? You need to keep your layout files in such a way that you can make ammendments without having to rebuild the thing from scratch, read client changes.

    The reason we moved from using Illustrator/Photoshop to Flash to a new way of FW to Flash was to save time with having to rebuild objects so they would efficient in Flash. Also to use many of the cool features that FW offers that the other programs don't. One of the main ones being pixel perfect positioning in FW, and the ease of reading in a FW doc into Flash, so a Flash animator or developer didn't have to reconstruct the whole layout again in Flash. They could just get underway with scripting and animating stuff.

    I am not the only one who uses the Fireworks application in this way. I have worked with many deigners here in Denmark, Sweden, Australia, England and America who build their screens for Flash in Fireworks and build files of similar if not more complexity.

    If Fireworks is meant to be used only to construct banner ads and navigation systems for HTML websites, ten why don't they say so in their doentation and examples?

    I guess what I am hearing here is that I am probably asking too much of the program, or maybe using it outside of the envelope... even though I think i am way inside ofthe envelope of what the program can do and what its intended purpose is.

    I guess, even though I might make my files more efficient in their use of objects, masking and so forth... I will have to wait for the next version of the program for the speed hike that I am looking for.. or should I say I was promised...

    To quote Macromedia... 'Get professional design results. Seamlessly edit vectors and bitmaps in one integrated environment that automatically responds to selections. Robust bitmap-editing support works exactly the way you expect for creating new bitmaps and fine-tuning images...' This is the exact stuff that you are saying is slowing down my file. So I rip them out, minimise the number of objects... so I have no roll back or real editability... and I still have a slow responding app.

    Once the site is live which should be tomorrow, I will post again with the URL and you can probably see why we used FW and it might give you a better idea of what we were oing in FW.


    Regards,

    Damian


    gruuvebot webforumsuser@macromedia.com Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: Fireworks MX performance very slow under XP

    Looks like MX 2004 might answer your problems -
    [url]http://www.macromedia.com/macromedia/proom/pr/2003/fireworks_mx_2004.html[/url]

    Could it be that you were ahead of your time - remember that MX was designed
    at a time when 800x600 was the screen size you designed for!



    Rich

    --
    Richard Blenkinsopp
    [url]www.richiebee.ca[/url]
    Team Macromedia Volunteer for Fireworks
    [url]www.macromedia.com/go/team[/url]
    Contributor and Moderator for Escogitando
    [url]www.escogitando.it[/url]
    "gruuvebot" <webforumsusermacromedia.com> wrote in message


    Richie Bee Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: Fireworks MX performance very slow under XP

    I too have am having incredibly slow performance from FWMX 2004!

    It is appaullingly slow.

    Even with really simple files, like just a two rectangles, and I'm trying to drag one into position - fireworks slowly goes through the motions while the older version was fine - I could move things all over the place, even very large graphics in files which had heaps of live effects, layers and images and its performance was always fine.

    It is so slow it is getting close to being to frustrating to use. It is taking me almost 10 times as long to do something in FWMX 2004 than in FWMX.

    I'm using:

    WinXP Pro
    P 4
    500Mb Ram
    This should be enough to run an app like this.


    Anton_FA webforumsuser@macromedia.com Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: Fireworks MX performance very slow under XP

    Hi All :-)

    Yes, MX2004 more faster than MX but... only first 30-40 minutes on intense working.

    GDI resources leak still persist in MX2004 too. =((
    Very bad...

    Whats new in 2004 version?
    Gradient background, pretty captions and...

    old bugs...

    waste of money...



    dizet webforumsuser@macromedia.com Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: Fireworks MX performance very slow under XP

    Hi All :-)

    Yes, MX2004 more faster than MX but... only first 30-40 minutes on intense working.

    GDI resources leak still persist in MX2004 too. =((
    Very bad...

    Whats new in 2004 version?
    Gradient background, pretty captions and...

    old bugs...

    waste of money...

    I have been using Fireworks for a long time now - I even was an authorized Macromedia Teacher for a while. I have always n MMs trumpet.

    Now this product really is making me think twice about the quality of MMs products - though I haven't tried any of the other MX 2004 products yet.

    I have to agree with the above quote - it is a waste of money. the previous version is far superior.



    Anton_FA webforumsuser@macromedia.com Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: Fireworks MX performance very slow under XP

    Alas, here I was thinking that the new version may be the answer to my woes... but it seems if the last two posters are right that my hopes are dashed.

    Macromedia seems to be going the way of Microsoft... poorly coded applications it would seem.

    :-(



    gruuvebot webforumsuser@macromedia.com Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: Fireworks MX performance very slow under XP

    Why take someone else's word for it when it's so easy to download a copy
    of the trial?


    Best regards,
    Linda Rathgeber
    ----------------
    Victoriana | [url]http://www.projectseven.com/dpacks/vic/index.htm[/url]
    Theme Pack 03 - Club | [url]www.projectseven.com[/url] |mm2| themes
    Contributor *PVII Foundations* [url]www.projectseven.com[/url]
    Co-author *Playing with Fire* [url]www.playingwithfire.com[/url]
    Team MM Fireworks Volunteer | [url]www.macromedia.com/go/team[/url]
    -----------------

    Linda Rathgeber Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: Fireworks MX performance very slow under XP



    "Anton_FA" [email]webforumsusermacromedia.com[/email] wrote:

    > I have been using Fireworks for a long time now - I even was an
    > authorized Macromedia Teacher for a while.
    We should know you, then. What's your name?


    Best regards,
    Linda Rathgeber
    ----------------
    Victoriana | [url]http://www.projectseven.com/dpacks/vic/index.htm[/url]
    Theme Pack 03 - Club | [url]www.projectseven.com[/url] |mm2| themes
    Contributor *PVII Foundations* [url]www.projectseven.com[/url]
    Co-author *Playing with Fire* [url]www.playingwithfire.com[/url]
    Team MM Fireworks Volunteer | [url]www.macromedia.com/go/team[/url]
    -----------------

    Linda Rathgeber Guest

Similar Threads

  1. OS X + Fireworks 2004 = slow
    By HS in forum Macromedia Fireworks
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: October 16th, 08:10 PM
  2. Fireworks MX 2004 is so slow I really can't use it.
    By ll600 webforumsuser@macromedia.com in forum Macromedia Fireworks
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: October 8th, 12:13 AM
  3. Fireworks Mx Slow after 30/40 min on PC
    By Nik in forum Macromedia Fireworks
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: October 3rd, 02:48 PM
  4. Fireworks MX: Bog slow in OS 10.2.3
    By ellimondo webforumsuser@macromedia.com in forum Macromedia Fireworks
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: September 19th, 02:14 PM
  5. Fireworks 2004 Slow even on a G5
    By Kim Cavanaugh in forum Macromedia Fireworks
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: September 11th, 09:26 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139