product activationQuote:
What new security schemes did they add?
Printable View
product activationQuote:
What new security schemes did they add?
interesting (and mildly amusing) thread at MM's forums, http://webforums.macromedia.com/flas...hreadid=687369
"I guess the pack of inebriated simians that they tested the software on never wanted to put the panel there."
linked from jd's blog.
:D
Product activation is the new security stuff.
It writes stuff to track zero of your hard disk.
I think that is the reason Flash MX 2004 is only supported on Windows 98SE, 2000, XP .. and NOT supported on Windwos ME (or Windows 95/98)
Also there are some issues with multi-boot operating systems, and you cannot run it on an emulator, due ot the product activation.
Well not really, you will just need to put the serial every time you run the program, with teh emulator.
Are we allowed to talk about emulators? Isn't that a no no? :rolleyes:
Personally, I wasn't all that wowed by MX04...
You are allowed to use emulators, if you have the sowftware, and the file to emulate also is legal if you have it.
Exemple:
You have an emulator for N64 on the computer, it is legal if you bote the N64, and currenlly have it. And same thing foor the N64 Games.
So if you have windows, it is legal to run WInows emulator, if you biteh Flash Mac or Windows, you can legally run it and use it with teh emulator.
hehe if that's true :D
WOW! that mm forums link put up by aversion is beyond a joke! complaint after complaint and not one supportive MM response :zombie:..
this is bad!:yikes:
mP
I agree, it seems to be very anti-MacromediaQuote:
Originally posted by mikepol
hehe if that's true :D
WOW! that mm forums link put up by aversion is beyond a joke! complaint after complaint and not one supportive MM response :zombie:..
this is bad!:yikes:
mP
If you hate flash so much, then do use it, jerks!Quote:
"Another interesting observation is the Macromedia site. Do they utilize Flash remoting on their site? I don't see it anywhere. The only use of Flash I see are the ads for Flash MX 2004 and a few menus. Maybe that should tell you something about how much of a pain in the rear it is."
Don't know how much is anti-Macromedia .. or even anti-Flash .. most seem more to be upset about the new MX 2004 version in particular.
There are some genuine issues there .. and most of those people reporting them appear to be long-time Flash users who DO like the product.
They just seem upset that this new version has not just added some nice new features, but has taken some features away (like normal mode), changed others (like the blurry multi-color shaded toolbar icons), not address some old problems (bitmap shifting), and has caused some additional problems (like old scripts not working when you export to FP77 unless they have all case correct, and MX components not working in MX 2004).
I get the feeling that what they want is an update to Flash that addresses these concerns .. they don't want to get rid of MM, or get rid of Flash etc. If that was what they wanted, then they'd not complain so fervently .. they'd just go and buy LiveMotion (or whatever) :):)
So I don't think saying "if they don't like Flash ,then don't use it" is quite fair. These people DO like Flash and WANT to use it .. that is why they're upset with these issues.
All right, fare enough. But the majority of posts I saw there were pretty much complaining about having to upgrade to a product that they thought was crap.
Personally, I was disappointed with the new Flash MX 2004. It looks like Macromedia heading more towards applications development rather than towards the web-development. And it looks like they're doing everything it takes to be purchased by MS ( :crazy: ).
Only the few things I didn't like:
1) Where did the Normal Mode in AS go? I'm not an expert, I can't write all the code manually (though there're hints, but it doesn't help much)
2) I don't want to start learning JS now. I bearly learned 15% of AS by now, so start learning JS too? Sorry, but it seems too much!
3) They sure could've add more components. And more flexibility to work with them. The Help file almost doesn't have any information about working with them! And BTW, all the new components... you can download them from Macromedia website and use them with the good, old Flash MX.
4) More animation options could've been added. Style SWiSH...
5) I sure had problems working with the new timeline effects... It just seems awkward, and doesn't work smoothly. Oh, and at some point I got some JavaScript error message...
6) The Help file is incomplete. A lot of information is missing. Sure, they have a nice option of updating it, but what happens when I need it and it's not there??
And that's after working only one day with it! I don't want to think what will I find after working with it for a while... I also sure that I found more, but I don't remember what it was...
So for conclusion I want to say that I'm gonna stay right now with the good, old Flash MX. It's just not worth it to spend money on this version of Flash. Macromedia will have to release some really great ServicePack or something for Flash before they convince me to buy it.
OK. Now for testing the new Dreamweaver... Let's see what that's all about...
P.S. Oh, and BTW... T-Shirts with your order number?? How lame is that?!
Exactly; did you pick up and master MX the day it was released (even 1.5 years later, you don't seem to have mastered it)? Give it time. As you hinted, if you don't need to upgrade, stick with MX.Quote:
Originally posted by Ingale
And that's after working only one day with it!
What exactly does it take to be purchased by Microsoft?
Moving more towards web / application development... standing still on design / animation.
1. Alot of things are automated / written for you... just have to get used to it.
2. JS? why do you need to know JS?
3. What components are missing?
4. There are a lot of third party extensions out (and coming out), check them out.
5. Does your machine meet the minimum specs / requirements?
6. Yea, sucks... but theyre updating it...
1) That's right, I didn't master it. Like many other people. (Please concider that I work with Flash seriously only for the last few months). And I'm still learning it. But how exactly removing the Normal Code will help me? Or somebody else? Or newbies, who just started dealing with Flash? You know, they said at Macromedia that they made the new Flash based on what users said about it, what they want to be within it... Show me ONE person whos told them to remove the Normal Mode. No such thing...Quote:
Originally posted by gSOLO_01
Exactly; did you pick up and master MX the day it was released (even 1.5 years later, you don't seem to have mastered it)? Give it time. As you hinted, if you don't need to upgrade, stick with MX.
What exactly does it take to be purchased by Microsoft?
Moving more towards web / application development... standing still on design / animation.
1. Alot of things are automated / written for you... just have to get used to it.
2. JS? why do you need to know JS?
3. What components are missing?
4. There are a lot of third party extensions out (and coming out), check them out.
5. Does your machine meet the minimum specs / requirements?
6. Yea, sucks... but theyre updating it...
2) Look at the first page of this thread, you'll see what I'm talking about...
3)Just for example? A dynamic slide show component would be a nice addition... The one that should load the images automatically from the server. The one they got plays images from within the Flash, which obviously increases the size of the movie. (I downloaded one from flashcomponents.org, but it's not very flexible...). Should I continue?
4) SWiSH? Swift3D? Why exactly should I use them when it should be possible to create it in Flash? It's like learning a whole another program... Really unnecessary!
5) P4 2.66, 512 RAM, WinXP Pro, 5GB free space... Do the math.
6) What was the rush to release it as it is? Why couldn't they wait untill it's all complete? What happens if I want to use some function right now? I can't, that's what! Why? Cause MM didn't supply all the necessary documentation.
What does it take to be purchased by MS? MS releasing applications development tools (i.e. Visual Studio), and it seems that MM heading towards that direction (i.e. applications for mobile phones, what's next?). When did MS release any decent design program? Publisher? Visio? Please................ So for me, at least, it seems like MM trying very hard to please MS...
I din't say thay quit design/animation, I said they're heading more now towards application development.Quote:
Moving more towards web / application development... standing still on design / animation.
Respect.
1. You haven't spent enough time with it. I've never really worked with Flash seriously. A total newbie might be better off not knowing about normal mode. It'll take some getting used to for the oldnewbies tho ;)
2. I've followed the thread; you don't need to know JS (what is JS) for anything...
3. Yes, please continue. If not from Macromedia, there are thousands of component developers out there who might release something to that effect.
4. http://www.macromedia.com/software/flash/extensions/ within the same ide, and more to come...
5. reinstall? is it a recurring problem?
6. yea, like I said, it sucks... it's been released and maybe they'll be prepared better next time. of course I really don't need the docs but it'd be easier to figure things out with them at hand.
no comment on the pleasing MS bit...
I didn't say quit design/animation either. Just rephrased what you said. Web development is still a focus...
You read JD's blog. Those are just a bunch of annonymous nobodies whose opinions don't count!Quote:
Originally posted by aversion
"I guess the pack of inebriated simians that they tested the software on never wanted to put the panel there."
You should only respect the uttery valid opinion of respected and notable names in the Flash community, like onRelease and Hollowcube (both of which I'm sure are their given birth names).
;)
But thank God JD is an independent voice and not a corporate shill (instead he gets bloggers to shill for him and just links to them)
1) Personally, I think it's much easier to work in Normal Mode (RIP, I guess...) than in Expert Mode. Especially for the newbies! They are not experts, you know...Quote:
Originally posted by gSOLO_01
1. You haven't spent enough time with it. I've never really worked with Flash seriously. A total newbie might be better off not knowing about normal mode. It'll take some getting used to for the oldnewbies tho ;)
2. I've followed the thread; you don't need to know JS (what is JS) for anything...
3. Yes, please continue. If not from Macromedia, there are thousands of component developers out there who might release something to that effect.
4. http://www.macromedia.com/software/flash/extensions/ within the same ide, and more to come...
5. reinstall? is it a recurring problem?
6. yea, like I said, it sucks... it's been released and maybe they'll be prepared better next time. of course I really don't need the docs but it'd be easier to figure things out with them at hand.
no comment on the pleasing MS bit...
I didn't say quit design/animation either. Just rephrased what you said. Web development is still a focus...
2) JS = JavaScript. On the first page there's a reply by cosmiceye, picture included... It's about JS, you saw it...
3) An E-Mail/Feedback form, E-Cards, Pop-up menus... Enough said! MM could've make these components and more of them!
4) Again, why should I use 3d party extensions and not being able to create them directly within Flash?
5) Been there, done that... It didn't help. It seems those things are just slowing down my machine (and from reading posts on MM's websites - not only mine).
6) no more comments. :)
Well guys I think I'm not doing this upgrade.
Seems alot of long time Flash users are feeling
this way as well.
Here's my gripes...
CAN'T UNDO SYMBOLS ???????????????? Unexceptable. period.
There is nothing they can say that can defend this.
Poor documentation.
The 'strict' syntax I was looking forward to has turned out
to be a joke. In fact it only makes it even more confusing
because you think 'It compiled it must be ok'. WRONG.
If they want us to code applications then the language has to
be flawless. AS2 and AS1 are FAR from being on that level.
Can't use AS2 write classes inside an fla. Not so bad but
changes to an .as file aren't seen until you 'Save All'.
I test ALOT and usually save every 5 minutes or so.
But not after every single damn change to the script.
And it doesn't even ask to save the changes before
the compile. Poor design.
Can't test the fla from the .as window. Flipping back and
forth is way old already and the redraw is really annoying.
Timeline effects. Slow and unimpressive. You're stuff will
look worse than a Photoshop newbie with Lense Flare and Drop Shadow.
If you have the patience to wait for them to launch and render.
You can tell these are swf files doing the work here.
They shouldn't be using Flash to make additions to Flash.
That is what C++ is for and it shows bigtime.
Ok, rant over... heading back to MX now.
Chris
Actionscript is created from the same language specification as Javascript. It always has been. If you're worried about it now, how come you weren't worried about it before? The language now has a 2.0 version, so both Javascript and Actionscript have updated they're language specifications.Quote:
Originally posted by Ingale
2) JS = JavaScript. On the first page there's a reply by cosmiceye, picture included... It's about JS, you saw it...
Look at any javascript, it will look like actionscript and vice-versa
You read the entire thread? You don't have to know / learn / use / touch JavaScript.Quote:
Originally posted by Ingale
2) JS = JavaScript. On the first page there's a reply by cosmiceye, picture included... It's about JS, you saw it...
I know that. But I'm really worried about all those $ marks. And writing an exact code (case sensitive) doesn't seem to make coding easier.Quote:
Originally posted by yasunobu13
Actionscript is created from the same language specification as Javascript. It always has been. If you're worried about it now, how come you weren't worried about it before? The language now has a 2.0 version, so both Javascript and Actionscript have updated they're language specifications.
Look at any javascript, it will look like actionscript and vice-versa