Why should I update?

**gerbick** · 09-06-2005, 05:59 AM

This is for the people that's more informed about Flash 8 than I.

Why should I update? AS2 isn't really a drawing point, neither are the blurs and drop shadows. I do have to state that Flash MX 2004 Pro on the Mac is the most crash-errific piece of software I've ever have had on there... and I've had some "not-ready-for-primetime" betas on there before.

This is your chance to be a salesman. Let's hear it.

**rhodesbe** · 09-06-2005, 09:39 AM

Then don't upgrade. If what you can read on macromedia's site doesn't interest you then that's the end of it. It is very simple.

**rdoyle720** · 09-06-2005, 09:47 AM

If you have to ask the question, maybe you shouldn't update. Macromedia will probably offer a trial version, try it out and see if you like it.

**FlashGuru** · 09-06-2005, 11:01 AM

What do your primarily use Flash for Gerbick? And did you say on a Mac?

**>flashl!ght<** · 09-06-2005, 11:17 AM

I guess it depends what you use Flash for. To me, realtime blending modes, animation curve editor, realtime filters, and all the small bug fixes(ex. bitmap fixes, and I seem to read endless fixes that make me go "oh man! finally!" every day) make it a no-brainer. But if you've got a Flash blog/gallery that's working good enough for you, and don't find yourself wishing it could do more... than like any situation like that, don't bother upgrading

I can tell you this: the difference in animation quality is going to be mind blowing. It's realtime blur, blending modes, and curve animation that makes After Effects videos look so much better than Flash made animation... and it just so happens all those features have been added

Just so long as playback can handle all the goodness, and the IDE isn't as awful to use as MX'04

**cancerinform** · 09-06-2005, 02:44 PM

I give you the answer I gave beforeI updated to Flash 7.
It is not a single blur or shadow effect I am interested in (I have made those effects in MX already) but it is the whole package. The program is advancing including the actionscript and i don't want to stand behind but always be on top of it. Probably a number of new features we cannot yet estimate how useful they are unless we really apply them. As I said in other threads folks who thought that upgrading to Flash 7 is a waste of money and time may now regret they haven't done it because Flash 8 is not a step backwards (except for normal mode AS) but forwards and definitely builds on 7. So Flash 9 will build on 8 and so on.
Hope that might be some argument.

BTW I have no problems with Flash 7 on a Mac, no specific crashing.

**gerbick** · 09-06-2005, 03:40 PM

I mostly use Flash whenever a client asks for it... mostly for websites only. I've moved almost all of the client simulation and kiosk stuff to either Director or Anark - I do a lot of 3D and faked 3D isn't a choice.

As to why I'm asking this question; I'm asking to convince somebody else. I've pointed out the website(s), and they're not convinced. And oddly enough, they're convincing me otherwise too.

The new features don't really bring much to the table. That's their statement. My statement... if it doesn't offer anything specific to you, then don't update. I'm a notorious early adopter, but MX 2004 on the Mac - 7.2 update installed - it's slow as hell compared to what I've seen on the PC. Try loading a *.swft into it... go get some coffee by the time it's loaded as a library item if it's complex enough.

Oh well. Thanks. It just looks a lot like this will be an upgrade I'll wait and see, personally and recommendation wise.

**jAQUAN** · 09-06-2005, 05:14 PM

I've really had it with the mac anomalies. I want to go back to mac baddly, but my PC simply wont hang, slow down or crash enough (or at all) to make me start saving my $. Not to bash, but clearly the 'mac versions' are no longer a benchmark.

You convinced you clients to go with anark and not flash!? Are these intranet-only projects? There will never be a plugin as widely accepted as flash, so for my time, I decided to wait until flash has full 3-d authoring features.

I'm lucky enough to cater to the style-over-substance crowd so it's as if the upgrade was just for me. There is no comparison between the time it will save editing dropshadows in flash as opposed to constantly updating .png's. My question is, when do I start using these features. Once fp8 is released, do I have to wait the 12 months it takes for everyone to upgrade? Or do I start forcing users to upgrade just to watch my e-vites? Creating an alternate version for older players defeats the purpose of creating one for the newest one. ugg!

**7year** · 09-13-2005, 11:04 AM

I'm hoping frames based development and the component performance/size have been improved. If so, that makes it worth buying on my part. Frames based development would make it so much better if the frames were more easily manipulated and loading of frames was more easily tracked. Could bring it up closer to the other development API's such as Microsoft Visual Studio along with still haqving all the graphic goodness of recent flash versions.

**gSOLO_01** · 09-13-2005, 12:10 PM

Only minor component tweaks this time around. You'll get the performance boost from the faster player but that's about it.

**cancerinform** · 09-13-2005, 12:19 PM

You'll get the performance boost from the faster player

Faster performance for xml parsing as well and parsing bigger files?

**jAQUAN** · 09-13-2005, 01:23 PM

Doesnt look like they focused on data intergration that much this time around. Looks like more a playback performance upgrade. But hey, it's an animation tool first and a web-app second.

**gSOLO_01** · 09-13-2005, 01:24 PM

Haven't personally benchmarked any XML stuff but I would gander that you would at least see some marginal increase in performance.

**jAQUAN** · 09-13-2005, 01:27 PM

Well Colin Moock gave it an A+. That's reason enough for me.
http://moock.org/blog/

**cancerinform** · 09-13-2005, 01:30 PM

I have some interesting xml applications/files, which have reached the limits with player 7. Application runs slow and will ask to abort from a certain number of nodes on in that application. Will let you know in this thread how player 8 behaves.

**gerbick** · 09-13-2005, 01:36 PM

I'll be waiting, cancerinform. Believe it or not, the XML performance will be the make/break purchase decision maker for me.

**cancerinform** · 09-13-2005, 02:40 PM

May take a couple of days since i get Studio 8 upgrade in the regular mail.

**arctic** · 09-13-2005, 07:05 PM

How do people feel about the time it will take for player 8 to propagate into viewer's browsers? The new visual effects are cool, but only if people can see them.

**Lexicon** · 09-13-2005, 07:21 PM

Originally Posted by arctic

How do people feel about the time it will take for player 8 to propagate into viewer's browsers? The new visual effects are cool, but only if people can see them.

It has always been that way. You learn the newest stuff for your portfolio while you sell old stuff to your clients. By the time they want Flash 8 then you won't get stumped by anything they want and you can show them how it should have been done a year ago. 'Tis the way of Flash and it works pretty well.

**craziumdude** · 09-13-2005, 07:37 PM

so pretty much, as long as you do not use flash for complicated actionscript and/or web design, its not worth upgrading, right?

Thread: Why should I update?

Thread Tools

Display

Why should I update?

Posting Permissions