This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
Home > Archive > Dreamweaver > March 2004 > MX 2004 Dog Slow on Mac OS X
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
MX 2004 Dog Slow on Mac OS X
|
|
| Stefan Seiz 2003-12-10, 12:25 pm |
| Just bought MX 2004 Studio.
Really love the features BUT dreamweaver is so dog slow on my Dual Processor
G4 that is is almost impossible to actually get any work done with it.
I assume this might be caused at least in parts by the use of XX to display
HTML as Preview.
One really wonders why macromedia didn't simply use WebCore (Safari) for the
HTML Preview. I bet it would improove speed drastically. Yes, macromedia
would then have to maintain 2 different code-bases (for cross plattform) but
I asume that is the case already anyway.
I'd really love to work with dreamweaver, but I just can't afford a Dual
Proc G5 in the moment, so I wonder if there's a way to return the products
to get my money back...
Stefan
--
<http://www.StefanSeiz.com>
Spamto: <bin@imd.net>
| |
| Stefan Seiz 2003-12-10, 9:21 pm |
| PS: tested this on various Macs with OSes ranging from 10.2.8 to 10.3.1. All
have plenty of Memory (~1GB).
--
<http://www.StefanSeiz.com>
Spamto: <bin@imd.net>
| |
| Osgood 2003-12-10, 9:21 pm |
| Stefan Seiz wrote:quote:
> PS: tested this on various Macs with OSes ranging from 10.2.8 to 10.3.1. All
> have plenty of Memory (~1GB).
>
> --
> <http://www.StefanSeiz.com>
> Spamto: <bin@imd.net>
>
>
Well, if the product isnt fit for what it has been sold to do then I
would demand your money back. MX2004 on a Mac is totally crap IMHO.
Anyone buying it at the moment would be ripped off badly.
If you buy a car you expect it to get you down the street in a
reasonable amount of time.
I guess you should have test driven the trial first but its still no
excuse for MM to release a barrel of chicken shit onto the web community.
Isnt it about time the update came out. If its taking this long to get
it togther there must have been some seriuos faults in the original release.
| |
| Bridgetown Bloggers 2003-12-10, 9:22 pm |
| Stefan
A Dual G5 won't help you much either. I was at the opening of the new
Apple Store at Washington Square in Tigard, Oregon a few weeks back and
I was looking at a Dual G5 with one of the sales staff. I noticed the
Dreamweaver Icon on the tool bar so I launched it and it was MX 2004
and it was pitifully slow - slower than Dreamweaver MX on my 3-year old
733mhz machine. The sales guy shrugged his shoulders and noted that
this 'upgrade' was a very poor performer both under Jaguar as well as
Panther.
I downloaded the Dreamweaver MX 2004 trial version and had it off my
machine within 30 minutes. It's definitely not ready for prime time.
Back to the drawing boards guys & dolls................
quote:
> I'd really love to work with dreamweaver, but I just can't afford a Dual
> Proc G5 in the moment, so I wonder if there's a way to return the products
> to get my money back...
>
> Stefan
| |
| Scott Fegette 2003-12-10, 9:24 pm |
| > Isnt it about time the update came out. If its taking this long to getquote:
> it togther there must have been some seriuos faults in the original release.
Well, that's largely speculation. Considering the two largest issues
reported with DWMX 2004 (FTP connection issues and Mac performance) are also
not reproduceable across all configurations of client machines (and
servers), they also take some time to accurately track down and address.
Stefan- please note the emerging issues technote, where performance on Macs
is noted, along with troubleshooting links (and performance tips):
http://www.macromedia.com/support/d...erging_issues.h
tm
-Scott
| |
| cmyck webforumsuser@macromedia.com 2003-12-12, 1:31 pm |
| dreamweaver MX2004 *is* dog slow. this app is one single embarrassment.
i followed all the tech docs on performance issues. they really don't help.
anybody who is thinking of buying DW2004: don't! it's not worth it.
i'd rather use textedit!
it's beyond me, why macromedia keeps doing this to mac users.
phil
| |
| John Dowdell 2003-12-13, 5:03 pm |
| "cmyck" webforumsuser@macromedia.com wrote:quote:
> dreamweaver MX2004 *is* dog slow. this app is one single embarrassment.
> i followed all the tech docs on performance issues. they really don't help.
> anybody who is thinking of buying DW2004: don't! it's not worth it.
I'm sorry you're not seeing the expected performance. The technotes
include the top known ways to achieve such a result; if you can use the
support contract included with each purchase then we might be able to
discover other ways to not get the expected result.
Others do indeed try out the application on their system and find
different results. That doesn't mean that you're not seeing what you're
seeing, though. :(
jd
--
John Dowdell, Macromedia Developer Support, San Francisco CA
Search technotes: http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/
Soapbox column: http://www.macromedia.com/desdev/jd_forum/
Daily technical diary: http://www.macromedia.com/go/blog_jd
Offlist mail is trapped by spam-filters... best here, thanks!
| |
| steinberginc webforumsuser@macromedia.com 2003-12-13, 5:03 pm |
| use GoLive CS. Blazing fast. Macromedia really killed DW in my opinion (try the tial version and you see). Not worth buying now. Its a bad joke to the mac community
| |
| cmyck webforumsuser@macromedia.com 2003-12-13, 5:03 pm |
| you know what's real fun on OS X?
clicking the expand/collapse button in the files window.
how this got through MM's usability testing is beyond me.
phil
--------------------------------------------------
OS X 10.3.1, PB 1Ghz, 1024MB RAM
DW2004 (7.0)
| |
| Stephen Cox 2003-12-14, 11:08 am |
| Is there a trail version of GolIve? I checked Adobe's website and found
nothing.
Also, I must point out I do not have the speed problems that a lof of
other Mac users have. But, I do have other problems.. numerous bugs with
the Files Windows and a whole slew of little annoying bugs through out
the software. It's gotten SO bad that I finally removed DW MX 4 and went
back to DW MX. So I lost the upgade price and that's what I get for
trusting MM and buying early. That will not happen again.
Stephen Cox
"steinberginc" webforumsuser@macromedia.com wrote:
quote:
> use GoLive CS. Blazing fast. Macromedia really killed DW in my opinion (try the tial version and you see). Not worth buying now. Its a bad joke to the mac community
>
>
| |
| steinberginc webforumsuser@macromedia.com 2003-12-15, 4:19 pm |
| Is there a trail version of GolIve? I checked Adobe's website and found
nothing.
Also, I must point out I do not have the speed problems that a lof of
other Mac users have. But, I do have other problems.. numerous bugs with
the Files Windows and a whole slew of little annoying bugs through out
the software. It's gotten SO bad that I finally removed DW MX 4 and went
back to DW MX. So I lost the upgade price and that's what I get for
trusting MM and buying early. That will not happen again.
Stephen Cox
"steinberginc" webforumsuser@macromedia.com wrote:
quote:
> use GoLive CS. Blazing fast. Macromedia really killed DW in my opinion (try the tial version and you see). Not worth buying now. Its a bad joke to the mac community
>
>
I am not sure. May be there is one coming soon. I don't think DW MX2004 is bad at all> Very good application. its just such a shame that the program is so buggy. No updates are available and they expect users to pay big bucks for it. As you can see on thi
s forum many users complain. May be check the Adobe Forum if they are more satisfied. However everyone has its workflow. You must decide what application fits you best. Talk to you art buying department or decide of yourself if you're your own boss:)
| |
|
| In article <bri0rl$mtt$1@forums.macromedia.com>, "steinberginc"
webforumsuser@macromedia.com wrote:
quote:
> [...]
> I am not sure. May be there is one coming soon. I don't think DW MX2004
> is bad at all. Very good application. its just such a shame that the
> program is so buggy. [...]
Similar feelings here. I have enormous confidence in Macromedia. DM has
been so good for so long, and is so deeply engaging (I can think of no
better word) that I have to believe Macromedia is busting its butt to fix
it for Panther, and that Macromedia will somehow compensate those of us
who lived with them on the bleeding edge of the new product. Such
customers are easily identified, and there are not so many that it will
break the bank.
| |
| cmyck webforumsuser@macromedia.com 2003-12-15, 4:20 pm |
| in case anybody want to see a video of the file window bug mentioned below:
http://sichtwerk.com/bugVideo/index.php
cheers,
phil
-------------------------------------------
OS X 10.3.1, PB 1Ghz, 1024MB RAM
DW2004 (7.0)
FMXpro2004 (7.0.1)
| |
| soetes webforumsuser@macromedia.com 2003-12-17, 9:29 am |
| "it's beyond me, why macromedia keeps doing this to mac users"
Because they develop for PC and port to Mac. And that's because they want to support the investment they have in ColdFusion.
In Australia, MM's local distributors have for some years now, conducted training only on PCs. When pressed, they say they believe that that's where the web development world is headed.
Have you tried GoLive? Bit of a learning curve, but at least it does what you want at a reasonable lick.
I've got a G5 and yet I still find DW MX (not even the 2004 version) unacceptably slow. I'm way beyond the stage where I'm happy to wait for the software to catch up with me.
| |
| Scott Fegette 2003-12-17, 9:29 am |
| On 12/14/03 9:35 PM, "soetes" wrote:quote:
> Because they develop for PC and port to Mac. And that's because they want to
> support the investment they have in ColdFusion.
Not really true, but nice try... ;)
AFAIK the product teams use cross-platform development tools/frameworks,
porting an entire project each release is incredibly redundant and costly.
Further, CF is a server-side environment, which has little-to-nothing to do
with development of desktop products.
quote:
> In Australia, MM's local distributors have for some years now, conducted
> training only on PCs. When pressed, they say they believe that that's where
> the web development world is headed.
I suspect the distributors in question are using PCs more for
economic/personal reasons (but they are separate entities entirely from
Macromedia, and subject to their own opinions), and can say that there is a
LARGE Mac community inside MM that takes the platform very seriously. It
should be noted that the performance issues this thread are referring to are
not common across all Mac systems (posters in this thread have confirmed
this fact), and the product team is working on an update to address many of
the reported cases.
FWIW, I've been using MX 2004 on a dual 500 G4 for some time and haven't run
into most of the issues reported here. Not to downplay problems you may be
having *in the least*, just noting the fact that not all of these 'hot
topics' being discussed are necessarily shared across all configurations.
If you're really confounded by a particular bug/problem/etc., by all means
open a tech support ticket (URL below) and get one-on-one support (two
incidents are free w/your purchase, and if the root cause is tracked back to
a bug in the software it shouldn't count against those two 'free'
incidents):
http://www.macromedia.com/support/e...entary/main.cgi
Best!
-Scott
Macromedia, Inc.
| |
|
| Yes, well, as usual, Macromedia just waits a a little while and everything
settles down. We who rely on Dreamweaver to make a living eventually get used
to the legions of bugs (a few of which are nicely documented here:
[L=http://www.exuberance.com/notes/2003/dwmx2004.html]http://www.exuberance.com/
notes/2003/dwmx2004.html[/L] ).
It's a damn shame that MM has such a pathetic record of issuing bug fixes for
their crapola software. All I can say is, if you can find another option, go
with it, because MM sure doesn't show that they care about making great
software.
| |
| GroundZeroX 2004-02-24, 10:29 pm |
| I am personally tired of having to deal with Dreamweaver 2004. I bought a new
iBook G4 800MHz, and I noticed how badly Dreamweaver was performing. I upgraded
my memory to 640 and saw NO improvement at all. Dreamweaver 2004 has put a lot
of doubt in me, as to how Macromedia treats mac users.
I mean, did this program go through ANY Quality Assurance work before
shipping? Or is this just the beta? I am ashamed of Macromedia for releasing
such a poor product, and I will definately think twice before advising any of
my clients, or when I advise the schools that I help out about software
purchases.
Macromedia owes EVERYONE who has purchased Dreamweaver 2004 for the Mac.
| |
| lickitysplit 2004-02-25, 12:30 pm |
| The MAC isn't the only one with problems. Programs have bugs...
unfortunately Dreamweaver 2004's bugs greatly affect the performance on MACs
and some PCs.
One could only guess why this version is one of the worst versions that has
come from Macromedia... they are the only ones that truely know... we can
only hope they get their acts together and fix the bugs for this release and
have fewer bugs in the next full version release.
"GroundZeroX" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:c1gvpq$isp$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> I am personally tired of having to deal with Dreamweaver 2004. I bought a
new
> iBook G4 800MHz, and I noticed how badly Dreamweaver was performing. I
upgraded
> my memory to 640 and saw NO improvement at all. Dreamweaver 2004 has put a
lot
> of doubt in me, as to how Macromedia treats mac users.
>
> I mean, did this program go through ANY Quality Assurance work before
> shipping? Or is this just the beta? I am ashamed of Macromedia for
releasing
> such a poor product, and I will definately think twice before advising any
of
> my clients, or when I advise the schools that I help out about software
> purchases.
>
> Macromedia owes EVERYONE who has purchased Dreamweaver 2004 for the Mac.
>
| |
| Murray *TMM* 2004-02-25, 12:31 pm |
| They are.
--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver MX
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
news://forums.macromedia.com/macromedia.dreamweaver - THE BEST WAY TO GET
ANSWERS
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================
"Jeffrey Stevison" <jeff@remv_thisgeeksociety.com> wrote in message
news:c1iheg$jq0$1@forums.macromedia.com...[color=darkred]
> If they would just PLEASE put us out of our misery and give us an
> updater. Pretty please, with sugar on top?
>
> lickitysplit wrote:
MACs[color=darkred]
has[color=darkred]
can[color=darkred]
and[color=darkred]
a[color=darkred]
a[color=darkred]
any[color=darkred]
Mac.[color=darkred]
| |
| Jeffrey Stevison 2004-02-25, 12:31 pm |
| If they would just PLEASE put us out of our misery and give us an
updater. Pretty please, with sugar on top?
lickitysplit wrote:
> The MAC isn't the only one with problems. Programs have bugs...
> unfortunately Dreamweaver 2004's bugs greatly affect the performance on MACs
> and some PCs.
>
> One could only guess why this version is one of the worst versions that has
> come from Macromedia... they are the only ones that truely know... we can
> only hope they get their acts together and fix the bugs for this release and
> have fewer bugs in the next full version release.
>
>
> "GroundZeroX" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
> news:c1gvpq$isp$1@forums.macromedia.com...
>
>
> new
>
>
> upgraded
>
>
> lot
>
>
> releasing
>
>
> of
>
>
>
>
| |
| c.cantrell 2004-02-25, 6:29 pm |
| [q]If they would just PLEASE put us out of our misery and give us an <BR>updater. Pretty please, with sugar on top?[/q]
It's coming!
Christian
| |
| Jeffrey Stevison 2004-02-25, 11:28 pm |
| When? Do you know something exciting?
c.cantrell wrote:
> [q]If they would just PLEASE put us out of our misery and give us an <BR>updater. Pretty please, with sugar on top?[/q]
>
> It's coming!
>
> Christian
| |
| DigitalOverview.com 2004-02-26, 2:28 am |
| We used the trial of Dreamweaver MX 2004 on an G4 iMac 1Ghz with 768 RAM
running OS 10.3.2. So slow as to cripple one from developing on that platform.
I'm not a huge fan of GoLive, but I'm using GoLive CS for all Mac web
development because it is fast and just plain works.
The expand/collapse button on the Mac was a joke. That window has major
issues. Also Dreamweaver MX 2004 made us see the spinning beachball too many
times and WAY too many crashes.
Here's the balance. We're using it on a PC running XP Pro with an ASUS
Pentium IV 2.4 Ghz w/hyperthreading, 1 Gig of RAM and so far the experience has
been much more pleasant, but still SLOWER than Dreamweaver MX (2002 version)!
Hopefully the updater changes things.
I see Macromedia has dropped the price of Studio MX by $100 as well. That has
got to be a record short period of time that they have discounted their own
product line after release. In five months almost to the day they have started
discounting!!! That says a lot!
Consumers and developers speak with their wallets and the mothership is back
peddling prior to even reaching the 1/3 of the way through this product
development cycle. No wonder the stock price has been nasty since the 2004
release.
Scott Morgan
www.digitaloverview.com
| |
| lickitysplit 2004-02-26, 11:31 am |
| They also did that when they were coming out with a brand new release...
kind of like clearing out the warehouse of all the copies that didn't sell
to make room for the next version. Shall be interesting to see what happens.
> I see Macromedia has dropped the price of Studio MX by $100 as well.
That has
> got to be a record short period of time that they have discounted their
own
> product line after release. In five months almost to the day they have
started
> discounting!!! That says a lot!
| |
| DigitalOverview.com 2004-02-26, 12:31 pm |
| Yeah, but that discounting was at the END of a product cycle and just prior to
a new product launch. This is still the beginning of the product cycle and
they are rushing out "updaters" to fix the house of roaches realeased in
September. A major difference. Apples & Oranges comparison.
Studio MX is more than half of the company's bread and butter (actually 60% of
revenues). They have already released updaters for Flash and Fireworks to get
rid of the rushed release in September. Now Dreamweaver is about to get a dot
dot release updater as well. That's all three of the new Studio MX products
updated all in under 5 months!
And now a discounted price as well. They'd better be releasing some new and
jazzy piece of software this year that most of their user base (buyers list)
would be interested in or else the stock is going to get clobbered. And a
niche product won't help. They need a really ground breaking new product
release. Otherwise they are going to have to be much more aggressive about
releasing a new Studio MX in 2005.
I've paid for all my software I ever bought from MACR by trading their stock
over the years. I last sold at 26 and change and I see no reason for rapid
appreciation based on the current product line. Is their software good? Yes,
but the old Studio MX is still a workhorse and unless you really really need
the new features of the 2004 flavor, you can still make awesome sites with old
Studio MX. I keep hearing "I'll wait for DWMX 2006".
On the positive side of the coin.... I think Flash Pro is awesome. I do a lot
of video stuff and will begin tweaking sites using that feature now. Fireworks
MX 2004 has a small number of new features that please me as well. Not a huge
upgrade, but I absolutely LOVE that program. I also used RoboDemo before
Macromedia bought them. I upgraded to RoboDemo 5 eLearning before the buyout
though. Another uesful and cool program, but not exactly what the typical
flash designer would use. I see it more as an easy entry into creating flash
content from someone with less experience.
I am one of those folks who buys new no matter what (to a fault). However,
this last release of Studio MX 2004 was painful enough early on to make me wait
for more feedback on Director MX 2004. I'm already hearing lots of bitching on
the Mac user side which really sucks because that is the platform I prefer to
work on. Director started on the Mac and unfortunately it has lost it roots
over the years.
I like Studio MX 2004 on the PC. I'll stop there. I think the company needs
to tighten up (shorten) the development cycle or the stock price will lag. I
don't think all the marketing dollars in the world can push a Studio release
that costs 50% of the cost of the original product without comparable new
features that represent a 50% in productivity or new toys. It's fuzzy logic
math and it just doesn't compute in the design world.
Yeah it's my opinion, but unless there is some new product in the pipeline
that I don't know about then this product cycle of Studio MX 2004 and earnings
will not set the world on fire. I rode the stock from $7 to $26+ with some
trades in between and see no reason to buy it at the moment.
I will say that I am very pleased to see the company addressing the bugs and
releasing dot releases. They did so with Freehand MX and after this pending
Dreamweaver updater that will mean that they fixed bugs on all the Studio MX
products.
As happy as those updaters please me, it disturbs the design community that
Macromedia distributes "cripple ware" and then tries to "fix it" later. That
is potentially very damaging to future product releases with folks getting
burned jumping in with both feet right out of the gate. If I were over at the
mothership... I'd make sure the next Studio release is properly beta tested.
Many of the beta testers that I spoke to could not believe that they released
it so fast. He said, it felt like only a few weeks and still major bug issues
and the "BAMM" Studio MX 2004 is released.
That shock to the system sent shivers down early bird buyers and I think many
will watch and wait the next product cycle because of it.
Scott Morgan
www.digitaloverview.com
| |
| MiddleAges 2004-02-26, 2:29 pm |
| I think you make some excellent points, DigitalO.
I work in an office of PCs running W98, but prefer to do all my development on
the Mac. I threw my lot in with Macromedia when I had to choose between
DW4(3?) and Go-Live (after Adobe bought Cyberstudio). I looked at both
products and felt that DW was the more professional feature set. I thought DW4
was great, DW MX even better, and Flash 5 was incredible.
Based on my personal history with their product line, I jumped on Studio
MX2004 the day it was released. I thought at the time though that it was "too
soon" and my apprehensions were confirmed. I have a DP 1.8 G5 and, though
performance is acceptable on this speedy machine, there are too many bugs I
have to keep working around. And forget about running the program on my
Titanium 667!!! DW also "quits unexpectedly" more often than any of my other
programs, including MS Office.
Having said all this, however, I'm going to give the folks at Macromedia the
benefit of the doubt. Despite our best intentions, none of us "hits a home
run" every time at bat (yes, yes, I know the argument, "I paid good money for
______, so I expect _____ to work perfectly!"). But developing software of this
complexity for this diverse an audience is no doubt a daunting task, and may be
as much "art" as it is "science."
So, I'm going to assume that they are Professionals, that they take pride in
their work, and that they are savvy enough to realize that it's not in their
long-term interests to ignore the complaints of their customer base. That they
have attained a deserved reputation for producing some incredible software for
the Mac (and PC) and still want to maintain and further that reputation. While
I'm not going to be an "early adopter" like I was with MX2004, I look forward
to the comprehensive bug fixes for the current product line, their continued
support of the Mac platform,and any forthcoming Mac products. Adobe seems to
be on the offensive now, so perhaps this will spur MM on to greater heights.
| |
| Jeffrey Stevison 2004-02-26, 2:29 pm |
| You darn right! I'm definitely WAITING next time around.
DigitalOverview.com wrote:
> Yeah, but that discounting was at the END of a product cycle and just prior to
> a new product launch. This is still the beginning of the product cycle and
> they are rushing out "updaters" to fix the house of roaches realeased in
> September. A major difference. Apples & Oranges comparison.
>
> Studio MX is more than half of the company's bread and butter (actually 60% of
> revenues). They have already released updaters for Flash and Fireworks to get
> rid of the rushed release in September. Now Dreamweaver is about to get a dot
> dot release updater as well. That's all three of the new Studio MX products
> updated all in under 5 months!
>
> And now a discounted price as well. They'd better be releasing some new and
> jazzy piece of software this year that most of their user base (buyers list)
> would be interested in or else the stock is going to get clobbered. And a
> niche product won't help. They need a really ground breaking new product
> release. Otherwise they are going to have to be much more aggressive about
> releasing a new Studio MX in 2005.
>
> I've paid for all my software I ever bought from MACR by trading their stock
> over the years. I last sold at 26 and change and I see no reason for rapid
> appreciation based on the current product line. Is their software good? Yes,
> but the old Studio MX is still a workhorse and unless you really really need
> the new features of the 2004 flavor, you can still make awesome sites with old
> Studio MX. I keep hearing "I'll wait for DWMX 2006".
>
> On the positive side of the coin.... I think Flash Pro is awesome. I do a lot
> of video stuff and will begin tweaking sites using that feature now. Fireworks
> MX 2004 has a small number of new features that please me as well. Not a huge
> upgrade, but I absolutely LOVE that program. I also used RoboDemo before
> Macromedia bought them. I upgraded to RoboDemo 5 eLearning before the buyout
> though. Another uesful and cool program, but not exactly what the typical
> flash designer would use. I see it more as an easy entry into creating flash
> content from someone with less experience.
>
> I am one of those folks who buys new no matter what (to a fault). However,
> this last release of Studio MX 2004 was painful enough early on to make me wait
> for more feedback on Director MX 2004. I'm already hearing lots of bitching on
> the Mac user side which really sucks because that is the platform I prefer to
> work on. Director started on the Mac and unfortunately it has lost it roots
> over the years.
>
> I like Studio MX 2004 on the PC. I'll stop there. I think the company needs
> to tighten up (shorten) the development cycle or the stock price will lag. I
> don't think all the marketing dollars in the world can push a Studio release
> that costs 50% of the cost of the original product without comparable new
> features that represent a 50% in productivity or new toys. It's fuzzy logic
> math and it just doesn't compute in the design world.
>
> Yeah it's my opinion, but unless there is some new product in the pipeline
> that I don't know about then this product cycle of Studio MX 2004 and earnings
> will not set the world on fire. I rode the stock from $7 to $26+ with some
> trades in between and see no reason to buy it at the moment.
>
> I will say that I am very pleased to see the company addressing the bugs and
> releasing dot releases. They did so with Freehand MX and after this pending
> Dreamweaver updater that will mean that they fixed bugs on all the Studio MX
> products.
>
> As happy as those updaters please me, it disturbs the design community that
> Macromedia distributes "cripple ware" and then tries to "fix it" later. That
> is potentially very damaging to future product releases with folks getting
> burned jumping in with both feet right out of the gate. If I were over at the
> mothership... I'd make sure the next Studio release is properly beta tested.
> Many of the beta testers that I spoke to could not believe that they released
> it so fast. He said, it felt like only a few weeks and still major bug issues
> and the "BAMM" Studio MX 2004 is released.
>
> That shock to the system sent shivers down early bird buyers and I think many
> will watch and wait the next product cycle because of it.
>
> Scott Morgan
> www.digitaloverview.com
>
>
| |
| Murray *TMM* 2004-02-26, 2:30 pm |
| I adopted DMX2004 the moment it was available. It has been a GIANT
productivity enhancer for me, and I wouldn't dream of going back.
Remember - all of these comments are subjective impressions only. Your
mileage may vary.
There are many people here for whom DMX2004 is perfect, and there are many
for whom it is not. C'est la vie.
--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver MX
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
news://forums.macromedia.com/macromedia.dreamweaver - THE BEST WAY TO GET
ANSWERS
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================
"MiddleAges" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:c1lale$s3p$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> I think you make some excellent points, DigitalO.
>
> I work in an office of PCs running W98, but prefer to do all my
development on
> the Mac. I threw my lot in with Macromedia when I had to choose between
> DW4(3?) and Go-Live (after Adobe bought Cyberstudio). I looked at both
> products and felt that DW was the more professional feature set. I
thought DW4
> was great, DW MX even better, and Flash 5 was incredible.
>
> Based on my personal history with their product line, I jumped on Studio
> MX2004 the day it was released. I thought at the time though that it was
"too
> soon" and my apprehensions were confirmed. I have a DP 1.8 G5 and, though
> performance is acceptable on this speedy machine, there are too many bugs
I
> have to keep working around. And forget about running the program on my
> Titanium 667!!! DW also "quits unexpectedly" more often than any of my
other
> programs, including MS Office.
>
> Having said all this, however, I'm going to give the folks at Macromedia
the
> benefit of the doubt. Despite our best intentions, none of us "hits a
home
> run" every time at bat (yes, yes, I know the argument, "I paid good money
for
> ______, so I expect _____ to work perfectly!"). But developing software of
this
> complexity for this diverse an audience is no doubt a daunting task, and
may be
> as much "art" as it is "science."
>
> So, I'm going to assume that they are Professionals, that they take pride
in
> their work, and that they are savvy enough to realize that it's not in
their
> long-term interests to ignore the complaints of their customer base. That
they
> have attained a deserved reputation for producing some incredible software
for
> the Mac (and PC) and still want to maintain and further that reputation.
While
> I'm not going to be an "early adopter" like I was with MX2004, I look
forward
> to the comprehensive bug fixes for the current product line, their
continued
> support of the Mac platform,and any forthcoming Mac products. Adobe seems
to
> be on the offensive now, so perhaps this will spur MM on to greater
heights.
>
| |
| Jeffrey Stevison 2004-02-26, 2:30 pm |
| C'est la vie is easy for you to say. You aren't having any problems.
Murray *TMM* wrote:
> I adopted DMX2004 the moment it was available. It has been a GIANT
> productivity enhancer for me, and I wouldn't dream of going back.
>
> Remember - all of these comments are subjective impressions only. Your
> mileage may vary.
>
> There are many people here for whom DMX2004 is perfect, and there are many
> for whom it is not. C'est la vie.
>
| |
| Murray *TMM* 2004-02-26, 2:30 pm |
| It was not a slight or a brush off. It was an observation. That's all.
And I have my share of problems, pretty much similar to some of the ones
posted here. None of them prevent me from doing my work, however, or from
thinking that DMX2004 is a great improvement.
--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver MX
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
news://forums.macromedia.com/macromedia.dreamweaver - THE BEST WAY TO GET
ANSWERS
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================
"Jeffrey Stevison" <jeff@remv_thisgeeksociety.com> wrote in message
news:c1lc4p$rbd$2@forums.macromedia.com...[color=darkred]
> C'est la vie is easy for you to say. You aren't having any problems.
>
>
> Murray *TMM* wrote:
>
many[color=darkred]
| |
|
| Well, don't get your hopes up for a bug-fix release. Macromedia has been
officially silent on the topic. Of course, it would be bad marketing for them
to acknowledge that they foisted beta software on paying customers. Check out
[L=this discussion on
O'Reilly]http://www.macdevcenter.com/pub/a//mac/2004/01/13/dreamweaver.html?page
=last#thread[/L] , where Jen Taylor, Product Manager for Dreamweaver, wrote on
January 15,
"[h]"We hear you. We've been looking issues with Dreamweaver MX 2004 since we
shipped and are working away at a dot release that specifically addresses
performance issues. It should be coming out shortly."[/h]
On the same day, another supposed Macromedia employee, Craig Jennings, posted
on the same page,
[h]One of the reasons that you haven't seen a patch for Dreamweaver yet is the
fact that we've decided to spend more time gathering our customer complaints
and fixing much more of them.
This patch should be available in several more weeks since it's in the final
testing/validation phase right now. I think you'll be much happier with the
performance and stability of the product as well as the number of issues we've
corrected.
How do I know? I work on the team (in fact I'm ordering dinner for a long
evening right after I hit the submit button). :)[/h]
That was over 5 weeks ago, and still there no bug-fix release, and barely an
official acknowledgement of issues. (I do not consider the posting of a
feedback form to be serious acknowledgement).
So -- Macromedia releases what is essentially beta software, charges 50% of
the new price for the upgrade, and is silent when the crowds go screaming about
how crappy the software is (check out the complaints across the web, on Apple's
discussion boards, on Amazon, on O'Reilly, etc.). WHATEVER.
That's no way to run a company, but judging by the [L=hole in the
ground]http://www.exuberance.com/notes/2003/dwmx2004.html[/L] that the fool
management at Macromedia dug for themselves in San Francisco when they were
snooked by the dot-com bubble, I consider Macromedia to be a corporate joke,
where employees probably sit there hitting "refresh" on their Yahoo stock pages
as they track the [L=ups and
downs]http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=MACR&t=2y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=[/L] of their
option portfolios, instead of doing a respectable job making quality software.
| |
| Murray *TMM* 2004-02-26, 2:31 pm |
| Read it again.
--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver MX
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
news://forums.macromedia.com/macromedia.dreamweaver - THE BEST WAY TO GET
ANSWERS
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================
"dznr" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:c1ldfl$3b3$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> "C'est la vie"!? Hardly. There are many documented BUGS in the software
that
> inhibit productivity and should not, from any standpoint, be there.
>
> I use DWMX2004 on a daily basis as a primary tool in my professional
trade.
> The poor performance of DW is unacceptable, especially for software that
(#1)
> has been around for so many years (and by extension should be getting
better in
> its performance, not worse), (#2) is created by a big company, and (#3)
costs a
> whole lotta money.
>
| |
| Murray *TMM* 2004-02-26, 2:31 pm |
| dznr:
Check your facts.
> Macromedia has been
> officially silent on the topic.
Posting more than twice in this and recent threads today that one was on the
way, as well as multiple instances of similar posts here in the last several
weeks is not being officially silent.
--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver MX
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
news://forums.macromedia.com/macromedia.dreamweaver - THE BEST WAY TO GET
ANSWERS
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================
"dznr" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:c1ld6u$2q6$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> Well, don't get your hopes up for a bug-fix release. Macromedia has been
> officially silent on the topic. Of course, it would be bad marketing for
them
> to acknowledge that they foisted beta software on paying customers. Check
out
| |
|
| "C'est la vie"!? Hardly. There are many documented BUGS in the software that
inhibit productivity and should not, from any standpoint, be there.
I use DWMX2004 on a daily basis as a primary tool in my professional trade.
The poor performance of DW is unacceptable, especially for software that (#1)
has been around for so many years (and by extension should be getting better in
its performance, not worse), (#2) is created by a big company, and (#3) costs a
whole lotta money.
| |
| James Shook 2004-02-26, 3:30 pm |
| Murray *TMM* wrote:
> Remember - all of these comments are subjective impressions only. Your
> mileage may vary.
What about a statement like "it takes 30 seconds to make a block of text
bold"? Seems pretty objective to me.
It's clear to me from having used the trial and from comments left in
this news group that mileage is varying for too many people than is
acceptable.
--James M. Shook
http://www.jshook.com
| |
|
|
| GroundZeroX 2004-02-27, 11:28 am |
| Well, we can do one of two things. We can continue to use Dreamweaver 2004,
while Macromedia blows smoke up our butts about how they are going to fix
things, when the product has been out for MONTHS without a single release to
help us along. Or, we can all switch over to GoLive and actually get some work
done. When i run Dreamweaver 2004, it feels like I'm running a very badly
written Java app on my old iBook 500.
I think the main reason why the product is so bad, is that Macromedia spent
more time trying to get the activation thing running, then the actual programs!
The activation works flawlessly, unfortunately, I haven't had this many
problems with a program suite since I played with Alpha versions of Office 2000
for Windows.
I know several places that are all ready looking at switching their sites with
thousands of pages over to GoLive CS. Why? Because when they type, they can
actually SEE the text as they type it. All of this stuff being said about how
all these problems are subjective is complete garbage. When you can't see what
you type in an existing page, then there are serious problems, and never should
have shipped. I run it on my iBook G4 with 640MB, my friend runs it on a PB 867
with 640MB. The ONLY machine where it runs tolderably on is his 1.8GHz G5 with
over a gig of ram.
Macromedia owes everyone who is switching to Adobe a refund. Paying $1000 for
software that is CLEARLY still in Beta or Alpha is ridiculous. Then to have
people come on the board saying a release is coming out, when nothing is really
happening is even worse.
This wouldn't be such a big deal if the problems weren't so bad. I am not the
kind of person to try to blow things out of proportion, but it has made working
on multiple sites a nightmare. I am behind on work, because of it, and will
probably be spending the weekend porting everything to GoLive so I can actually
catch up.
| |
| Jeffrey Stevison 2004-02-27, 11:28 am |
| And now we wait for the MM White Knight Murray *TMM* to tell us once
again how WONDERFUL this product is and that you are so wrong.
GroundZeroX wrote:
> Well, we can do one of two things. We can continue to use Dreamweaver 2004,
> while Macromedia blows smoke up our butts about how they are going to fix
> things, when the product has been out for MONTHS without a single release to
> help us along. Or, we can all switch over to GoLive and actually get some work
> done. When i run Dreamweaver 2004, it feels like I'm running a very badly
> written Java app on my old iBook 500.
>
> I think the main reason why the product is so bad, is that Macromedia spent
> more time trying to get the activation thing running, then the actual programs!
> The activation works flawlessly, unfortunately, I haven't had this many
> problems with a program suite since I played with Alpha versions of Office 2000
> for Windows.
>
> I know several places that are all ready looking at switching their sites with
> thousands of pages over to GoLive CS. Why? Because when they type, they can
> actually SEE the text as they type it. All of this stuff being said about how
> all these problems are subjective is complete garbage. When you can't see what
> you type in an existing page, then there are serious problems, and never should
> have shipped. I run it on my iBook G4 with 640MB, my friend runs it on a PB 867
> with 640MB. The ONLY machine where it runs tolderably on is his 1.8GHz G5 with
> over a gig of ram.
>
> Macromedia owes everyone who is switching to Adobe a refund. Paying $1000 for
> software that is CLEARLY still in Beta or Alpha is ridiculous. Then to have
> people come on the board saying a release is coming out, when nothing is really
> happening is even worse.
>
> This wouldn't be such a big deal if the problems weren't so bad. I am not the
> kind of person to try to blow things out of proportion, but it has made working
> on multiple sites a nightmare. I am behind on work, because of it, and will
> probably be spending the weekend porting everything to GoLive so I can actually
> catch up.
>
| |
|
|
| Jeffrey Stevison 2004-02-27, 11:29 am |
| Humor. Ever heard of it?
Murray *TMM* wrote:
> Jeffrey:
>
> What's the point of this?
>
| |
|
|
| GroundZeroX 2004-02-27, 11:30 am |
| Well, if Macromedia doesn't SERIOUSLY address these issues soon, we could
probably have a class action law suit filed against Macromedia. All of our
computers meet the system requirements. My computer is substantially higher
then the system requirements, and it doesn't run well. We can file that they
are misrepresenting the product in order to get customers.
Any thoughts?
| |
| Jeffrey Stevison 2004-02-27, 12:29 pm |
| Murray, calm down. I didn't mean to be hostile in my reply. I think
you need to take a deep breath and relax. There now isn't that better? ;)
Murray *TMM* wrote:
> Why be insulting with your humor then, and why be hostile in your reply?
>
| |
| Murray *TMM* 2004-02-27, 12:29 pm |
| I'm not exercised. Your reply was insulting.
I was just wondering why you were attacking me for expressing my opinion,
just the way you were.
--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver MX
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
news://forums.macromedia.com/macromedia.dreamweaver - THE BEST WAY TO GET
ANSWERS
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================
"Jeffrey Stevison" <jeff@remv_thisgeeksociety.com> wrote in message
news:c1noe6$1b3$3@forums.macromedia.com...[color=darkred]
> Murray, calm down. I didn't mean to be hostile in my reply. I think
> you need to take a deep breath and relax. There now isn't that better? ;)
>
> Murray *TMM* wrote:
>
| |
| c.cantrell 2004-02-27, 1:28 pm |
| In an attempt to get this thread back on-topic (and less personal), I'll
address a few of GroundZeroX's comments:
[q]Well, we can do one of two things. We can continue to use Dreamweaver 2004,
while Macromedia blows smoke up our butts about how they are going to fix
things, when the product has been out for MONTHS without a single release to
help us along...[/q]
I wish I could be more specific, but all I can say is that we are aware of the
problems that many of our customers are having, and we are taking them very
very seriously. We know that our customers expect dramatic improvements to
Dreamweaver, and they want them soon. Interpret that anyway you like.
[q]I know several places that are all ready looking at switching their sites
with thousands of pages over to GoLive CS.[/q]
I certainly understand people's frustration, but I think something as dramatic
as this would be premature at this point.
[q]Then to have people come on the board saying a release is coming out, when
nothing is really happening is even worse.[/q]
I can assure you that our CEO didn't go on record taking about something that
isn't really happening.
Christian
| |
| Scott Fegette 2004-02-27, 1:28 pm |
| In article <c1last$se7$1@forums.macromedia.com>, forums@HAHAgreat-web-
sights.com says...
> I adopted DMX2004 the moment it was available. It has been a GIANT
> productivity enhancer for me, and I wouldn't dream of going back.
That's my personal opinion as well. I work on a lot of CSS-driven sites
so the improvements to CSS handling was a huge boost for me in MX 2004-
but if that's not a consideration for you, then...
> Remember - all of these comments are subjective impressions only. Your
> mileage may vary.
.... that statement would apply to my comments as well. ;)
> There are many people here for whom DMX2004 is perfect, and there are many
> for whom it is not. C'est la vie.
Well put. No question that there are those who are (justifiably)
frustrated because DWMX 2004 isn't working correctly on their system,
but there are also those who aren't really running into any major
hurdles with it either. The forthcoming updater is definitely expected
to move more folks over to the positive side of that split, although
yes- we can't discuss the actual date of release here until the product
team makes it official.
-Scott
Macromedia, Inc.
| |
| GroundZeroX 2004-02-27, 1:28 pm |
| In regards to the thing about switching to Go LIveCS being too drastic, let me
explain. Work is work. Employers and managers don't want to hear that the CEO
of Macromedia is "sorry" when something can't be done in time. What they see is
this. They see work not being done. They see money being spent on software that
was intended to increase productivity. If you bought 2004 for anything other
then increased productivity then more power to you, there are some of us that
actually USE the product. Now, if I were to get a break down of productivity
since 2004 came out, you would see it sharply decline. Period. When things
decline this sharply, managers notice. They see money being spent on Macromedia
non-sense that isn't doing what it's supposed to be doing. This causes two
things to happen. This causes the managers and higher ups to think twice before
upgrading to 2005 or 2006, and they start seeking alternatives that would lead
back to productivity. Considering most of us do our graphic work in Adobe
products, chances are, most of us all ready have copies of GoLive somewhere,
considering it's part of Adobe CS. Or, the higher ups, could just start laying
off people, because of lack of productivity.
Now, either way, we are forced to make changes in order to get work done. I
don't know about you, but my managers aren't happy when work isn't completed on
time. They especially don't like it when I say it's because of the $1000 piece
of garbage that 2004 is. Why did we buy it if it's going to perform well.
So, I don't know about the rest of you, but, starting tomorrow, I'm changing
everything over to GoLive. Why? Because 2004 is a piece of garbage. I know one
place that is probably all ready making the transition.
Nothing personal Macromedia, it's business.
It's money.
And as far as I am concerned, you just lost few thousand dollars alone from me
not using the products anymore, and from the other studios I know that don't
use it anymore.
Why on earth would you guys release this product.
I ask you, find me ONE person that is using Dreamweaver 2004, and finds it
usable. And I mean people that don't work for Macromedia. I want to see it.
because, I don't know of a single person, on Mac or PC that like the problems
that have been caused.
I'm personally tired of excuses, and hearing about how the CEO did this, and
the CEO did that. What the CEO does, does little to improve my workflow.
| |
| Murray *TMM* 2004-02-27, 1:29 pm |
| > I ask you, find me ONE person that is using Dreamweaver 2004, and finds
it
> usable. And I mean people that don't work for Macromedia. I want to see
it.
> because, I don't know of a single person, on Mac or PC that like the
problems
> that have been caused.
>
I don't work for Macromedia.
I use Dreamweaver MX2004 8 hours a day, and often more.
I use it on Windows 2000 Pro, Windows XP Pro, and Mac OSX 10.2.8.
I would never go back even to DMX.
--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver MX
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
news://forums.macromedia.com/macromedia.dreamweaver - THE BEST WAY TO GET
ANSWERS
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================
"GroundZeroX" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:c1nsds$kh3$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> In regards to the thing about switching to Go LIveCS being too drastic,
let me
| |
| chrislk 2004-02-27, 2:29 pm |
| To try and put it into perspective:
I switched from GoLive to Studio MX2004. I gotta tell you in reference to
switching to Adobe, the grass isn't always greener on the other side! Sure
there are bugs, my file window when expanded will sometimes not allow me to
delete files until I colapse it. But I think I am 100 times more happy with
MX2004.
I love the roundtrip HTML and how all the products work together. Using
Templates, Liraries, and the snippets are wonderful and very useful. Flash Pro
is Awesome! I already used my 2 free calls working out problems, but all in
all it hasn't been that big of a problem.
Nice story about Adobe and PC users: Adobe Premier 6 when first released was
absolutely impossible to work with. It would permenately ***DELETE*** video
clips from your hard drive when the program was exited, it would crash every
5-7 project saves, and was otherwise slow and unresponisve. Adobe's forum lit
up like you wouldn't believe with a few very concerned and unhappy customers.
They said everything I have read here and more.
The problem was that it didn't affect everyone. Only certain people, which
made it very rough to pinpoint. Adventually the bugs were fixed. So please
don't think the grass is greener on the other side. All companies, no matter
how much energy goes into making the software, experience problems on some
machines and configurations.
With every new release and major improvement to software, these companies are
one release or improvement closer to the breakdown you see here. It happens to
every company at some point. They either bounce back or close shop. I can't
see MM doing the later.
I look forward to the next release, although I hope it isn't too soon. I
gotta get my monies worth from 2004.
-Chris
| |
| Scott Fegette 2004-02-27, 2:29 pm |
| In article <c1nno2$cmv$1@forums.macromedia.com>,
webforumsuser@macromedia.com says...
> Well, if Macromedia doesn't SERIOUSLY address these issues soon, we could
> probably have a class action law suit filed against Macromedia. All of our
> computers meet the system requirements. My computer is substantially higher
> then the system requirements, and it doesn't run well. We can file that they
> are misrepresenting the product in order to get customers.
>
> Any thoughts?
Yep- please withhold your judgement until the update is released (very
shortly now), and then base said judgement against what it really
fixes/does not fix on your system. I can understand frustration in
waiting for an update, but come on- it's been stated several times that
a fix is definitely on the way (and it's taking a while because the
product team really wants to make it a strong update and kill as many
problems as possible).
best-
Scott
Macromedia, Inc.
| |
| Scott Fegette 2004-02-27, 3:28 pm |
| In article <c1nt9o$m4n$1@forums.macromedia.com>, forums@HAHAgreat-web-
sights.com says...
> I don't work for Macromedia.
And to put it broader perspective- Murray is a great example of what has
happened in other threads when this type of 'show me someone who likes
it' call-to-action is proposed. Anyone who answers with a 'yes, it
works OK for me' (which fits Murray's situation) is usually targeted as
either a corporate shill or their credibility and actual experience with
the product is questioned. Seen it many times in the last few months,
troll thru the archived messages here and you will as well.
It's definitely been noted in several threads before that there are
definitely people who aren't having problems. They tend to be the
minority posting online and I understand why- I generally don't get busy
in online forums unless I'm having problems- otherwise it's business as
usual. This doesn't change the fact that we know people ARE having
problems, and we're very close to releasing an update to help clear
things up for that group of users.
Sure, whether to use our products or not ultimately comes down to a
personal business and workflow decision. Yes, we know there are some
who aren't happy with the current release- no doubts there, and although
the exact timing of the update release is in the hands of the product
team, it IS coming and we just ask that you give it another try when
it's available and let us know how close to the mark it gets for you.
-Scott
| |
| James Shook 2004-02-27, 3:28 pm |
| Scott Fegette wrote:
> it IS coming and we just ask that you give it another try when
> it's available and let us know how close to the mark it gets for you.
>
> -Scott
Will there be a way to try the patched version if your original trial
period has long since expired?
--James M. Shook
http://www.jshook.com
| |
| Scott Fegette 2004-02-27, 3:28 pm |
| In article <c1ldkj$3hg$1@forums.macromedia.com>, forums@HAHAgreat-web-
sights.com says...[color=darkred]
Not true. I've even commented several times as to why we can't
speculate on release dates until they're official and final, to boot.
An update is coming, don't have the exact timing but the posts by Jen
and Craig on the O'Reilly Dev center are not incorrect in the least.
It's only been several weeks since that post, and as you may have
guessed by now- we don't announce exact dates publicly until it's 100%
sure we're going to hit them. To do otherwise- and falsely raise your
expectations- would not seem to be a more favorable approach, IMHO.
-Scott
Macromedia, Inc.
| |
| GroundZeroX 2004-02-27, 3:28 pm |
| I'm tired of hearing excuses from Macromedia.
I'm tired of running garbage software.
Microsoft should buy out Macromedia, their software is right on par with
theirs now.
Macromedia's software is the same garbage that Microsoft puts out now. And
considering that 2004 came out like 5 or 6 months ago, and still there has been
no update, I truly feel the only update we'll see is a paid upgrade to
Macromedia Garbage Studio MX 2005.
Why are they taking so much time to do it.
Why wasn't Quality Assurance ran on Dreamweaver.
| |
| curmungeon 2004-02-27, 3:28 pm |
| He may not be an employee, but he does derive benefits from Macromedia. That
does mean there is a *possible* conflict of interest involved. Now Murray
does great service helping and assisting people... I don't think there's any
dispute in that... but we still know that he is tied to Macromedia.
Thanks
"Scott Fegette" <supportinfo@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1aa92e1d1606177b9896d2@forums.macromedia.com...
> In article <c1nt9o$m4n$1@forums.macromedia.com>, forums@HAHAgreat-web-
> sights.com says...
>
> And to put it broader perspective- Murray is a great example of what has
> happened in other threads when this type of 'show me someone who likes
> it' call-to-action is proposed. Anyone who answers with a 'yes, it
> works OK for me' (which fits Murray's situation) is usually targeted as
> either a corporate shill or their credibility and actual experience with
> the product is questioned. Seen it many times in the last few months,
> troll thru the archived messages here and you will as well.
| |
| Murray *TMM* 2004-02-27, 3:29 pm |
| I also use Dreawmweaver MX2004 (exclusively) all day nearly every day in my
personal business.
Perks from Macromedia aside, the only thing I reflect in these forums is my
personal experience in using the product.
--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver MX
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
news://forums.macromedia.com/macromedia.dreamweaver - THE BEST WAY TO GET
ANSWERS
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================
"curmungeon" <whow@macromdia.com> wrote in message
news:c1o3bg$276$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> He may not be an employee, but he does derive benefits from Macromedia.
That
> does mean there is a *possible* conflict of interest involved. Now Murray
> does great service helping and assisting people... I don't think there's
any
> dispute in that... but we still know that he is tied to Macromedia.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> "Scott Fegette" <supportinfo@macromedia.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1aa92e1d1606177b9896d2@forums.macromedia.com...
>
>
| |
| Scott Fegette 2004-02-27, 3:29 pm |
| In article <c1o2to$19h$1@forums.macromedia.com>, jshook@dont_mail.com
says...
> Will there be a way to try the patched version if your original trial
> period has long since expired?
I believe so, yes. We've usually made sure that this is the case, and
although I can't speak to the specifics of the update yet, I've heard
nothing to suggest otherwise.
-Scott
Macromedia, Inc.
| |
| Scott Fegette 2004-02-27, 3:29 pm |
| In article <c1o3bg$276$1@forums.macromedia.com>, whow@macromdia.com
says...
> He may not be an employee, but he does derive benefits from Macromedia. That
> does mean there is a *possible* conflict of interest involved. Now Murray
> does great service helping and assisting people... I don't think there's any
> dispute in that... but we still know that he is tied to Macromedia.
Tied to us simply as a volunteer in our peer-to-peer forums who knows
the product inside and out, and has a 'TMM' tag in his sig line. If you
feel that clouds his judgement or opinions, then sure- it's certainly
your prerogative to have that opinion!
To be equally fair, I've seen Murray very pointed in public criticism
around certain aspects of Dreamweaver here as well (just ask him about
pop-up menus, for example!) so I'd give him the benefit of the doubt- he
really just calls it as he sees it.
Fact still remains that not everyone is having problems with DWMX 2004,
and the DW product team is certainly doing something about it for those
who are. If I could give exact dates I would, as we're very eager to
get it into your hands too.
-Scott
Macromedia, Inc.
| |
| Scott Fegette 2004-02-27, 3:29 pm |
| In article <c1o329$1s4$1@forums.macromedia.com>,
webforumsuser@macromedia.com says...
> I'm tired of hearing excuses from Macromedia.
If you consider our (repeated) public acknowledgement that many have
reported problems with the release of DWMX 2004, and that an updater is
in progress as an excuse, well- then we have very different opinions as
to what constitutes an excuse.
> Why are they taking so much time to do it.
To make sure it's done well. You've clearly identified QA as a concern
of yours with the release version, so I'd assume you'd also consider
quality a key goal for this update. The product team certainly does.
-Scott
Macromedia, Inc.
| |
|
| > I also use Dreawmweaver MX2004 (exclusively) all day nearly every day in
my
> personal business.
The released version or the "soon" to be patched version?
This may explain your lack of problems more clearly?
| |
| Tom Muck 2004-02-27, 4:28 pm |
| > To make sure it's done well. You've clearly identified QA as a concern
> of yours with the release version, so I'd assume you'd also consider
> quality a key goal for this update. The product team certainly does.
This is an interesting discussion. I hope the update comes soon and fixes
the problems that me and so many other people are having.
The main problem, as I see it, is that MM is working on a major update
instead of addressing the problems systematically. Most of the problems are
so insidious that they prevent me from using the program without feeling
like throwing the monitor through a wall.
Tom
| |
| Jeffrey Stevison 2004-02-27, 4:28 pm |
| I would rather have several small updates that can at least fix a few
problems at a time rather than wait months for a big one.
Tom Muck wrote:
>
>
> This is an interesting discussion. I hope the update comes soon and fixes
> the problems that me and so many other people are having.
>
> The main problem, as I see it, is that MM is working on a major update
> instead of addressing the problems systematically. Most of the problems are
> so insidious that they prevent me from using the program without feeling
> like throwing the monitor through a wall.
>
> Tom
>
>
| |
| Murray *TMM* 2004-02-27, 4:29 pm |
| This is an interesting question. Of course, I can neither confirm nor deny
that I am involved in any testing program for Macromedia. However, even if
I were, I could not answer problem solving sessions based on testing in any
non-retail version. I say "could not" to reflect the fact that I understand
fully the possibility that any version I might be testing may have had that
particular function changed.
So - to be sure, if I were involved in any 'new product testing', I would
isolate my use of it to systems that could not interfere with operation of a
standard retail version which is what I run on my development platform.
As a result, when I say that I can do something without error, I am always
referring to an attempt to reproduce the problem on my development system,
i.e., straight-stick DMX 2004 running on W2KPro.
--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver MX
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
news://forums.macromedia.com/macromedia.dreamweaver - THE BEST WAY TO GET
ANSWERS
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================
"dmpr" <dmpr@dmpr.com> wrote in message
news:c1o5pr$5qm$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> my
>
> The released version or the "soon" to be patched version?
>
> This may explain your lack of problems more clearly?
>
>
| |
| GroundZeroX 2004-02-27, 4:29 pm |
| Frankly, I have no faith in Macromedia's QA. They clearly share teh QA team
with Microsoft.
Scott, I'm tired of the BS. You and Macromedia have had more then enough time.
Put more engineers or something on it. Because if this isn't resolved soon, I
will be contacting many journalists about the low quality of software the
Macromedia has put out. I assure you, I know plenty of sites that will publish
it. Sites that have very heavy traffic from web designers. I'm sure they'll be
more then happy to learn how to save $1000, then buying your garbage-soft.
Acknowledging the problem is clearly not getting anywhere, as it is very
apparent that you guys are more worried about the next software release 2005 or
2006.
| |
| Scott Fegette 2004-02-27, 5:28 pm |
| In article <c1o8ka$9t1$1@forums.macromedia.com>,
webforumsuser@macromedia.com says...
> Scott, I'm tired of the BS.
Well- as we've covered all the other topics, is there anything else I
can address here... or are you just wanting to vent off some steam?
It's pretty clear you want an update soon, and it's coming soon. We'll
even alert the journalists for you when it does. 'Nuff said.
-Scott
Macromedia, Inc.
| |
|
| Hey, please, everyone calm down. Look, we have legitimate gripes about
DWMX2004, verifiable bugs, demonstrable glitches and problems. No need to slam
TMM members.
I encourage a full vetting of your gripes by publishing them on your own
web sites. I have seen some thoughtful reviews fo DWMX2004 that do point out
its many flaws. Everyman-reviews really matter now, in our Googled world.
Search for "Dreamweaver MX 2004 review" on Google and you'll see reviews by
real people, not just journalists for commercial web sites. So, folks, use the
power of the Internet to spread the word about software -- both good and bad.
Use things like Amazon and VersionTracker to leave your comments. Don't forget
to say when something is good, too. Positive recommendations on VersionTracker
haved led me to many great pieces of software, just as negative comments have
warned me away from spending my money on crapola.
And never forget: we are operating by the rules of the commercial marketplace,
not some utopian village where everyone is sweet and loving. Companies come and
go based on the strength of their product -- and their grip on monopoly! ;-)
The best vote you can have in our capitalist system is to vote with your
dollars. I'm sure that lesson is not lost on Macromedia. Despite the vast sums
of money they must have spent promoting their software in mainstream ads, I'll
bet there is still hand-wringing that anyone can get on Google and find a
chorus of very legitimate complaints about their software.
Another thing: we users should be holding our press responsible for publishing
useful reviews. In a recent issues of Macworld, a bunch of people wrote letters
to the editor complaining that the Macworld review of MM Contribute was totally
off base and didn't address the many flaws in that application. The computer
press exists to make money by selling ads, so they'll never really take on
their biggest customers and slam their software. It's up to us self-publishers
to let everyone know, via letters to the Macworld and Macaddict editors, and on
our own web sites, and on bulletin boards and review sites, that some software
doesn't live up to its marketing jive.
| |
| Scott Fegette 2004-02-27, 5:28 pm |
| In article <c1o7dr$1b3$4@forums.macromedia.com>,
jeff@remv_thisgeeksociety.com says...
> I would rather have several small updates that can at least fix a few
> problems at a time rather than wait months for a big one.
For whatever reasons, this wasn't the best way for the product team to
proceed for this update- but I can't disagree on a personal level. ;)
best-
Scott
Macromedia, Inc.
| |
| Linda Rathgeber 2004-02-27, 6:28 pm |
| dznr wrote:
> It's up to us self-publishers
> to let everyone know, via letters to the Macworld and Macaddict editors, and on
> our own web sites, and on bulletin boards and review sites, that some software
> doesn't live up to its marketing jive.
Why are you posting anonymously?
Linda Rathgeber
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn Fireworks FX with "Razzle Dazzle"
http://www.webdevbiz.com/pwf/
Victoriana | Theme Pack 03 - Club | http://www.projectseven.com
Playing with Fire | http://www.playingwithfire.com
Team MM Fireworks Volunteer | www.macromedia.com/go/team
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| GroundZeroX 2004-02-27, 7:28 pm |
| Am I blowing off steam? Or maybe I'm tired of Scott continually blowing smoke
up all of our butts.
Let me elaborate on my problems, so you can understand Scottie Boy. I have
used Macromedia Dreamweaver since 2.0, and I have loved every single release.
When 2004 came out, I was excited about all the new features, that were coming,
especially since I hate messing with CSS. A friend of mine who works for a tv
broadcast, and upgraded immediately. They have an online store with thousands
of pages, and he told me what a bad expierience he had. Well, I downloaded it
on my ibook g3 500, and ran it, and it ran awful. I later upgraded to an ibook
g4 800. My girlfriend saw how excited I was about Studio MX 2004, so she bought
me the suite for me to use for my freelance work. I brought in all my stuff,
and found it to work like complete garbage. My friend who was running it, had
no choice but to buy a G5 just to be able to run the program well. After the
problems I had, I went out and upgraded my memory to the max that my laptop
would hold, 640MB. There wasn't a single bit of difference in performance. Now,
considering that the archetecture of my old ibook, and my new ibook are
completely different (faster system bus, better video card, different CPU), I
find it very hard to believe that the problem is isolated. The program never
should have shipped. The program probably shipped to get Macromedia some
scratch before the end of their financial quarter. The last time I talked to my
friend, he was moving the site over to GoLive because the problems were so bad
on his other computers. Keep in mind he has licenses for several hundred
computers, ranging in speed, and model.
So what does this tell me? Well, clearly the product was shipped prematurely.
I'm tired of hearin "Theres plenty of people that aren't having any problems"
thats right, and they all use G5's. I have yet to run Dreamweaver on a machine
that wasn't a G5. Even beta software runs acceptably on the highest end
machines. Trust me, I used to beta test software for a living.
I wouldn't be this pissed off about everything if Scott didn't act so
condescending, and rude about everything, continually blowing smoke. Seriously,
I've shown his comments to 6 people alone today, each one said that he was just
blowing smoke. Am I venting? Probably. Do I have reason? Hel yeah. I just spent
money on software that slows me down at work. When I complain about it, I get a
rude person representing them.
I don't care about the updates. My clients don't care that the programs I have
counted on for years have slowed me down. And I don't believe for one minute
anything about the problems being isolated. I have had the problems on way too
many machines for these problems to be only in the minority like Scottie wants
us to believe.
I will definately think twice before buying anything from Macromedia again.
This experience has been awful.
I think my girlfriend put it best when she told me "Well, it sounds like
Macromedia has successfully brought the Windows experence to Mac users
(regarding products shipping with poor quality, and slowed down speeds)." I
agree with her.
I loved Macromedia products, but I have had it.
It isn't so much the programs being so awful, as much as it's people like
Scott BSing to everyone.
| |
| Mick White 2004-02-27, 11:28 pm |
| MX 2004 works for me, too. In fact 2004 runs faster than MX. I can't
explain it.
Mac OS X 2.8, G4, 850MHz, 512 Meg.
Mick
Scott Fegette wrote:
> In article <c1nt9o$m4n$1@forums.macromedia.com>, forums@HAHAgreat-web-
> sights.com says...
>
>
>
> And to put it broader perspective- Murray is a great example of what has
> happened in other threads when this type of 'show me someone who likes
> it' call-to-action is proposed. Anyone who answers with a 'yes, it
> works OK for me' (which fits Murray's situation) is usually targeted as
> either a corporate shill or their credibility and actual experience with
> the product is questioned. Seen it many times in the last few months,
> troll thru the archived messages here and you will as well.
>
> It's definitely been noted in several threads before that there are
> definitely people who aren't having problems. They tend to be the
> minority posting online and I understand why- I generally don't get busy
> in online forums unless I'm having problems- otherwise it's business as
> usual. This doesn't change the fact that we know people ARE having
> problems, and we're very close to releasing an update to help clear
> things up for that group of users.
>
> Sure, whether to use our products or not ultimately comes down to a
> personal business and workflow decision. Yes, we know there are some
> who aren't happy with the current release- no doubts there, and although
> the exact timing of the update release is in the hands of the product
> team, it IS coming and we just ask that you give it another try when
> it's available and let us know how close to the mark it gets for you.
>
> -Scott
| |
| GroundZeroX 2004-02-28, 12:28 am |
| 850MHz G4? I don't think the G4's came in that speed. Or do you even have a
Mac? I know because I used to sell Macs for 2 years, and I know the specs for
every single model of Macs from the G3 up to the G5. Now, I believe Apple had
an 867MHz G4, but, 850, I don't believe so.
| |
| Mick White 2004-02-28, 10:28 am |
| Sorry, 800.
Mick
GroundZeroX wrote:
> 850MHz G4? I don't think the G4's came in that speed. Or do you even have a
> Mac? I know because I used to sell Macs for 2 years, and I know the specs for
> every single model of Macs from the G3 up to the G5. Now, I believe Apple had
> an 867MHz G4, but, 850, I don't believe so.
>
| |
|
|
| Scott Fegette 2004-03-01, 2:28 pm |
| In article <c1ofql$jh7$1@forums.macromedia.com>,
webforumsuser@macromedia.com says...
> Am I blowing off steam? Or maybe I'm tired of Scott continually blowing smoke
> up all of our butts.
Sigh. With all due respect, I certainly haven't tried to be
condescending (and certainly apologize if that was what you got from my
posts)- you're doing a great job of that yourself. ;)
It's clear that you're demanding more information here than I can have
to give, so how would you prefer I respond? If you'd prefer I'd not
respond at all- that's fine, too. Bottom line is that I can't give you
hard dates or specifics on the update until the product team gives them
to me. 'Blowing smoke' up your butt would be making up dates and/or
information and falsely raising your expectations, and again- I'd think
you prefer I just give you the straight facts as I've got 'em.
Completely your choice/opinion/prerogative as to whether to accept them
or not- I can't control that.
-Scott
| |
| GroundZeroX 2004-03-01, 2:29 pm |
| What I want is the truth, like why did Macromedia feel so compelled to deliver
this product in such an early state.
I want to know, because I am a programmer, and I know how stringent QA is, and
based off of the 5 or 6 machines I have run, there is no way the product would
have been ready.
Why am I mad? Because 2004 seems like a product that was shipped early to
boost Macromedia's stock price, and I always thought Macromedia is above such
action.
Period.
| |
| Jeffrey Stevison 2004-03-01, 3:29 pm |
| As much as I'm mad as hell at MM I have to agree with Scott here. Don't
shoot the messenger. Let the Messenger know you are unhappy with MM and
hopefully they will convey that to the powers that be.
Scott Fegette wrote:
> In article <c1ofql$jh7$1@forums.macromedia.com>,
> webforumsuser@macromedia.com says...
>
>
>
> Sigh. With all due respect, I certainly haven't tried to be
> condescending (and certainly apologize if that was what you got from my
> posts)- you're doing a great job of that yourself. ;)
>
> It's clear that you're demanding more information here than I can have
> to give, so how would you prefer I respond? If you'd prefer I'd not
> respond at all- that's fine, too. Bottom line is that I can't give you
> hard dates or specifics on the update until the product team gives them
> to me. 'Blowing smoke' up your butt would be making up dates and/or
> information and falsely raising your expectations, and again- I'd think
> you prefer I just give you the straight facts as I've got 'em.
> Completely your choice/opinion/prerogative as to whether to accept them
> or not- I can't control that.
>
>
> -Scott
| |
| Scott Fegette 2004-03-01, 3:29 pm |
| In article <c2000l$s24$1@forums.macromedia.com>,
jeff@remv_thisgeeksociety.com says...
> As much as I'm mad as hell at MM I have to agree with Scott here. Don't
> shoot the messenger. Let | | |