09-20-2003, 06:13 PM
|
|
Junior Guru Wannabe
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: London, uk
Posts: 68
|
|
Macromedia Studio MX 2004
EVERYONE ITS BEEN RELEASED CHECK IT OUT AND POST YOU COMMENTS !
IM STARTING TO FIND NEW FEATURES !
http://www.macromedia.com/
__________________
Ash.
|
09-22-2003, 02:04 AM
|
|
Junior Guru Wannabe
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: #!/usr/bin/Detroit
Posts: 85
|
|
..been using it for a while now and so far, I'm not really impressed. That's not to say the new features arn't worth the money, but it's nothing I think the normal designer needs to worry about (that goes with the entire MX04 line, not just the studio package).
__________________
Juvenall Wilson
http://www.yabbforum.com
|
09-22-2003, 05:14 AM
|
|
Web Hosting Master
|
|
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 2,994
|
|
Well Dreamweavers CSS support is MUCH nicer. It was always too 'clunky' with CSS before
|
09-22-2003, 07:04 AM
|
|
Community Leader
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: cognito
Posts: 17,435
|
|
Well, I found MX to be rather buggy in display and operation. They released one fix, but it still had things that don't work properly, in my opinion.
Pay for yet another version when they left the last one unfinished? Don't think so.
|
09-26-2003, 10:34 AM
|
|
Junior Guru Wannabe
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: London, uk
Posts: 68
|
|
yeh, now i've used it a little more though things like css support is much better, i dont like the way they changed the menu's personally, but all the features are mostly little and i think it should of been more of an upgrade package to MX for a lot cheap instead of a brand new suite.
__________________
Ash.
Last edited by pagekeeper; 09-26-2003 at 02:31 PM.
|
09-26-2003, 10:41 AM
|
|
Web Hosting Master
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,273
|
|
Really greedy of them! 
The menus are bad now, I don't like what they did.
While the graphics on the left are nicer, they are just tools and maybe should have been left plain.
But what they did to the windows is bad.
I got the trial version of it, and I decided to stay with MX.. (fireworks MX [6])
|
09-26-2003, 11:29 AM
|
|
Web Hosting Master
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: East TN
Posts: 568
|
|
I can't beleive it already, lol
Take care,
Lori 
|
09-26-2003, 12:51 PM
|
|
Community Leader
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: cognito
Posts: 17,435
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by pagekeeper
yeh, now i've used it a little more though things like css support is much better, i dont like the way they changed the menu's personally, but all the features are mostly little and i think it should of been more of an upgrade package to MX for a lot cheap instead of a brand whole new suite.
|
Here's another thought: My version of Flash (MX) has action scripting and the ability to handle and create web forms. The new "standard" ($399) upgrade package Flash version does not. For an extra $100, you can get the "pro" version, that has that added (back) in.
Nice, MM.
|
09-26-2003, 02:29 PM
|
|
Junior Guru Wannabe
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: London, uk
Posts: 68
|
|
well i suppose its all corporate gain to me, they get richer as we get skint
i think this shouldnt have been released untill next year to be honest.
__________________
Ash.
|
09-28-2003, 03:47 AM
|
|
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight...
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Hollywood Proper, CA
Posts: 3,044
|
|
this was definatly an attempt to make money. I still rather use top style for css.
|
09-28-2003, 04:21 AM
|
|
Web Hosting Master
|
|
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 2,994
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by bear
Here's another thought: My version of Flash (MX) has action scripting and the ability to handle and create web forms. The new "standard" ($399) upgrade package Flash version does not. For an extra $100, you can get the "pro" version, that has that added (back) in.
Nice, MM.
|
http://www.macromedia.com/software/f...es/comparison/
Ummm according to this page both have ActionScript 2.0. However forms are in pro
|
09-28-2003, 06:57 AM
|
|
Community Leader
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: cognito
Posts: 17,435
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Rich2k
Ummm according to this page both have ActionScript 2.0. However forms are in pro
|
Interesting..I'd have sworn I read Action Scripting wasn't in both...but my MX still can do forms, where MX 2004 (regular) can't, apparently. Still seems something of a downgrade.
Thanks for the heads up.
|
09-28-2003, 12:00 PM
|
|
Newbie
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 7
|
|
If you're a designer, don't bother upgrading!
For developers it's a must!
|
10-02-2003, 12:55 PM
|
|
Newbie
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Near
Posts: 26
|
|
I got the studio mx 02 educational version. New to dreamweaver and hope to learn how to use it soon. Do any of you recomend any software or books that will teach me how to use this software?
thanks
Joel
|
10-02-2003, 01:13 PM
|
|
Junior Guru Wannabe
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: London, uk
Posts: 68
|
|
umbrello, the best way to learn macromedia is keep using it, its taken me a long time to get where i am but its worth it and you take in more. i also didnt have any money aswell . Its also worth learning the adobe suite e.g photoshop, imageready - i use image ready often cause of the amount you can compress an image you've created especially when designing website.The other way is to take a course or something i dont know any books may be someone else could metion about that.
mx 2004 : well i think its still majorly wrong, im a designer and a delevoper and i'd rather keep the normal mx version. of course this is my view
__________________
Ash.
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
| Postbit Selector |
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Login: |
|
|
| Advertisement: |
|
|
| Web Hosting News: |
|
|
|
