What do you think of Flash 2004?

Flash 2004 / Flash 2004 Pro have been available for a couple of weeks now. I have seen the full range of responses from raves to rage. So, now that you have had a couple of weeks to play with it, what do you think?

What do you love? What do you hate? What problems have you run into? What features have you found that you could not live without now? What is your general impression?

Post you comments in the comments section. If you post about a problem that you have run into, please include your OS and system specs.

Don’t hold anything back.

193 Responses to What do you think of Flash 2004?

  1. Dave Yang says:

    Pro: ActionScript 2.0. New Components. JSFL API.Con: Unstable and conflict with other apps.Overall: 8 out of 10.

  2. Mike Chambers says:

    Dave,Can you give some more info on what you mean by unstable? Anything you can consitently reproduce?mike chambersmesh@macromedia.com

  3. zeh says:

    Great new features (the font aliasing, streaming test, others).JSFL macro language is great.A *big* letdown with the fact that several features where simply dropped from the IDE. When I update, I expect to get more, not less.The changes in policy in the new player are somehow depressing but the policy XML file is a godsend.AS2 is nice. Strict typing is great. I’ll still have to grasp the rest but seems nice.Underdocumentation really makes me cry. Seriously.The new “novice” stuff impresses me: too cluncky, too bad, too naughty, complete trash. I’d kill anyone at my job if they used any one of those effects/wizards/whatever. Behaviours might be ok to teach people and they don’t create 129786 symbols at least.IDE seem to get worst on each version. Seriously. The new tabbed stuff helps a lot, but we need reliability too. It’s breaking.The device emulation players kick ass. I just wish Flash for devices wasn’t so… bad (Flash 4). But oh well.My conclusion: It needs an update… *bad*. I know it’s not MM’s policy, but the situation is getting pretty bad.I’m not using it (didn’t buy yet). Probably will do in one year or so.

  4. Like1. AS22. Component Architecture3. General Direction Flash seems to be taking4. You can compile AS2 to AS15. JSFLDon’t like1. The source editor2. No Remoting Connector3. Panels just not consistant and efficient4. Perfromance and stabilityWith all that, in general I really like this upgrade.Overall: 8 out of 10

  5. vinnie says:

    im digging AS2.flash remoting? Ive started using this heaps and am concerned that it appears to have been left out….my panel layouts seem to freakout regularly and have had several .flas corrupt.

  6. Brian McBride says:

    Mike,I just finished up a project with Flash MX 2004. For the most part things were good. I did have an issue when exporting to Flash 6. I had to make sure the optimization was off else people were finding my app would not work properly.There are some very nice improvements to the interface and some that seem sort of painful. I really like the tabs across the top showing my documents that I have open. I don’t like it at ALL when any click on the timeline or in the actionscript window will flag that the document has been changed and requires a save. I only want that save/change flag tripped if I actually change something in the document. Another annoying thing is that each new library window opens in the panels area, even if I drag the Library window to be a free-floating window. It seems that if you specify one Library to be in a floating window, all the libraries should match its behavior. Another thing that changed is that when toggling out of Flash and into another app (say dreamweaver) Flash will remove focus from the actionscript window. Thus, I have to click in that window again. Really a pain when copy/pasting, a waste of time.My biggest disappointment with Flash MX 2004 and the Flash 7 player is the lack in advancement to keyframing. I know that most of the power of Flash is in ActionScript, but some things are just easier to animate than to code. I have a rich background in 3D animation and high end film compositing, so I speak from experience. When keyframing any object on the stage, every value get a keyframe. What would be way superior is to have the ability to keyframe each channel separately (x, y, width, height, tint, shape, etc…) Even better would be to copy a page out of the compositing world and change the whole stage thought process. I imagine that there are some code issues with the player that make this difficult. Basically, timelines are great. Graph/Tree views are even better when compositing. The two together is what we need along with a keyframe curve editor and a channel manager. Good examples of software to borrow from would be Maya, Shake, and Flame.All in all, I will upgrade here after I collect from my clients. I might even drop the dime and invest into the DevNet subscription as I am placing more and more of my personal stock in Macromedia products. But this is mostly because I wish to remain on the forefront of Macromedia’s tools. I am not convinced that MX 2004 is really worth the cost in the short run, but then we will have to see what happens with all the extensible features. That could tip the scale to making it an awesome IDE.Thanks for asking,Brian!

  7. Pros:1. I know, the wizards/behaviors/etc are not the way “real” Flash people work, but I like ’em. As a server side person with little time to learn Flash (fitting in time here and there to try to learn it), I never got anywhere. The beginner functionality is great for people like me…I was able to actually build something in Flash…a first. Perhaps if my knowledge increases I’ll start screaming “this is not Swish, it’s Flash, so take out all the beginner stuff”, but for now, I like it.2. The interface. Like the fact that all MX products now share a similar interface. This just makes sense.3. Video. We’re actually starting to use Flash to deliver video, and the new features are very sweet.4. Data connection components are built in. While we bought Firefly, they should be part of Flash.Dislikes1. Performance. While not nearly as bad as DW, Flash (and Fireworks) do slow down to a crawl after a few hours of working with them.2. Documentation. It’s obvious to almost everyone that management had a day in mind for the release of MX 2004, and even though they weren’t ready, they were released. The fact that the documentation wasn’t ready simply undercores this point, and makes MM look real bad.3. Remoting. Would have liekd to seen this ship with the product from the get-go for the same reason as #2. Also would have liked to have seen more done with it. Just worried that MM will switch directions and slow/stop support for it. As a CF developer, Remoting was something that I’m interested in.4. The editor. Not much new has been added (i.e., it’s still doesn’t seem to be as robust as a true development tool should be). Perhaps Royale will change this, but we’ll see.5. The new security model. while probably necessary, it does make things a bit frustrating now.

  8. IMO, although the hard-core developers in the industry love OOP and AS2, I think F7 is a couple years ahead of its time, and driven by the DESIRES of this level of developers and not the NEEDS of main-stream developers. FMX with F5 and a touch of F6 is perfectly suited with ONLY a few of the newer F7 abilities; yet still plenty of room for improvement without all the ECMA junk that only hinders the point of developing webcontent efficiently. Even MX pushed this a little over the top.-FMX2 = Slow A.S. editor in the IDE.. The editor performance makes it unuseable on anything but a 2Ghz PC+.. (even with word wrap/line# options set for better performance)-No native HTML support? why not?? 7 major versions later and FLASH STILL can’t render a “real” HTML page without all kinds of parsing and reworking in advance?? If I have an “html” page and “want to use it in the development of a flash page, in the IDE, good luck!!”… the IDE should have supported filters etc or another way to clean up HTML and preserve its RTF “look” without having to use external methods.-FMX2 can’t export [or work with] F5 format??? Kind of like how I *STILL* need to load up F5 to work with generator templates. So… now I NEED *3* versions of flash installed to maintain client sites.-IMO the “tabbing” is freaking annoying. Simple tidbit.. but it is a visual nuisance to me.. rouded edges near an “X”??. MX handled windows just fine. (yes I know DM and FW etc do it now too.. )-Help being integrated as a panel was a dumb idea (without the recent work-arounds made available by others noting same)-Too much effort was put into making flash programming like programming C or Java.. again, IMO.. what a waste of time for MM to invest so much into this.. who does it REALLY help? The Elite.. oh joy.. so they get what they want.. totally unnecessary; I’m glad they have time to play with it and enjoy a learning curve. I believe the mainstream (user base) wanted things fixed, features added thus improving the TOOL without throwing a curve ball to the majority.-Unstable as in.. *poof* bye-bye flashMX2004 on my screen.. no errors. Oh? you forgot to save? heh.. thanks Burak! At least I can get my code back. (but that was another, what $50?).. this seems to be more prevalent for me when pasting images from the clipboard (when copied from FW to the clipboard)-No autosave/auto-rename options for fla filenames? Sheesh.. even Word did it back in version 2.0 (even a last file as *.bak would be a life saver!!)-The effort put forth and I’m sure the expense to MM has been huge for F7.. the product concept is huge too.. I still think it was a little rushed to market, and the evolution rushed as well.Yes. Eventually, I’ll learn AS2.0. Eventually I’ll publish my 1st F7 only swf to the web. But.. for $ from a client?.. I give it 2 years. Its just a toy for now, to explore new things: I will not be upgrading when my trial expires — for awhile.

  9. It’s a great upgrade. I hate to point out the profound limitations because it might sound like I don’t like it.pro:–as2–snap align (and other subtle improvements)–neutral:–screens/forms–timeline effects, though I did see a nice product by Red Giant Software.–SOAP… I mean, if I had faith it was stable and if it wasn’t way slower/bigger than Remoting, then I’d be excited. There was a benchmark test here that’s interesting: http://www.flashorb.com/articles/soap_vs_flash_remoting_benchmark.shtmlcons:–the dang thing crashes ALL THE TIME. I’m sorry, no easy way to put this: it’s a lemon. I mean, when it works it’s fast enough etc. But it quits with no warning… it causes my other apps to become non-functioning. It’s very very sad because I get to the point I just want to go do something else (like work in MX or go take a walk).–ignoring new animators picking up Flash. I can’t think of one reason why a new animator would prefer MX2004 over MX or even 5. The lack of samples (other than geeky new tech features) is very telling.Anyway, I could go on, but if you just gave me a patch that made MX2004 do what it was supposed to do then I’d stop complaining.Remember, you said “don’t hold back”. I see this thread has remained constructive which is good.Thanks,PhillipP.S. this release has made me SERIOUSLY consider how the government might step in to regulate the software industry… like putting ratings for stability.

  10. Flash MX 2004 is lousy and not worth the upgrade. At least not right now. Aside from the loss of usability and self mutilation the program does have one positive aspect; the posibility for the users themselves to extent the features of the software.JSFL and jSAPI extensibility definately hold a lot of promise for the future of Flash. (At least in theory.)I’m pissed off at Macromedia and the fact that they have not released the documentation for this feature. But of course, Im pretty sure they expect me, to blindly give them my money.I mean, sure it’s available to companies like Swift 3D who are willing to create plugins that will sell through Macromedia.com but it’s not really avaliable to anyone else.I think the program in and of itself right now is crap. And I do not recomend anyone to buy it. BUT I also believe that once the documentation is available and people actually start creating their own plugins and extensions, that these extensions in and of themselves will be worth the upgrade. Right now Flash 7 is basically like a game console with no games to play. Perhaps once the ‘games’ start rolling out and depending on how usefull they are perhaps it will become a feasable expense.By the the way, no thanks to MM I have managed to figure out much of the JSAPI and the MMExec … Set Fill Color method is buggy as hell.

  11. Scott Barnes says:

    Pros- Panels aren’t as buggy as FMX 6- AS2.0 allows fore more of a stricter OOP approach and less bloation (ie no longer have to double up on logic / assets)- SWC are a nice way to deploy components (not great, but nice).- Dig some of the new AS 2.0 classes (eventDispatcher, depthManager) — although at first i was sceptical- Forms / Screens are a nice way to re-frame your thinking when it comes to RIA development- Metadata in components rock.- Help is now searchable and easier to use- Code Pinning rox (great for MC development)Cons- Seems prety memory hungyr and takes too long to load (flash IDE that is)- Compiled clips need more work (LivePreview issues, Shared Library issues and well they ignore features like _targetInstance)- Export MovieClip isn’t as useful as I hoped (ie for Live Previews, it would be great to export a copy of the clip, and it utilises the method onUpdate within the movieclip instead of relying on it to be in the main time line)- V2 Framework seems overally complicated and too inner-mixed for my liking. Extending / playing with the components leaves you with allot of confusion (that or i’m just dumb).- Output window could do with more of a tune up, things like color coding and if you minimize it, it should stay minimized instead of auto-opening when data is traced- Project, never really got this in that why go to the trouble of laying out your project / package folders etc when the project folder system doesn’t physically do this also on your HDD?- Forms / Screens can get heavy on the CPU if you use allot of them.- Not enough info on JSFL- Context Menu addition isn’t that great, It would be better if we could actuall take control of this with our own GUI.Thats pretty much it so far, I’d still recommend anyone to upgrade as the improvements are well worth it, and well people expectations for a next release imho where a little high / un-realistic.

  12. g.wygonik says:

    well – this is the first Flash upgrade i didn’t pre-order and have actually just used the trial so far… after reading all the other posts about stability and quirks, i’ve been taking this one slow.pros:- AS2, AS2, AS2 (strict typing, classes, et al)!- better component architecture (at least in theory so far – still working with it in code)- minor UI things (yeah, the snap hints are cool)cons:- AS2 in that all my pre-existing component work breaks now (which is probably just my old code being off in places – but still, unless you were on beta, this is a sudden, radical change and it throws wrenches into timelines). i mean, i know there’d be too much speculation and misinformation if at beta1 or beta2 you released some info saying “hey folks – we’re going to be changing ActionScript in a pretty major way. It may effect what you’re working on if you want to have it work with the new version of Flash…” instead of just silence until release day.- changes in UI that aren’t documented and are annoying (can’t click line numbers any more to highlight a line of code in action editor – must ctrl+click… uh… why? and you don’t have the option of using MX keyboard shortcuts – only F5… i know this annoyed many people)- auto-update player a possible security issue- right-click ‘About…’ still a security issue- minor, but the whole lack of being able to install on WinME is weird. i mean, in all other ways my WinME machine is way past system requirements, i don’t have BSODs ever (i’m good at keeping it running), while Win98SE _is_ supported. WTF? so i’m stuck with my XP laptop and 15″ LCD instead of 19″ flat panel…overall, so far so good. i’m still going to use up my 30 days of trial time before deciding if i’ll upgrade. we already got the Studio MX2k4 upgrade at work, but i’m having them hold off until i can test all my mission critical stuff here at home.we’ll see… though with the past track record of no Flash IDE minor updates, i’m worried we’re stuck with this until fMX2k6ProEnterpriseEdition. :-)g.

  13. Krxtopher says:

    I’ve been using FMX2004 for a couple weeks on both a Mac TiBook 550 MHz G4 or a dual 1 GHz G4.LIKES:- Almost all new IDE features – timeline effects, behaviours, even new components and screen-based metaphor(!) – can be exported to Flash 6.- AS 2.0 (for Jayson:) because it makes my code clearer, my debugging easier, removes the hassle of class initialization and linking, and requires fewer keystrokes…all while letting me to continue developing for Flash 6 Player.- data binding!!!- pre-compiled components- extensibility (features like timeline effects and behaviors are going to allow me to help out my less-code-saavy team mates more easily)- all of those nifty new classes to springboard from- “Project” feature is a welcome addition (now if you could just make CVS integration easy)FRUSTRATIONS:- missing documentation- lack of sample files (and information) illustrating form-based development.- agonizingly slow AS editor scrolling (about 3 fps on my 500MHz G4, 6 fps on my dual 1 GHz G4)- many of my favorite coding fonts – Andale Mono, Bitstream Vera Sans Mono – no longer display properly. In fact, many AS editor font selections suffer from character clipping.- Why do only Windows users get tabbed document switching!? After all, MM did give us Mac people tabbed pins in the AS editor.- Stage Window, Test Movie Window, and (aparently) others still don’t remember where their supposed to open. VERY FRUSTRATING.- If you have a window or panel covering a significant portion of your stage, the “Do you want to save?” dialog opens up behind it (Mac OS X only, I’m assuming)I am very excited about the new product and how much more productive it is going to make me – especially on complex projects. I do plan on upgrading immediately. However, I’m discovering that the learning curve is much steeper than with past upgrades. This of course is amplified by the missing documentation and lack of sample files mentioned above. I’ve been trying to build a simple multi-page form in FMX2 for 2 weeks using data binding and the form-based metaphor. But because there’s so little guidance available I’m getting very frustrated. I thought extending the mx.screens.Form class would be a piece of cake, but I get nothing but compile errors when my code includes references to movie clips within a slide! Turning to a recent example on the MM Tech Sales blog didn’t help – it has the same compile errors!

  14. sunny says:

    Honestly, I haven’t tried FMX2004 much, but my first impressions have not been great.I would like to know whether there’s any point to these posts. Would you really provide a patch like Phillip is asking for? Or would we just have to pay for the next upgrade?

  15. Mike Chambers says:

    A couple of people have posted that they have had problems with “performance and stability”.Please post more details, such as:-what is performing poorly.-what you mean by stability issues.if you have a crash, please list what you were doing when the crash occured, and your system specs.thanks…mike chambersmesh@macromedia.com

  16. aSH says:

    I welcome this call.Yes, I have been playing with FMX2004 for two weeks like many others but I have to say that it’s to early (for me at least) to make any judgments because I believe that I would be able to discover the product only through his intensive use in hardcore production. That’s my experience.I’m pretty sure that FlashMX2004 like other softwares can be really discovered in hardcore production. Until then, I’ll be partial, focused only in some things. Mising the whole picture.Saying that, I welcome this call for initial impressions.Just my thoughts. But thanks for ask.

  17. Mike,I will gladly document the various crashes I’ve had… but do please tell me whether you’ve experienced any stability issues?I’m sure you’re not trying to imply that we’re all imagining things, but sometimes I infer this. I know you probably just want to narrow these things down–but some issues are so accute I’d have a hard time understanding that these bugs only occur outside your company.Maybe you can clarify this a bit. Like say “we understand there are some issues in x, y, and z and we just want to know what the most pressing crashes are”. You know what I’m saying?Thanks,Phillip

  18. unfortunately i didn’t spend too much time with 2004 yet, but the things i noticed so far are:- documentation need some updates. is there any official documentation available for the new xml properties and methods in fp7 that handle xml namespaces? seems they are not documented in the help (sent you this on icq the other day)- the css implementation is less than basic. it’s merely another layer on top of the old textformat object. actually it’s a small subset of css1, spiced up with some very few css2 features. i apprechiate it a lot that there IS some sort of css support in fp7 (not to mention floating objects and hover, both highly requested, great features), but had hoped that it’s at least a bit more complete. actually it’s quite clever marketing to call that “css”.- i’m still very uncomfortable with the ui component framework. it looks like it was done in a rush. it has some good concepts (event model) but still lacks many things and feels very clumsy.all in all i like quite some features, but the overall impression so far is that 2004 was developed in a hurry.

  19. Max says:

    I can’t believe they released it with so many bugs, and very little documentation and support. It’s clearly a beta release the corporate heads pushed out the door way too early. There’s no real explaination or direction on the way the technology is going. Just take a look at DataGrid component. The IDE completely changed, and it’s nothing like any other DataGrid I’ve seen (i.e. ADO.NET).My advice to Macromedia is to stick with what they do well and that’s interfaces. If you need to do real work, use ASP.NET or JSP.

  20. Manoj says:

    Hi,I was eagerly waiting for full support of HTML tags like , , etc. in FLASH mx 2004. But i was disappointed to see that this features are not included.I think so many users like me are struggling to convert our existing content and application into flash based application due to this.I am expecting this feature atleast in next version…ThanksManoj

  21. Nick C says:

    Working on an eMac 700 10.2.6/8 absolutely no stability issues. 384MB RAM is possibly a bit small though.I really like the new IDE, I always hated the output panel that didn’t want to play with the other panels.The help system seems to be great functionally, although it wouldn’t update for me, had to use the extension package. It is however a bit sparse.I’ve only tried one real project, some database management stuff. I really hate the lack of remoting support, remoting is the best thing from MM in the last 3 years. So anyway I looked carefully at the soap and xml options instead, decided to go XML because real men don’t use soap. But the shared server I’m using suffers from the ToString(XML) bug that is another (macromedia) problem. So how about soap? Well according to flashOrb that has even bigger issues.I haven’t seen anyone from MM comment on the flash remoting situation, but the lack of progress and silence seem to speak for themselves. What do you say Mike?I really appreciate everything MM has done with these products and we all know that bugs do crop up. Peoples frustration comes from the fact that we expect great stuff from MM so judge you very harshly.What really worries me from past experience, is having to wait for Flash 8 to sort all this out.

  22. mike chambers says:

    >I’m sure you’re not trying to imply that we’re all imagining thingsNope. I am just trying to get as much information as possible so our engineers can reproduce and isolate issues users are running into.mike chambersmesh@macromedia.com

  23. pro: AS2,flash on pocket pc,SOAP,XPATH,scripting the IDE,forms,etccon: s.l.o.w IDE script editor , i’ve taken to using SciTe|Flash for 100% of my coding needs. the internal editor is just too clunky.

  24. Dan Nelson says:

    Another software company once wrote “Why write a piece of software that works like a Swiss Army Knife when you can write a piece of software that cuts like a machette?”I try to keep that philosophy in mind whenever I test out a new piece of software. “Wow, great feature set, does it work?” Well the answer is clear, this release took a once great piece of software that did a few things REALLY well and turned it into a piece of software that does TONS of things, sometimes, sorta “OK”.I’m 31 years old and I can honestly say that I’ve spent more time in front of a screen working in Flash3, Flash4, Flash5 and FlashMX than I have spent driving my car(sad life?). This release has so many TOTALLY bloated features that I have a hard time finding the steering wheel. Of course with any new software release there is a learning curve, but this…..man, this is just OVERKILL.AS2.0 looks pretty nifty, might even be easier for people coming from stricter typed languages such as C/C++ to learn, but I can guarantee it will miserably fail at getting new users interested in learning it. Me personally, I’ve been working in OOP for quite awhile now so it wont be so bad, but for people coming from standard scripting languages that run more or less top to bottom it might be a stretch.The new IDE, don’t even get me started. Before being a webdeveloper I was an airline mechanic. One of my tasks was running up big Boeing 767’s, driving them around the airport, test systems, check engine parameters, etc…. And well, I have to say that it was MUCH easier getting the hang of those controls than it is to actually WORK in MX2k4. It’s nice to just click a button and have a new project started, but clicking buttons gets old after awhile and eventually we have to WORK. Much easier to work in shorts and a Tshirt than it is to work all layered up with 4 shirts, a windbreaker, jacket, raincoat, thermal underwear, pants, rainboots…I think you can see where this is going:) CUMBERSOME!Other than that I would love to complete a new project using all of these new features, but, oh, crap, it crashed again, corrupted my files and ruined my whole days work, assuming I saved last night before it crashed the last time…DOH!Timeline effects, nice, very “swishlike”…but, ahem, I WOULD HAVE BOUGHT SWISH IF I WANTED CANNED TIMELINE EFFECTS!I was soooo excited when I heard about it, but now it’s like Christmas is here and my bike came without pedals,….oh, but did I mention it DID come with GPS, turn signals, mudflaps, a toaster AND the kitchen sink. Wish I could actually ride it, bet it’d be reeeally cool.

  25. vinny timmermans says:

    Like:- Improved interface: besides some quirks already mentioned it is a lot better to work with and more beautiful to look at.- AS2 and V2 components. Great!- CSS support: a good start, but it should have been CSS2 support instead of CSS1 (Flash 8)Dislike:- Unstable- Lack of documentationUnforgivable:- Most of the DRK components have disappeared. We all understand that the architecture of the DRK components differ from the V2 components and that they are incompatible with Flash MX 2004. However, it is unacceptable not to replace them with Flash MX 2004 compatible ones. The Tabview, colorpicker and charting components are must haves for application developers. Furthermore it is a bad signal to DevNet Essentials subscribers. If you use these components as part of your application, you are on your own as soon as Macromedia releases a new version of its tools. Think twice before you start using the stuff included in the DRK’s or before you even subscribe to DevNet Essentials.- Deteriorated support for Flash Remoting and Coldfusion integration. The Flash Remoting connector, that was part of the Firefly components has been removed. This is not only a step backwards in development time and application speed, but it also signals a confusing message. The end of Flash Remoting? With the introduction of Royale in sight, the end of Coldfusion as Macromedia’s premier application server?- Lack of filesystem support: no filebrowsing or file upload component and no filesystem class in AS2. File handling is crucial in developing business applications. When Macromedia positions Flash as a business application development tool, filesystem support should have been included. No filesystem support, not a serious tool for developing business applications. Period. I know it will increase the size of the Flash Player but NOBODY cares waiting an extra minute twice a year when they download a new version of the Flash Player.- lack of good code examples. When DRK 3 was released, it was mentioned that all new components would be accompanied by fla-examples for each and every method of the component. This was true, and a great improvement compared to DRK1 and 2. With DRK 4 and Flash MX 2004 all examples are gone. (eg there was a nice Peter Hall example on this blog using the advanced charting components that should have been included in the DRK!). Put the action where the mouth was and reintroduce a very good habit. By the way this will dramatically reduce the Flashcoders list when it comes to Flash MX 2004.There may be very good reasons for all “unforgivables” mentioned here. In that case Macromedia should better communicate with their developers community. Experience Matters!!!

  26. david doull says:

    mike, can you say IF an update fixing issues raised above will be releasedif yes, can right click access to actions be returned

  27. Dan Nelson says:

    I TOTALLY agree, just forgot to mention it.Right click>actions.I miss it, please, just a tiny itsy bitsy update?

  28. Matthew McGuire says:

    I’ve just started tinkering with the new version of Flash and my thoughts are;User Interface – Frustrating. I thought Flash MX had a few quirks, but 2004 is ridiculous. I hate all these docked panels – I always have a bug where the property window refuses to display at all, when I disable docking. The only way around is for me to click default layout, which buggers up my workflow. The other ‘docked/connected’ windows are also ridiculously bloated now. I was most comfortable with Flash 5’s layout and window management.IDE;Flash MX had a brilliant actionscript editor, fast, clear and almost fun.Flash MX has a brilliant actionscript editor – expect it run’s at a snails pace on my Pentium 4 on a clean boot!!!AS2;Fantastic – now this is worth the upgrade. Some great new features. Sure it may be difficult for beginners, but there are plenty of new features for them, and AS1 is still available. I like the direction Flash is taking.Components and extras:Eventually, I decided that the oringal MX UI components where a good idea – and have in the past saved me some development time. It was also quite easy to edit and tweak them.In 2004 it seems that we behaviours, components, effects, etc, etc. I think a lot of these are a waste of time, for a developer – but one must remember Flash is also aimed at designers. Perhaps some will prove useful in the future. My general feeling is to avoid them like the plague though.Overall (despite my rantings) I am impressed with Flash MX 2004, and will convince my company to upgrade to it.I do sincerely hope however, that a patch will be made available to speed up the IDEFinally;I have also always wanted to see module playback support (ie amiga .mod, .st3, etc) and inbuilt midi support.Or at the very least, some control over the pitch of sample playback, which would allow to write my own basic mod player.You could create some killer games with the above addition. I suppose filesize is one constraint, but the player code can’t add that much to the Flash Player, and a mod song can be just a few K in size.Am I alone in this?AnywayFlash Mx 2004 9/10Flash MX 2004 interface 4/10

  29. A few of the bugs that I have found so far in Flash MX 2004 on WinXP Pro:1. Position the cursor on the intersection between stage and timeline and then click and drag to make the timeline area larger. If you have rulers switched on, half the time this will actually drag a new guide onto the stage despite the fact that the cursor had changed to indicate resizing.2. Random crashes.3. Some movieclips seem to cause crashes and freezes if they have a lot of ungrouped shapes in them.4. Remove Library panel from that annoying right hand panel strip, save panel layout, close Flash. Open Flash, open Library, it’s back in the annoying right hand panel strip. Select your saved layout from the menu and it goes back to where you want it, until you close and re-open Flash. In which case it goes where Macromedia want it. I have two large monitors, I like to be able to see the linkage of my library items. I want the Library on the other screen.5. Scrolling the library with the mousewheel doesn’t move the library scrollbar.Useful things that have been removed from Flash:1. The Tab key no longer hides all the panels, this is now done by some F key or other.2. The scale and rotate dialogue box. Christ that thing was useful, but sadly it has been replaced by some not useful stuff.

  30. Rob says:

    1. Most Existing v.5 & MX6 workspace bugs still there.2. Terrible screen redraw/update issues making it hard work to know if you’ve actually moved or deleted something on the stage or timeline without minimising and maximising Flash. (and no, it’s not my graphics drivers, it’s Flash)3. Wasted valuable screen real-estate on pointless interface shadows, highlights and curves which cause…4. Application to be slower to use then v.5/MX65. Removal of fundamental keyboard short cuts (CTLR+ALT+S Scale and Rotate anyone? not even replaced with something else useful so why touch it?) Setting keyboard shortcut preference to Flash5. I could really bang on about this one as it drives me crazy having to resize and rotate small things with the Transform palette – and not being able to reapply identical transformations with ease without using the…6. History Palette. How much more slower, clunkier, more flickery and unintuitive could Macromedia make this? Not much I’m sure.7. FLAs not properly backwards compatible with Flash MX6. Saving as MX6 and then opening in MX6 (which I have to do to get any real work done as MX2004 is too slow) creates corrupt Library items – dragging an object from the library palette to the stage just gives you a small black rectangle.The worst things I just know I’m going to find even more diabolical things. I know our technical chap here is having is own set of issues, but I can only comment on the design ones.I could go on, but these days I have to allow an extra hour each day for unnecessary FlashMX2004 related time wasting nonsense, so I’ll end it here with this…Recommend the upgrade to others? No.Want a patch? You bet. Or the money back.r.

  31. Tolga Tatari says:

    The GUI is much better, good looking, faster to work with. But sometimes the scroll bars disappear or half of it disappears.Sometimes it crashes while importing bitmap, swapping bitmap and sometimes it crashes when using the project panel (especially if the files are on another computer on the network), and a few times it crashed when testing fla’s bigger than 10 MB.(p4 2 ,512 RAM)I think the documantation needs a lot of updates, there are alot of topics without a content.overall, i must say it is a great product but it must be updated, bug fixed, improved to be perfect.

  32. Mark Mulhollam says:

    Thanks for asking Mike – not much fun reading I imagine.There is a lot I like with 2004 and once fixed it will be great. I love the tabbed views and the way the help is organized, the V2 components and data binding in the component inspector.One thing I hate is why my AS panel loses focus and disappears when I test a swf, either in the IDE or browser.But my real problem is with the documentation. MM has always had problems in this area but this is ridiculous – I can’t imagine a release of such expensive software to actually omit large chunks of documentation. I come from a C++ coding background, and imho if you can’t document your code you can’t code. So that thought carries over. Not only is the doc missing but what is there, has many errors.I also think perhaps Philip and others are a little incredulous that you even need to ask about specifics over crashes and such. They are so widespread, together with the AS editor slowdown, that surely you guys can replicate on your own and have plenty to do for now. You will get every system config and all kinds of situations. I will start to write down when all my freezes occur to help you though.Finally, it will be a very cool product but I think MM definitely sent the message that next time – wait a good long while to uprade.

  33. Phil Stevens says:

    Crashes:I’ve reported a couple of crashes on the MM bug-form (hurrah! the bug form isn’t buggy anymore!), but really the stability is SO poor that documenting crashes is almost impossible – i’ve even had crashes after importing a single image and then using the magnifier to zoom-in on one section…Really Mike, MX2004 pretty much does nothing else than crash.Speed:1. takes MUCH longer to start-up than MX2. moving just a few symbols around on the stage soon brings up the spinning beach-ball (yup – i’m using OS X – on a 1Ghz Powerbook)Officially SLOW SLOW SLOW.Bugs:As someone else mentioned, most of the old bugs are still there (some of them are old friends from Flash 4 days), and the additional ‘quirks’ of the last couple releases haven’t been addressed or re-thought.Documentation:??? Should we really always have to wait half a year for O’Reilly and Moock to publish any decent documentation for ActionScript?I’m glad that the hardcore coders are pleased with AS2. I guess that the tech guys at MM don’t need to be embarrassed about Flash anymore and that must be a BIG relief.As for me, i’m back to working in MX… and wondering where i go to get my $300 back…Don’t worry, i’m not holding my breath…

  34. daren says:

    REMOTING. After spending a whole lot of time getting comfortable with CF and remoting, I think myself and many others are holding their breath about the future of it. I think MM has/had a real opportunity to make this a bit of an industry standard. Its fast and lightweight, Flash developer friendly…it would only stand to MM to let it out free or at a low cost, and get it on as many servers as they could…SOAP support is great, but for any serious RIA work its pretty bulky and slowAS2. Fantastic….I can see a future when Java, MM server technologies and Flash all get along really nicely.COMPONENTS: Great…hurts a bit that they are so different from Ver.1, but I think its a great direction….just don’t change it again so quickly….some of us need to make some money in the midst of all this new learningIDE. Don’t like it at all…not as clean as MX, although the extensibility is great, I’m not sure that the majority of your average Flash developers will have any use for it for quite some time. Great in concept…probably take a long time to gain any momentum. The IDE is bloddy slow and I have a lightning fast machine.Not going to upgrade any time soon…just don’t have the time to learn so many things from scratch or the need…MX does everything fine and there has been no improvments in remoting. MM should build an MX upgrade to handle AS2 or a command line AS2 compiler and they would make a lot of people happy to consider upgrading….If I was MM, I wouild consider who is driving such upgrade thinking…they may be forgetting that the vast majority of Flash developers are just that, not Java developers, not full time RIA developers. MM may have lost sight (just a bit!) of what made Flash so popular with developers in the first place…I think the saying is ‘throwing the baby out with the bath water’ or something like it

  35. David Widman says:

    Here are my impressions of Flash MX 2004, when I tried a new project (I am using the windows version):Good:New components are just great;Binding helps a lot;Working with forms is a way to go on some projects;The interface is very good to look at.Bad:Sorry about that Mike, but it is unstable period. The software justs gives up on working on random basis (it is not a specific issue that is crashing). It use to crash more often when I use Test Movie;Performance is reaaaally slow when it publishes the files, specially when you start adding the great new memory hungry components;*** In the name of the Good Old Lord, is it too dificult to make a database connection like the one from Dreamweaver???? Where I can put a SELECT phrase and then create the recordsets and just drag the database components to the project??? Is this sooo dificult? Why I have to dig on web services, crazy XML servlets and so? It is so easy on DW…Overall, the upgrade is ok. I’m not sure if I will use the new one or keep on the old Flash MX. I think I will wait for version 7.1, or 8.0.Hope that helps.David

  36. KUDOS:1. Slick interface – the IDE is really nice.2. New features (too many to list – you know what they are).3. Extensibility will be great!NEUTRAL:1. Timeline effects – nothing good enough to use, will probably be used by a lot of new people to make bad-looking Flash. One or two things may be useful. Though this feature has a lot of potential if its expanded on. The current available options are kinda sparse.2. AS 2.0 – good for application developers and heavy coders I guess. Not of concern to me right now.FRUSTRATIONS/COMPLAINTS:1. The learning interactions are very nice, but do not seem to be compatible with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act!!!! I cannot tab-select the buttons required to navigate, and adding my own buttons to overrride this “bug” does not seem to work either. This is a BIG deal for us since all our clients now are asking for section 508 compliant learning applications. Also, have had sporadic results getting screenreaders to speak Flash content. Sometimes it works, sometimes not.2. The Library for each document STILL does not appear by default when the file is opened. I thought enough complaints had been made last go around. Still have to hit F11 everytime I open a file application.3. Transform panel does not seem to work sometimes when scaling an drawn object – I have to scale things up manually instead of changing values. Very frustrating.4. It crashes. Just yesterday it crashed during launch! I wasn’t even in a document yet. Today, I had to launch the IDE twice before it came up. Seems sporadic.5. When changing a gradient color fill, say a radial fill, sometimes it won’t let you.6. DOCUMENTATION. PDFs? How the heck do you work with CSS in Flash? I guess I have to sort through some PDF somewhere. We have to print all those out or try and read them onscreen? I loved when Flash came with an Actionscript dictionary! I would pay more for a product that shipped with printed materials, other than a little “getting started”. This will only make Moock’s books sell more copies, but we have to wait for the next version of the book to come out!

  37. vinny timmermans says:

    It seems that Flash MX 2004 will not receive a very warm welcome under Flash designers and developers. I believe the main reasons are:1. Major discrepancy between what the Flash development team thinks what Flash users want and what we really want. This explains the removing of lots of features Flashers depend on in their daily work and adding stuff nobody cares about (e.g. behaviors panel). Furthermore, stability and good documentation are the most important elements of a professional tool. A new version should contribute to the efficiency of our workflow instead of being a source of frustration and stress. In short, there is a big gap between the expectations of the community and the realizations of the Flash development team, despite the input of a bunch of Team Macromedia members.2. The current Flash community has two distinct audiences developers and designers that should be targeted by separate products. The current distinction between Flash MX 2004 Standard and Flash MX 2004 Professional is superficial. Although the professional version is aimed at developers it lacks lots of developer features (besides all the things already mentioned, a snippets panel like the one in Dreamweaver) and has lots of features not one developer will ever need. The standard version, targeted at designers, lacks the feature to design Flash presentations. Slides are only included in the Professional version. Who are the people that design corporate presentations? designers or developers? Conclusion, the decision to make Flash MX 2004 a unified tool everybody is pleased with, has lead to a product that looks like a hammer you can write with. A tool developers as well as designers do not feel comfortable with.

  38. i’ll keep this short:pros:as2 : welcome to real world oopide : (getting) more consistent with other software/app development environs.tabs : finally!cons:as2 : as2 is a mutt lang (java, pascal..). granted, a strongly typed language.ide : kinda cramped feelinghelp files : seemed like they were rushed. helpful but not a very large scope of help.all in all, i think i have griped about every version that has come out for a couple weeks. then i get into it.

  39. Mark Haliday says:

    Like:1. ActionScript 2.02. The direction flash is going3. Web Services support4. The “beautified” Workspace GUI5. New component architectureDon’t Like:1. The fact documentation was not complete2. Why do my dialogs keep moving about?3. I do not like the new skinning at all. I don’t like the fact I cannot easily override Halo. Why is it so hard to change the background color of a button? In VB I could do this in the properties.

  40. I’d like to add a few more comments.Pros:Extensibility. A major plus…that will be evident as time passes.HTML and CSS support. It’s a start, although better support will make it useful. Just happy to see this first step.Cons:I’d like to second David Widman’s suggestion that Flash have a similar database/recordset feature to DW’s. A combination simple/advanced dialog box that can create recordsets and then drag/drop the fields into Flash would make me 100% more productive.I’d also like to second other opinions that the distinction between MX 2004 and MX 2004 Pro is slight. There really should be a true developer’s version and a designer’s version.As for stability. I’m running it on both XP and 2000. The XP machine is a dual processor 1 Ghz PIII with 1 GB RAM and the 2000 machine is a 1.8 Ghz P4 with 512MB. Both should handle the new MX software with no problems, and yet the slowdowns and crashes are non-stop…and there isn’t a “everytime I do this it crashes” list of steps I can give you.I hope that the problems with all MX 2004 products has nothing to do with activation. I had positive comments for activation with Contribute 2 because, well, I didn’t run into problems, and because I respect MM’s need/desire to product their products from thieves, but if activation is causing any performance problems with 2004, then please remove it.Thanks for listening. It’s great to have folks like yourself willing to sift through a long list of gripes.Mike

  41. Tom Muck says:

    Pros: AS2 and tabbed windowsCons: The IDE is slow and cluttered. The panels do not operate properly. Coming from VB background, it’s very frustrating working with this latest Flash. I’m still trying to figure out how to navigate the code window. Flash MX was slightly easier in this regard. We have too many panels crammed together all at once. It would make more sense to have a Timeline tab, a Code tab, and a Design tab for each open document. Each one should occupy almost the full screen. These sliding panels are hard to use. Why does the property inspector disappear all the time?I don’t want an integrated Help panel that does not operate properly. HTML pages were designed for hyperlinked documents, and the web browser is the perfect light-weight help system. Help systems are the single most important part of the IDE, and the Macromedia product line as a whole has the absolute worst in the industry.The fact that Flash Remoting support was not enhanced is a huge mistake. The SOAP and other connectors in Flash Pro are not very impressive or even usable. From the company that markets ColdFusion I expect more support for native ColdFusion functionality. This does not mean support for SOAP. If I build a CFC with methods that can be called by Flash Remoting, why would I ever use SOAP from within Flash? FR could be the industry standard, and should be pushed hard by MM by getting it onto every server out there the same way that the player is on every browser.It really sucks that consistency cannot be maintained between product releases. I appreciate the new component structure, but we really need to have something that will carry on into the next version and be enhanced, not replaced. Pick a standard and go with it. . .don’t abandon it.

  42. Matt says:

    Wasted money on the last three (3) DRKs. I can’t use these components in Flash MX 2004. At least not with out taking a chance.If I publish to Flash Player 6 to use these components, I can’t use Flash Player 7 features like the nice “img” tag.Macromedia should at least extend our subscriptions to cover the DRKs that are now wasted.

  43. Bentley Wolfe says:

    Keep the feedback coming folks. This is excellent stuff. Very focused. We’re tallying what we see and discussing.That said, I’m sure our experienced developers know that we cannot comment on whether or not there will be a dot release. Not only is it against policy to do so, but it’s dangerous to make forward looking statements (which are then subject to unexpected changes.. then nobody’s happy).So the best thing you all can do is just keep the feedback coming and give us lots of objective information to work with.–Regards,Bentley WolfeSenior Support Engineer, MacromediaFlash Senior Escalation EngineerAnnouncing MX 2004. New versions of Dreamweaver,Flash, Fireworks, Studio and the new Flash Pro. http://www.MX2004.com

  44. brent lang says:

    I have been using Flash 2004 for a couple of weeks now. Overall, it is not a bad product. I am a developer, so the additions to Actionscript were great.Pros:- AS2 is getting close to a real language – nice- JSFL is an excellent additionCons:- the debugger is still worthless!!!!!!!- the documentation is not available- MM removed the Reference panel from the IDE

  45. Flash MX 2004 is cool. Actionscript 2 is cool, JSFL is cool, a lot of stuff is cool. However:(a) The price tag is a bit heavy, there should be an ultra light version with perhaps actionscript IDE only; I’d like to buy Flash 7, but the price is too high for casual/educational use(b) The swf format is the same, actionscript 2 brings zero performance improvements; I really love to use it, but without inlining its frustrating; using classes improves reuse, however if you can’t reuse functions for performance critical work, that’s a big issue, I have had to manually inline some functions(c) The drawing API should definitely be improved, along with AS2 its the most exciting thing about flash to me and a lot of other people I’d suspect, not for most but still for many; interactive 3d is not possible in flash beyond simplistic cubes and tori, I’d be very cool if one could use real-time 3d in flash – I mean Flash is so much more interesting than Director, so why does it lag behind in this very important area; I thought Flash 6 would catch up and here in Flash 7 the situation is essentially the same and compared to Flash 6 the drawing API appears to have undergone zero changeBut I must say, again, that coding in AS2 is much more productive than coding in AS1.

  46. Dave Yang says:

    Hi Mike,Regarding stability and conflict with other apps:Flash sometimes exits with no warning. It seems there is no exact reproducible way. I’m running it on a Dell D800 (Pentium M 1.6GHz laptop with 512MB RAM, XP Pro – engineers have my system specs and collection of (UTR) bugs).As I posted somewhere else yesterday, Flash (and Dreamweaver MX 2004) sometimes prevents other apps from launching. In fact, I’ve seen them preventing each other from launching. I wonder if it is the common new interface code, or the background licensing tasks. Seems like there are memory issues because I’ve seen corrupted IE and even the Task Manager was affected (only two tabs instead of five).The conflicts go away immediately when I quit Flash. Everything is back to normal, every time when Flash is no longer running. I find myself rebooting more frequently because Flash has been making the system quite unstable.Launch time varies. Sometimes it takes close to 50 seconds, sometimes around 8.One other thing I forgot to mention: Flash Remoting works great before, and it should continue to do so. The new web services should not affect Flash Remoting – both should be supported because they’re both useful in different situations.Thanks,Dave

  47. DGuy says:

    I do mostly coding thus spend my time in the Script & Actions Editors (most other panels I close):Likes:- AS2: Strong Type checking and catching of undeclared (i.e. misspelled) properties.Dislikes:- Script Editor is a Window, while Actions Editor is a Panel, which makes switching between them a pain as the Panel is always over the Window. The Steps are something like: Edit Actions, Select Script Tab, Close Actions Panel (so I can see the Script Editor), Select Script Editor (to give it focus), Edit Script, Select Actions Tab, Open Actions Editor, … Sheesh! Grudgingly went back to using external editor.Comments:- Have to second the comments about Form/Slides being part of the Pro (i.e Programmer) version. Seems to me, those tools would benifit people who wish to do as LITTLE programming as possible, and also would seem much more useful in the hands of designers.- Thankfully stabilty has not been a problem, but as I spend most of my time doing just three things (i.e. Editing in the Action Panel, Editing in an External Editor and Publishing/Testing.) I’m putting very little “stress” on the product.Upgrading:- Even though I’m a long time programmer (18+ years) I’m still up in the air as to if/when I’ll upgrade and what version (non-pro/ pro) I’ll upgrade to. Still weighing the pro/cons/cost …David

  48. noah says:

    Remoting — Don’t drop this macromedia, enhance it. Listen to your users.

  49. vinny timmermans says:

    I just received the following message from Macromedia concerning one of the complaints some others and I mentioned before:”We are currently in the process of updating the Flash components from DRK Volumes 1-4 to work with Flash MX 2004. When they are released in the coming weeks, you will get them as part of your DevNet Essentials subscription”.Good news!

  50. Jack says:

    PROS:- improved video playback- standardized UI elements- smarter “simulate download” that streams other SWFs- Find/Replace- spell checkerCONS:- TERRIBLE stability. Yikes! MM is shooting themselves in the foot with this release.- I can’t believe how poor the documentation is. HUGE disappointment.- Upgrades are too expensive considering the relatively small number of improvements.SUGGESTIONS:- PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE give us a maintenance release to fix this thing ASAP!- I’m sick of hitting Ctrl-L every time I open a file. Why can’t I set a preference to have the library open all the time?- Let a mask affect opacity- Player still needs serious help displaying animations that affect large areas of the screen. Some of my movies slow to a crawl on sub-2gz machines even at 12-15fps rates.While there are some really nice improvements in Flash MX 2004, the stability problems, bugs, and poor documentation make it quite unattractive. MM needs to get their priorities straight. They’re alienating a lot of us professional developers to whom they owe much of their success.

  51. I feel the same as all of the other posts, I would like to add one thing, no matter how very small it may seem it still ircks me.In the library I want to be able to click on any object, tap a key on my keyboard and it will bring me to the next item beginning with that letter. It was there in flash 5, but taken out in MX.Please.. please add this to the next flash or in a future “update” of MC 2004.-Mike-Mike

  52. gerbick says:

    Liking ActionScript 2.0 – finally, “OOP-ish”. Improved timeline as well… looking like a keeper thus far.Still dislike the convuluted treatement/integration of XML though.

  53. Gil says:

    Like so many others, I’m excited by the potential of the new features and by AS2, and I’m really annoyed about the lack of documentation.I’ve only used the trial version, so I can’t comment on what is in the packaged release, but I am greatly disturbed by the fact that I just purchased the boxed DreamWeaver MX04 upgrade and there is NO printed manual. This is simply not good enough and I hope that it won’t be the case with Flash MX 04 (although I suspect that it is).Honestly, I love working with Flash and I’m excited about the new version. So why is Macromedia making it so damn hard to get into? I don’t have the time to go exploring all the arcane sites on the web to see in bits and pieces what other people have discovered — that’s what the manual is supposed to be for.To me, it indicates a remarkably low amount of regard from Macromedia towards their customers — especially to the dedicated enthusiastic customers who get in early and buy the latest versions of Flash (etc) to start using, learning and developing, which in turn promotes macromedia’s products to others.Okay, rant over!Gil

  54. While I like the overall look of 04, I’m dissapointed by the problems with it.I’m running an Alienware Area 51 P3 2.1GHZ 512mb ram, XP Pro. Basically, it’s a sweet box!04 takes 30 -50 seconds to launch which is 20 – 40 seconds longer than MX. This release seems to be heavy for some reason.04 has crashed 3 times on me for no apparent reason. I was dragging a MC from the library the last time it pooped itself. Unfortunately, I haven’t even begun to really develop in it yet.I don’t like the help panel in the IDE. I agree that it is more useful and useable coming up in a browser window. I also don’t like the fact that there is so much info missing.There’s no reference panel!The panels are quirky! I like to put my actions panel at the top above the timeline. Currently, my actions panel is either fully expanded, or hidden.( the only thing visible is the little arrow in the lighter grey rectangle on the dividing line) I cant see the tab like I can properties and help even though actions is open.One good thing about the panels is that you can now save the library in a panel set and it actually is there when you open Flash the next day.Two things that really bother me:First, I know of most of the Beta testers and Team Macromedia. I respect them. But I can’t figure out why these issues did not come up in beta testing. I’m your customer. I don’t really care if you personally like me or not. But if you listen to me, I can make your product better and make you money! Why the pussyfooting that is so apparent in everything the inner circle has to say about MM and 04?Second, People have stated that they like JSFL. I have mixed feelings about it. I don’t really get it from what I’ve read. So I haven’t realized it’s full usefullness. But I realized that you can take Actionscript Viewer (thanks Burak!) Save a swf that you want to know more about 😉 And in 5 clicks, recreate the FLA!!! WTF?!?!? I mean, sure it’s useful, I like having the ability, but doesn’t it go against what MM is trying to do? I’m trying to understand why you have a new security model for the Flash 7 player. Of course, the security model needs to be beefed up if we are really going to develop RIA’s. But if everything is open, why even have security? I can’t look at the connection strings in a CF app. Why should I be able to in a 04 app? It doesn’t make sense! So even though I don’t fully understand the full usefulness of .jsfl, I realized I can hack with it!All that said, Thank god for Macromedia! I have a career thanks to you! I mean I got lifestyle!

  55. One more thing:I’m opening .fla’s I created on the same machine in MX and 04 is telling me the fonts aren’t available. I need to choose a different font or use the default. I found that the fonts it is not recognising are ATM fonts like Adobe Garamond and Helvetica. Does Flash only support True Type fonts?

  56. Paul Lang says:

    PROS:* AS2CONS:* Highly unstable (but not still not nearly as bad as Dreamweaver MX 2004)* Unable to use the V1 components from the DRKs I paid a lot of money for.* Clunky AS editorUNFORGIVABLE:* Lack of documentation* Failure to incorporate Flash Remoting and refusal to tell the Developer Community where MM are going with this.DUMBEST CHANGE EVER SEEN IN 20 YEARS OF USING PC SOFTWARE:* Changing the select-line command in the AS editor from click to control-click. What were MM smoking when they came up with that one?OVERALL:* I’m sure it will be a nice product when it’s finished…

  57. Alessandro says:

    where is the select line with mouse click? I can’t use the IDE without that!Quite unstable and unusable fro the as point of view. Panels freaks out while testing flash movies.I love the new performance of the player! It is a great release! thanksI like very much SOAP, even if I would like to continue work in remoting.. where is remoting? something on the horizon?

  58. Bentley Wolfe says:

    ATT Michael HazardI’m looking for you to discuss some of these issues.Please private mail me contact info to bwolfe@macromedia.com.Thanks.

  59. Julian says:

    I took an intensive look for a couple of days but found that the significant advances in actionscript were horribly offset by constant crashing that ate away at my patience and productivity.I’m sticking with Flash MX for a while because while there are loads of new useful and good things, there’s nothing so good that would pursuade me to put up with the instability.The whole industry seems to have been totally unprepared for this release. For example, one would have thought that book publishers would have been ‘let in’ in good time to have something on the shelves to coincide with the release. Even some of the major third party Flash sites seem to have ignored it except for a couple of news items.I hate the panels of Flash MX and MX 2004. (They seem to be less unbearable in Dreamweaver though for some reason). Someone in a previous post mentioned that tabs would be better and I wholeheartedly agree. Fighting with multiple tiny spaces all day long really frays my nerves badly. Having ‘Help’ in a panel is just a huge failure and I would prefer the help to be in a separate browser (but only as long as the annoying, tempramental popup dialog box from the Flash MX help browser is nowhere to be seen).The FTP capabilities are next to useless for my purposes and they don’t work properly for me. Dreamweaver’s FTP is fast beyond belief. Flash MX 2004’s FTP is slow beyond belief and the project management features are too basic to be useful. I use Dreamweaver for managing my Flash projects (and another reason not to pay the extra money for the Flash Pro version).I absolutely DESPISE the split to two versions. A huge mistake and a really stupid, poor decision that will (and has) cost Macromedia a ton of good-will.The name – aaagggggh. I think people are already pulling their hair out distinguishing this version from the previous one and having to type the full thing all the time. At least before we could just say “MX”, but now we can’t use that short name for either version and still know which one we mean.This has all the makings of a really great upgrade (and still could be), but the shortcomings are too much for the moment.

  60. Mike Britton says:

    pros:AS2 + editorcomponent architecturemultiple pinningfont aliasingvideoaccessibilitycons:None. This is a solid upgrade that I will shell out for.

  61. Likes:AS2Dislikes:AS2 lack of real strict error checking.Can still assign a string to a number for example. Put in some real error checking please.Can’t use Ctrl+Enter to test a movie froman .as window.Disable/Enable is real annoying while switching tabsChanges to an .as file aren’t seen untilsaved and nothing reminds you to save.Would prefer it compile just like scriptsinside the fla. Having to save the .as,click the fla tab, then hit Ctril+Enter totest everytime got old inside of 3 minutes.Absolutely HATE the new undo system.MX’s non-linear undo was FAR superior whenanimating several movieclips when needingto go ‘in and out’ of each editing severalclips in a larger animation.We don’t need a PhotoShop clone.Timeline effects. Slow and unimportant.Slides editor. Do pros needs this?Summary:Even though I’m not jumping for joy over thisversion. I may have bought it if the undowasn’t completely destroyed. There wasno need to change such a heavily usedfeature that has been a core functionalityfor so long.I’ll let other people stand up for Normal Mode.I didn’t use it but ALOT of people did.In the future please give more thought beforealtering, removing or changing existing features.Chris

  62. Pablo Alonso says:

    I have to say I’ve been working for a couple of weeks with mx 2004 and haven’t had a single crash, lucky me, I like a lot of stuff like as2, forms, align hinting, BUT I think this release is useless to great part of the flash community, I am a programmer, and the people I work with are mostly designers so I can’t hope that they get happy about strict typing when they have so much troublr working with the flexible mx6 script, I mean I can’t think of a single usefull thig for a designer in this release(other than align hinting) the behaviors and the timeline affects are really basic.I like it, already done a complete project on it and am working on another one and other than banging my head against the wall countless tiems for the lack of documentation and sometimes deleting a mc and it wouldn’t go away unless I changed frames I had no major problem. If you plan to develop RIAs then upgrade if not stay away from it.On another topic I think it’s good that you open up a place where we can say what we think, but will this get something done? I mean, there’s really a LOT of negative comments about this release, and I just hope Macromedia doesn’t ignore them and release a patch.

  63. John says:

    I just received my copy of FMX2004 today.. I haven’t had time to test it much and see if I suffer from the instabilities others have reported. .2 big things I noticed right off the bat:1) on my 19″ screen, the IDE is very cluttered. I run two monitors on my mac and I may have to run two of my pc just so I can see all the panels.MM — you should look at Modo (3d applcation by Luxology) and see how they are handle collapsing panels.2) documentation sucks. it was hard to find and the IDE help is insane. I can barely read it. Bring back the html help system, at least I could resize it. While I love reading Moock’s books, I don’t like having to wait until he releases one so I can understand the basics of the new features. Where are the samples and example code?More to come once I have free time… until then I am still working in MX, and playing in MX2004 on my breaks/lunches.- John

  64. Luis says:

    I’m very happy in general.cons:- I found very frustrating when you have a bunch of windows open inside mx 2004 , then open up a different application and when you go back to flash all the windows that where minimized are maximized.- Documentation is not very well documented.-Using the AS editor with MX 2004 is extremely processor intensive.-Bytecode limit to 32 k.

  65. gilles says:

    I’m in a big RIA with mx.screens.Forms all the way. I guess I have the nerve to do it without any serious help documentation. That’s hard work, yeah !Macromedia should *not* assume that colin moock will fill the task of proper documentation : it’s the job of Macromedia ! Having Flash MX 2004 (pro or not) means that complete help files are already included so that the tool is profitable right away.In fact, Macromedia should propose a job for Colin Moock along the development process of a new Flash version so that proper -paper- documentation be available with Flash and not as a separate book from another company.Docs, docs, samples & samples would be my main request.Fortunately, Flash MX 2004 Pro is quite stable on my system.

  66. david doull says:

    Ive bought every new version of flash the moment it was released since v4, except this one.My PC is only just within the minimum specs. for mx 2004, and so I wasnt suprised to have crashes and slow performance with the trial, but the comments here make me wonder if things will be any better once I upgrade my pc.my initial opinion;pro;loading and printing objectshistoryfind and replacecons;stabilityperformanceremoved featuresno new drawing api methodsloss of vision of userswhat I mean by the last point is that MM seems to not have thought about its user baseas I see it there are four types of users, all of which MM has stuffed around with this release1. newbies – people who have never used flashbehaviours are a good idea, but the normal mode in actionscript has gone!and why are screens only in pro version, which are great for people moving up from PowerPointand offcourse the help is hopeless2. designers/animators – use flash a lot but dont do hasrd core codingfew new features and lots of things lost eg; normal mode, transform pannel etc3. flash developers – people like me who work fulltime doing flash design/codingas2 is nice but hardly essential if it doesnt improve performancethe stability and workflow are the critical bits and these are worsealso there are no features that actually change what you can do with flash via code eg: no new sound control such as pitch, image control such as transform/quads or drawing features.MM says ‘we cant wait to see what you do with it’ , well there aint much new we can do4. java/enterprise developers – people who dont use flash, the people MM seems to really want at the expense of their core usersas2 may attract these types but stability and documentation issues will lose themI really hope MM pays attention to the comments here. Ive been working for almost 4 years fulltime as a flash developer and I feel shafted by this release, I cant imagine that was MM’s intension

  67. Kevin Smith says:

    Pro…its another version…Con…MM will NEVER fix it..MX2005

  68. chris says:

    I am particularly alarmed by the “policy against updates”. Where’s the reasoning there? I’m very curious – no rant here – but why would there ever be a policy against updating software you develop if it has legit bugs?

  69. BJ says:

    There are many good things in the new release, but they’re heavily outweighed by the cons (mentioned extensively above), of which below are some that are a few particulary picky to me:Split versions – MX2004/MX2004Pro.Removal of Non-linear Undo. Why can’t I have the option to change it back? Why change something so drastically?AS Panel and general stabililty.Why take out the Scale and Rotate (CTRL+ALT+S) dialogue? How may bytes did that save from the exe?Documentation. Heads should roll for the failure to provide complete documentation..I have to expend a lot of political capital to get authorization to buy software at my company (tight budgets require extreme rationalization), and I can’t afford to blow it on this release. I’ll have to wait for the patch, or the next version. Too bad Macromedia.

  70. BJ says:

    AND AS Editor -> click on line number inserts a breakpoint instead of selecting the line!!!! Dammit!

  71. Curtis Wiens says:

    I wish I could undo the Undo changes.Compatibility with MX files sketchy at best. I have a gig of MX files for work. Not gonna get paid to make them work in MX04!CRASH city….BLINK..its gone. I am on OS X havnt tried it on my Windows machine yetLibrary is slow. VERY SLOW. This was a small problem in MX now a BIG one.Documentation: No tech writers at Macromedia?I create online training for Autodesk using FlashMX it works great. Some bugs that never got fixed but overall MX is stellar. I abandoned MX04 10 days into the trial. It slowed me to a crawl.

  72. Ernst Blofeld says:

    Great opportunity, so i can rant at the right place !Ok I just tried to finish a project with my EMEXTWOTHOUSENDFOUR Demo…The Pros:the new compiler really seems to speed up things a tiny itsy bitsy teeny weeny bit.Actually just the new great flash player 7 seems to speed up things.AS 2: didn’t have the time yet to dig deeper into it, but it holds a lot of promises for the furure.Though i think that it takes a lot of rock n’ roll out of Flash development.Programwide Find and replace including colors is great !Cons:anything else ! especially the history and undo changes !!!!!!!No seriously I mean the Undo features up to this release were the bomb. Actually I always hoped other applications would incorporate that feature…Why oh why did they take this out ???As so many other people mentioned: Why is the Scale and Rotate feature gone ???It was so useful ! don’t get it at all…The program (especially the AS editor)is so slow it’s almost unworkable…conclusion.I guess normally i would not be so negative but the fact that MM charges a pretty hefty amount of dough for this uncomplete and unpolished version is making me very very angry.

  73. Mickey says:

    Hi!I#ve been playing with FMX2004 for a few days now but i already noticed several things that should be said:Good:- Components: as a Developer i always wanted flash to be more like VB or other programming languages.- Speed improvement: I didn’t really test it, but if there really is a speed improvement as said, i would appreciate it. But a first test on my cpu-Killer fla didn’t really show any improvements (several hundred small MCs moving around)Bad:- Speed: FMX 2004 is just slowly. This is a development tool and not “Fancy Postcard Maker 2.0”. So please stop fillin everything in the IDE with fancy shadows, gradients, rounded edges etc. noone needs them and they make everything sooo slow.Very bad:- Developer Layout: in FMX there was a developer LAyout with the timeline on the left and the “drawing window” (how is it called??) on the right. it was a great idea cause i don’t really need a long timeline, nor do i need a huge drawing window. why did macromedia remove that ??- Documentation: you can never have enough documentation-help: the help panel is a real pain. please move it back to a seperate window!!!

  74. 1stpixel says:

    Mike ???are you still reading this ?Just wanted to be sure, before i post my suggestions about the help files …1stpixel

  75. Andrew says:

    It has been said before, but the help system is truly dreadful – badly organised and incomplete. My other gripe regards the well publicised “buy one windows license, install it on two of your pcs” vs “have two computers, one a mac, one a pc, get stung for two copies” issue.

  76. Sven says:

    Please can MM me an the other people answer following question:How do i use WebServices with the SebServiceConnector outside the FM2004 IDE or projector?(yes, i know the usage of crossdomain.xml and i try your technote of proxy a webservice on my own CFMX Server)Nothing works, and i ask me how i can tell people: …woooow, now you can use free WebServices…….but not on your homepage. ;/It’s so easy…Send an email to google and they will host your crossdomain.xml in the root of there servers *g*Regards,Sven

  77. Sascha says:

    1.As so many others mentioned before, the main disappointing point in 04pro is definitely the missing Remoting Connector!Sure, you can use a cfc as a WebService and use the WebServiceConnector. But that can just be a workaround.I’m sure the kick-ass remoting connector component is just in development progress :-)2.It must be possible to import pictures via loadMovie with TRANSPARENT BACKGROUNDS, such as an eps or a png can do it.This is so important!So far,MX2004pro is definitely a must-upgrade

  78. mike chambers says:

    >are you still reading this ?Yes. Myself and and a number of people from the Flash team are reading this.I wouldn’t have solicited the feedback otherwise.mike chambersmesh@macromedia.com

  79. flash MX2 on OS X (10.2.6)————————————A: still font handling issues:————————————1.when selecting a font from the properties inspector i get a black rectangle with white sample text in it.2. the fonts are still not grouped by family. this is a feature request i submitted to mm for flash as well as for freehand last year. font handling of this kind can’t be such a problem, since it’s basically built into OS X. adobe can do it.———————————–B: save dialogues———————————–all save dialogues are behind all other pallets and windows! can’t beleive this made it into the final build…———————————–C: responsiveness, etc———————————–i work on a 1Ghz G4 powerbook.1. the as editor is super-slow.2. opening AS files always refreshes the whole IDE-interface. this is extremely frustration when opening many documents at once.3. the more AS documents are open, the slower it gets.

  80. Joshua Sera says:

    Good:The beginnings of real OOP in AS 2.0, though it’s really only a shell. Instantiating an object with private members on the root, then using this.myObject.privateMember still gets access to the private member.getNextHighestDepth, and being able to reference things by depth: really good.Bad: SLOOOOOOW AS editor – Completely unusable with word wrap on. Only mildly usable with it off. Why is word wrap so processor-intensive?Also, the sizes of the timeline, and other panels shrink when you do control -> test movie. It’s really annoying to have to resize everything when you test stuff.Truthfully, the UI has been clunky since Flash MX. IMHO, you guys got it right back in Flash 5.

  81. working with the Screen (form or slide) analogy is awful.i get the spinning beach ball (for over 1 minute!!) when i move stuff around on the rootScreen and flash consumes every bit of CPU.it seems to happen when you have more than 1 child.after flash has finished thinking, the mc (e.g.) is gone, only leaving the little circle behind. it won’t display the mc properly anymore. this is makes me feel very uneasy to say the least.basically, formbased development is impossible for me, this way. i just ain’t got the time to watch that beach ball.i can repro this bug.if you want i can send you a FLA where the problem occurs.

  82. 1stpixel says:

    > I wouldn’t have solicited the feedback otherwise.not so sure …well, i’ve stopped reading ~ in the middle …here’s what i have:Athlon XP 1.6+, 256 MB RAM on WIN XP PRO,i’m currntly running in trial mode, so i guess, most of the ‘speed’ things, like when i close MX2 it sometimes takes 1-2 minutes to really shut down, leaving the *.tmp processes, come from the registration thingy …woooh! so much things to say:1st impression was: wow! cool new components! cool design of the IDE (panels and things).but after digging a little deeper:baaadies:why did’t you release it 1 week later? the documentation could have been complete. That cut off 1 week of my trial period, which is short enough with all those new things to explore.explore… brings me to another point:you did change the help system completely, changed to html inside the IDE, but why the hell didn’t you embed 1 single example-swf inside? got me ? instead you force me to read step by step tutorials like an idiot. a single picture cann tell more than 1000 words, what could you explain with a ‘motion picture’ ?You’ve got two versions of the IDE, but (just a guess) only 1 version pf help files ?don’t you think that ‘proffessional’ implies a proffessional help/docu ?And this ‘beginners guide to MX2’ is full of misunderstandings.eg the components section:If components rely on each other this is 1 thing … but if the help system is built like the components, it confuses more than it does help.(tree extends the list and so on) …and these typos are unbelievable:(this is just one example that goes from Accordeon down to the tree, where this is taken from)accordeon:Alert.cancelLabelThe number of children of an accordion instance.tree:PopUpManager.createPopUp() :Adds a node to a tree instance.If you want us REALLY to push this into the RIA market, want us to develop APPs noone has ever seen before like that, why don’t you take yourself serious enough and give the baby the time it needs to develop such frameworks.Everthing seems to be done in a great hurry, why so ? Who did push you to do so? Now we all have to live with a tool that is not beta and not release candidate …eg: the context menu …. is this a joke ? it’s not even a menu, it’s a list, nothing more. why can’t we make subs ?wassup with a real tooltip (the ones that come from the system) to show tooltips even partially outside of the browser like a simple ALT-tag can do ?What ? Not even a tooltip component! What the *# …Oh i forgot, i already bought one, from DRK 3, but heh, you decided to stop to support these in MX2 … niceWell i think i’ve better things to do than to write here, but you asked that loud, i thought it was more than time to let some steam go it’s desired way …I hope you didn’t expect me to make some bug-reports here ?1stpixel

  83. AS 2.0maybe i am understanding something wrong here. but take look at it anyways:from flash help Components Dictionary > UIEventDispatcher > Event Objects:—————————————————listener = new Object();listener.click = function(evtObj){trace(“The ” + evtObj.target.label + ” button was clicked”);}myButton.addEventListener(“click”, listener);————————————————that’s ok. but try adding this on top:var myButton:Button;if you check the syntax on that (apple-T) or try to compile it you get this output:—————————————-**Error** Scene=Scene 1, layer=Layer 1, frame=1:Line 7: There is no method with the name ‘addEventListener’.myButton.addEventListener(“click”, listener);—————————————-flash thinks, addEventListener is not a method of the button class. well if it wasn’t the above code wouldn’t have worked in the first place, right?strong typing comes in handy. but it seems that it can cause problems like this. i also had similar troubles elsewere.if i am not completly wrong, this is a pretty bad thing.

  84. another one:—————————————-import mx.containers.Windowimport mx.managers.PopUpManagervar myWindow:Window;myWindow = PopUpManager.createPopUp(_root, Window, true, {title:”myWindow”, closeButton:true});—————————————-the above code raises this error:—————————————-**Error** Scene=Scene 1, layer=Layer 1, frame=1:Line 5: Type mismatch in assignment statement: found MovieClip where mx.containers.Window is required.myWindow = PopUpManager.createPopUp(_root, Window, true,—————————————-ok. fine. shure it is a movieClip, but why can we then type it as a Window Class? (it pops up in the code hints after typing the “:”).but “var myWindow:Window;” won’t give us code hints (to the Window Class) neither.this will: “var myWindow:mx.containers.Window;”but it still raises the above error.argghhhh!

  85. michael,your absolutely right!this typing business is pretty inconsistent, isn’t it??if you strong-type “mystring” as String, flash raises an error:————————————var mystring:String = “Hello”;var x:Number = mystring;————————————also if you do that, flash catches it:————————————var x:Number = “Hello”;————————————i think that also in your example the error should be caught by the syntax checker, nevertheless. x is typed as a Number and then it’s type is overruled just like that? hmm…

  86. phil stevens says:

    Well, i thought i’d check back and take a look at the new responses – and perhaps the greatest concern is now: are you actually gonna do anything about the problems?Perhaps the most amazing thing about all the Flash MX bugs was this: you guys NEVER FIXED THEM!In terms of working with MX on the Mac, this meant really major bugs like the ActionScript window gradually disappearing while working. What sort of company is it that doesn’t ever bother to fix these major, glaring holes in its program? I honestly can’t think of a single Adobe app that has problems like windows rendering blank or disappearing while you work in them!This got me to thinking about MM’s attempt to reposition the app for a new target of developers: as someone else pointed-out, with this sort of bugginess you’re never gonna be taken seriously by the hard-core programmers.Meanwhile, the designer/coders that have lived with the program through all its versions are left out in the cold.Time for you guys to take a deep breath, stop chasing the NEXT big thing, and fix the things you already have.

  87. Ryan Quigley says:

    I’d love the ability to test publish with different versions of the flash player, i.e. 5, 6.0r47, 6.065, 7 etc, selectable with a pulldown or something. Maybe with a folder where the user could drop in plugins.

  88. i hear you, phil. that’s the way i’ve felt ever since flash 4.i whished macromedia would at least get it straight once.but i honestly do not have much hope that there will be a patch, ever. most likely it will come out AFTER my devnet subscription expires.especially mac users have always greatly suffered under macromedia’s ignorance.

  89. Bentley Wolfe says:

    FYI, we’re still reading this thread, so keep it coming.. Also remember that you can report via support channels at http://www.macromedia.com/support/ or via the wish form at http://www.macromedia.com/go/wish–Regards,Bentley WolfeSenior Support Engineer, MacromediaFlash Senior Escalation EngineerAnnouncing MX 2004. New versions of Dreamweaver,Flash, Fireworks, Studio and the new Flash Pro. http://www.MX2004.com

  90. brendan says:

    Bug:I have a vector graphic 3000 px x 3000 px … It is a MC. When rotating it with the transform tool to say 180 degrees (with constrain unticked or ticked above), it scales the clip down and doesn’t apply rotation.- After a few hours working, I opened a fla off my network drive and the exact copy off my local harddrive and one showed up and the local one dissappeared. When exiting flash it was still prompting me to save with apparently no document open. This was a once off.- Running xp pro, 64 mb shared vram, 512ddr, compaq evo n1050v- Moving the properties panel into the side panel (docking it) and moving it back again left my side panel the width of the properties panel permanently , even after a restart. I had to reload the default layout …MX 2004 is seriously sick ass! I love it all the rest is great!urbian

  91. Phillip Kerman says:

    I doubt this had anything to do with it–but I do think it’s a valid question: with all of the folks signed up for devNet subscriptions the incentive to make a better product is slightly diminished. That is, when you need to put something out and have people pay for the upgrade, they will judge the product on its merits. But, when you’ve paid for a year of upgrades the publisher can put out anything they want.Okay, so that’s the argument. I don’t think it totally holds water–especially because I imagine the majority of sales are not DevNet subscribers. However, when I think about subscription based software I think this is an inherent limitation.Thanks,PhillipP.S. you all (at MM) are reading this post… great. I know you do care. But… what about some definitive commitments of some sort? The posts from various MM employees are sincere enough–but someone needs to (at some point) say what you all are going to do specifically. I’m pretty patient–but, I mean, are the components documented yet? Is JSFL?

  92. Torbjørn Caspersen says:

    I’ve also experienced instability similar to so many other above. It mainly seems random, but I have one .fla that loads xml that can crash flash 04 somewhat consistently.Sourcesafe integration: There seems to be problems with F04 on no-english systems. I’m running winXP norwegian on a P4 2.5Gz, 768Mb. Flash doesn’t give me the option of creating a site that connects to SourceSafe, while others that run XP english here at the office can.Fontembedding: If an old MX file has a text field that is set to embed ‘all characters’, it will be changed to ‘base latin’ in F04 – which means no æøå for norwegian. How about a preset for norwegian/swedish/danish/german etc. or editable presets?

  93. when does MM plan to update the information on this page?:http://www.macromedia.com/support/flash/ts/documents/mx_04_emerging_issues.htmlast update was done on 9/12/03. i think there are some more issues.this brings to mind that mike was once intersted in something like a PUBLIC BUG TRACKING SYSTEM.so what happened to that, mike?it seems always the same with MM. they leave you out in the cold. we never get information as to what issues are confirmed or what is being addressed for the next release.as devnet pro subscriber i sure would like to have close information on bugs.and if you need a real OS X beta tester, you got it.

  94. chris ward says:

    No autocomplete for the classes that i write.I would love to see all my methods and members presented to me when i hit that ‘dot’ (.)

  95. david says:

    Torbja asks about whether we will be updating the ermerging issues technote. Yes, it was last updated on 10/19 actually. We are reviewing daily. Please do use the feedback mechanism on that page for specific suggestions and/or http://www.macromedia.com/go/wishRegards,David

  96. johan says:

    IDE crashes a lot when working with form based applications, especially when trying to delete an existing form, crashed every time i tried it.

  97. Oskar says:

    The real question we NEED TO HAVE ANSWERED here is WILL the bugs be fixed?Will there be a point release? There was tons of bugs in MX, none were fixed. NONE. It didn’t matter how much we reported them, how much I personally mailed people at Macromedia.This isn’t the way it should be, please. I’m living with a program that is crashing a lot, because I’m still hoping that it will be fixed, that you will release proper documentation. If I get a clear no I really have to go back to MX.All my main issues are dealt with earlier in this thread, but there’s a few things that need to be repeated.It’s slow and buggy on a clean install P4-2.6 with 2G DDR400 RAM and SATA HD, a fresh Windows XP box. This is a machine that After Effects love, it’s great working with. But the MX 2004 products, especially Flash and Dreamweaver are barely usable.THERE’S BARELY NO DOCUMENTATION! On MX, we had to live with gathering information on Flashcoders and the Macromedia website, at least until Moock did his thing. Imagine Microsoft doing this with Visual Studio. 🙂 On 2004, we get even less.Other small issues.I write a few lines of code, press Ctrl-Enter, close that window and get the action script editor up again. Press delete a few times to remove what I just wrote, and then I realise I’ve just deleted a few objects on the workspace, that’s hidden somewhere behind the actionscript window. Where was Mr. Nielsen when you were doing this? :)Don’t get me wrong here, I love Flash. I’ve been using it since it was futuresplash, and making my living with it since Flash 4. I love a lot of the new features, the new GUI and AS2.But there wasn’t a point release on MX. It needed one. This one needs one more, so will we get one?

  98. david,quote: “Yes, it was last updated on 10/19 actually.”back to the future kinda thing, eh? 😉

  99. emile swain says:

    The XP rounded corner style interface is pointless and if you ask me takes up valuable screen real-estate.The as editor is only slightly improved with the extra pinning of script panes. Why are the tabs for the scripts at the bottom of the pane and not the top like every other application in the world?I was expecting something like sciteFlash to be completely integrated inplace of the current one. Wheres function collapsing? Thats invaluable with long scripts.AS2 rocks as does the new component features. Im still developing flash 6 components internally, i hope flash 7 will vastly improve the live preview, etc.Haven’t used remoting and am only just getting into it. Seeing as the share of information is fundamental to RIA’s im surprised it isn’t included.I love the fact it can export flash 6 better than mx. I love the fact video and compression is vastly improved.I dont feel the unicode and embedding of fonts is satisfactory, maybe some documentation would help answer some the question i have regaurding embedding fonts and shared font librarys.The autoupdateable help file…we wouldn’t need one if you wrote the help file in the first place. Its just a subterfuge.Will eventually upgrade to MX2004, but to be honest it would only be for the improved efficiency of the ide as no clients will be using flash 7 until penertration is as flash 6 is now. Give it a year or so, as i expect macromedias delivery system of flash player will be better than before.Also i wonder why someone hasn’t come up with a delivery system such that IT departments can properly upgrade there companies into the 21st century. Some of our clients are still using flash 4 and this should be addressed.Over all i think there are some very good improvements, but i also think this whole upgrade is purley a well intentioned attempt to bring together all of there products. This is a good move as developers will often find themselves using different products with familiar interfaces.I do think they’ve let them selves down a bit on some of the features though.

  100. Jason Merrill says:

    Found some more things that bother me about MX Pro 2004 on Win2K:1. What’s up with the tranform panel? I select a symbol on the stage, go to the transform panel, check “Constrain” and then enter 80% in both fields. It does nothing. In MX, it used to scale the instance down as expected. Anyone else seeing this? I can’t believe this works so poorly. Actually, can’t believe it doesn’t work!2. I have a complex graphic animation (from Swift 3d) I bring into a timeline. When editing in that timeline, the MX Pro screen does not refresh!!! I click to delete a line, and can only see it when I cover the stage with a window and then uncover it. Very frustrating! Also, I try to put actionscript in a frame in layer 1, but it always ends up in layer 2 where the graphic is.3. Undo features works really strange. It now undoes the change in edit modes! This is OK, except it gets confusing! MX used to only undo what was done in the specific timeline you were editing. I have had experiences where I couldn’t undo far enough to fix a problem no matter how many times I selected undo. I liked the MX way much better. Not only that, it seems there are times when I can’t get back to where I was when I made the mistake no matter how many times I “undo”. Just awful. 🙁

  101. BJ says:

    I want my non linear, timeline specific undo back. It’s driving me nuts. Who decided this was the way to go?

  102. Activation. “You must transfer the license…” What a load of crap!So, I drive home thinking I could continue working on my project… but wait, Macromedia has put its ugly foot down trampling all over my good intentions. “This product is already active on another computer. You must first transfer the license…” — despite what the sales person said at Macromedia, “yes, our new user agreement is just like Adobe’s, of course you can install it on two computers”.Sure, I can install it on two computers, but, O ye feeble minded (and sorry long-commuting suckers like myself) beware, you must first remember transfer your license (and wait a whole minute to do so).I can’t imagine that there isn’t anyone at Macromedia that is smart enough to have it query for an active serial number as opposed to the crap it’s doing now. If they can’t figure it out, I’m more than happy to charge them $300/hr as a consultant to hold their hand.

  103. Heinrich Metzger says:

    I bought a car.Weeks later I discovered after I had a flat tire that there is no spare tire even though io paid for it …One year later the car company offers me an “Update” that gives me a shiny new Dolby Surround Car Stereo System but no spare tire…And the windshield wiper is gone too…Why can software companies get through with this ?I mean If I do a Flash project for a client that has bugs, I don’t get paid until I fix those.So why the F… should I pay MM for this.I think people should really be thinking about class-action against non-working software crap.

  104. Rob says:

    I don’t like how hard it is to assign dynamic content into a ScrollPane or Window component. Currently I’m having to load an empty MovieClip instance and then attach the dynamic content on top of this empty MovieClip since the content property is supposed to be read-only.I also am having problems when I set dynamic content into a ScrollPane. It seems that the ScrollPane is not taking account of the space the scrollpanes take, because the lower-right corner of the content is underneath the scrollbars. All attempts so far to find a work around have not worked.

  105. Rob says:

    Also every time i use the refreshPane() method of ScrollPane the script runs to slowly and it prompts me to abort it.

  106. Chris Flowers says:

    >I’ll second that.Why is it so hard for MM to simply say…”We are working on a patch and it will be posted soon” ??Until I hear this MX2004 isn’t even an option.

  107. david doull says:

    lots of people, including me, work on laptops at resolution 1024x768please do some testing at this resolution, and see if you waste less screen space, espec. with docked pannels

  108. Jamie Badman says:

    First impression was… ‘WOW’. Looks great. Everything was wondrous; sure it meant I’d have to port a LOT of code (used more Firefly stuff that you could ever imagine; a financial app for MCI with over 60 data integrated screens) but, hey, no pain no gain. I don’t mind doing something if it’s for the best… but…Then I tried it. Properly. First, the documentation is sketchy, non-existant even, in places. It’s unclear, there’s no coherent starting point. Nothing.And then, after a while you begin to work things out and find that loads of stuff just doesn’t work at all. Or is so bad it’s unusable.Like:No Serverside Paging (a key feature we used in the Firefly work)The Grid is HORRENDOUSLY slow once you put a few columns and rows in it and have a full screen sized grid – the scrolling is so bad it’s pretty much unusable.The Formatters don’t work properly (at least they don’t work like the Help says they should!).The Tree component doesn’t have H-scroll on the tree, so you expand the tree too much, your labels get cut. You might argue ‘use smaller labels’ – but if it’s all DB driven and the labels are also ‘officially condoned text’ then you’re kind of stuffed.Loads… LOADS more. I can honestly say that it’s unusable for anything we need to do with it here in Corporate Systems. With MX and Firefly we had our problems but finally managed to create a nice app but with 2004 it’s a step back in functionality terms due either to oversights or bugs and this, as far as I’m concerned, makes it a liability I’m not prepared to embrace.And what worried me even more so is, Macromedia never seem to bother releasing patches any more. They just don’t. No patches for Flash MX, no patches for Data Connection Kit. It’s a ‘you don’t like it, go away’ attitude as far as I can make out. Well unless a patch is released that seriously addresses the kinds of issues we’re seeing, we’ll take that advice and go away.It’s a shame though because it has SUCH potential. For a heavy data-enabled corporate app you’re attempting to provide what Powersoft (who were acquired by Sybase) SHOULD have done with their (once market leading) product ‘Powerbuilder’. But they blew it and lost their market share. Flash is doing it the way Powerbuilder SHOULD have. But they need to get it sorted QUICK or the moment will be lost.I hope it’s not though; I want to stay!Jamie.

  109. ryan quigley says:

    When you try and edit semi-transparent text over a black background, there is no contrast in the display and the type is illegible.1. create black background movie2. using a type tool, make a static text box and type something in the window.3. color the type with 10% alpha black or white4. it’s impossible to read what you typed without getting out of edit mode

  110. Todd Dominey says:

    Regarding FMX2004 under OS X, I agree with another post here about the use of Sheets. “Sheets,” for those who don’t know, are the drop-down finder windows that appear inside an application’s main window when you save a file. I’m glad that FMX2004 supports Sheets (unlike FMX which used pop-up windows), but the implementation is bad. When you try to save, the Sheet pops behind all your floating palettes. So in order to save a doc, you have to move / close all your menus to get to the window.The solution would be to “push” the main window to the top of the window stack when you save so you can access the Sheet.

  111. Steve says:

    Just completed an all nighter on a project in MX 2004 pro that was fairly standard except for a lot of video.cons:- Opening Flash takes easily twice as long as MX.- Crashed about 20 times when trying to delete a complex MC that contained video. Only work around was to open the MC and delete the contents inside. I couldn’t even move it one frame without crashing which was a real problem since it was on the first frame and I needed a blank space…- Library always reappears back in the panel set. I like the panel set but I like my library to float.- Why on earth was scale&rotate (cntrl-alt-s) removed? I use that constantly!- Script editor is really slow when it opens- Clicking line number in the editor doesn’t select the line and instead insert breakpoint.- Might be just me but if I have rulers on I get the green guide bar 9 times out of 10 when I try to grab the bar to open up the timeline (so I can see more layers). It seems to be a very thin area to grab.- Tieing the video encoder to a “purchased” copy of MX 2004 Pro makes no sense. We have a perfectly good rig that we do all our video work on loaded with Final Cut Pro, After Effects, Etc. Why does that machine have to have Flash installed to render out an FLV? This seriously cramps machine time (and budgets) for production houses larger than a one man shop. It’s clearly political since the “demo” version works just fine (other than the red diaganol bars). Why wouldn’t you want everyone to have the ability to render out FLV files with or without Flash installed?Pros:- Video seems to be working well. It imports faster than MX.- I like the tabbed open movies. I was always going to the window menu before to swap between open movies.Steve

  112. steve-o says:

    Well as a Mac user I am pleasantly surprised. It appears that this time the Mac version seems to be more stable than Windows. And I do like the new clean interface. What I would give for faster performance though. The AS editor is particularly sluggish. And what is with the OS dialog boxes appearing *behind* open panels? That’s totally weird. And I agree with an earlier post that designers aren’t gonna see much in this upgrade. How about updating the (ancient by now) drawing tools?

  113. Oran Dennison says:

    My God, why did you change the way the undo system works? This one change alone has made flash 2004 unbearable to use. If I could have the ability to have the old style timeline-specific undo system back I’d overlook every other problem I’ve seen. How did this issue slip through the beta? Didn’t any of the beta testers complain about this? Why can’t “undo method” be a selectable option? I know MM’s trying to cater to VB forms-style programmers who may want a linear undo (do they really?), but please try to remember your current user base!Ugh. I was so disappointed when I found out that the undo had been changed, I immediately regretted the money I spent on Flash MX 2004 pro, and I’m seriously considering trying to get a refund. I know I will definitely be advising the companies I work with not to upgrade. (unless I get some kind of confirmation that there will be a forthcoming patch, but given MM’s patch-releasing history for flash I don’t think we can count on it.)The other big problem I’m encountering is the assignable hotkeys don’t work. For the life of me I can’t get the actions panel to come up no matter what I assign it to. I’m running Win2k SP3 btw, and I never ever had a problem with hotkeys in flash mx.Also, ditching normal mode wasn’t exactly the most newbie-friendly move. I’m sure you had your reasons, but I, and I’m sure many others without a programming background, have learned actionscript by using the normal mode. It was called “normal” mode in previous versions of flash – since expert mode is the default in mx 2k4 I guess we’re all supposed to be “experts” now? In light of the other newbie-friendly changes made to flash I find this particular change very puzzling. Personally I think this is another case of trying to cater to VB programmers without considering your current userbase.Lastly, the extra screen real estate eaten up by the rounded edge interface is troubling. Yes it’s just a few millimeters, but on my screen it’s equivelant to a layer-width on the timeline. Every little bit helps.

  114. phil stevens says:

    I just saw my next free gift from Macromedia:http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0321228413/ref=pd_sbs_b_2/002-6760225-5301646?v=glance&s=booksOne of these in the post is the LEAST MM can do for all the suckers that’ve alpha-tested their computer-crash application (aka Flash MX2004).Well, come to think of it, this book isn’t NEARLY enough compensation…

  115. ryan quigley says:

    would like the ability to use arrow keys to increment/decrement values when focus is in a numerical input box (i.e. font size)

  116. Bob Chan says:

    Well, im not a expert user, Im only a student in an animation club, but here are the things that kinda annoy me:1) Timeline dragging, instead of just going to the end of a keyframe and dragging (to increase the length of time of an image), I have to CLICK on the end and then RECLICK and drag, whereas you can just click and drag in flash 5.2) Lack of any sort of crash recovery feature (added with increased crashes caused by SIMPLE action of dragging of movieclips to the stage, or pasting text).3) I would like the option to have the old panels mode back because the standard panel in the bottom center (the one that takes care of almost everything) just takes too much space when its maximized, and its a pain to keep maxing and unmaxing it.4) The undo changes. Before i could just undo a deletion to a movieclip that I screwed up on in the beginning of the day, now i have to undo EVERYTHING and its a pain.5) Newbie unfriendly. The lessons were MUCH better in flash 5.6) Oh, and while we may not have the best computers at my school, this version loads WAY longer then flash 5 or mx.

  117. Steve says:

    Posted above but just finished playing with the undo system/history pallet.I am not usually one to gripe on public forums but is this a joke? Everytime I click the screen anywhere it records to the history pallet with an entry of “select none.”So, in the course of a typical project I will end up with thousands of history entries? The Photoshop history pallete is excellent. Do an “operation” and it records it. It does not record every frigg’n mouse click.Upon creating a new symbol you immediately get “two” history entries.- Create New Symbol- Enter Edit ModeUmm, why? Do I have a choice to not enter edit mode? Selecting an item but doing nothing gives you a “change selection” entry even though you haven’t changed anything. Clicking an item and dragging it gives you a “change selection” entry and a “move” entry. Why both?Going back to the root timeline and realizing I made a mistake cannot be corrected with undo without first undoing everything in the history palette!!! OMG!!!! How can you guys think this is an improvement? The object based system was so elegent! Incredible actually!Please, please return to the timeline based undo. This new system does not help anyone at all. It sincerely hurts your current, faithful user base.Steve

  118. Chris Flowers says:

    Although I’ve posted before I’ll underscore the complaints I share about the new undo system.How is it that Flash users immediately notice what a bad idea this change wasyet MM went forward with it?I keep returning here for some official patch release notice.This list has gotten quite long and there *still*isn’t a post letting users know if a patch is coming.Why do we need to continue showing our supportwhen MM doesn’t return the same repect.MX2004 – ‘We can’t wait to see if you fix it’Chris

  119. Using XP here on a relatively new machine (I probably don’t have half the installs most people on this list probably have) and I just wanted to say that I haven’t experienced any crashes yet…and the program itself has yet to slow down. About the only thing I have ever been upset about is the Timing of the release…but that’s another issue.Although I have yet to really have time to actually sit and think up something to do to utilize anything requiring the flash 7 plugin using 2004 to work on my old MX projects has been quite nice.The lack of robust documentation on anything 2004 is really what is holding me back from utilizing the software more.Shane

  120. Bentley Wolfe says:

    Chris Flowers:Gathering all the feedback and deciding what course of action to take takes much longer internally than anyone thinks. There are many things to consider after a first release of a new version. It takes quite awhile just to gather all the necessary feedback, and that’s important because you want to be certain you’ve read the problems correctly. This is more than a few week long process.Obviously I’m still reading this blog, and channeling reports to our tracking application and the product team for discussion. Listening always comes first, and that’s what we’re doing now.While I’m on the subject, folks with performance issues are welcome to hit the Flash MX 2004 performance survey at:http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=91195284360–Regards,Bentley WolfeSenior Support Engineer, MacromediaFlash Senior Escalation EngineerAnnouncing MX 2004. New versions of Dreamweaver,Flash, Fireworks, Studio and the new Flash Pro. http://www.MX2004.com

  121. Chris Flowers says:

    Thanks Bentley.I’m sure we all realize that an actual patchtakes time. Please, take the time, do it right.But any official word that there will actually*be* a patch is what we really need to hear.Feedback has been given for several versionswithout any patches issued.Flash means alot to us and there arefeatures in MX2004 I’d like to use butyour company’s silence makes it animpossible purchase.

  122. Andy says:

    About a week ago I got an email from somebody at Macromedia regarding the bugs I’d left in these comments asking if I would be happy to go through some questions with them. I said yes but have since heard nothing back.I’m really hoping that the questions aren’t going to turn out to be that survey linked to above, the survey questions seem to be a basic bug/crash report form and I don’t think any of us really has the time to fill out the form for every single bug we’ve found in Flash MX 2004. Since posting my bugs on here originally I must have found at least 20 more.

  123. Andi says:

    Just dipped into the demo…Seems like a nice package – first impressions:Slow to load compared to MX (Dual 1.2 G4)Editing seemed easier/faster with MX (use novice mode to rough out, expert to tidy)Could do with having more sample code bundled with it – expecially explaining connection to databases using components.

  124. ryan quigley says:

    When I recompile a flash 5 FLA with MX 2004, switch statements no longer work in flash 5 player (i tested with 5r30 and 5r41). works fine in 6 and 7 player. additionally, same code compiled in MX works fine with all players.section = “home”switch (section) {case “home”:trace (“works”);break;default:trace (“broken”);}

  125. tim says:

    I have some issues with MX04, but the main one is this:I “save as MX” from 04. I open in “old” MX. The file appears. I ctrl-L to open the library, it crashes MX. Open again. Test movie, I get tons of Actionscript errors. TONS.This is for a file that was developed in old MX, opened in MX04, saved as old MX from MX04.XP Pro, all updates, p4 2.4, 1G ram.

  126. ryan quigley says:

    to follow up on previous post regarding switch statements, the behaviour is broken only when string comparisons are used

  127. Jeff McLaughlin says:

    My impression after working with MX for an afternoon on a dual 1 GHz G4 running OS X 10.2.8 with 1 GB of RAM.I’ve found at least a dozen bugs already. The deal breaker: If I copy and paste keyframes repeatedly, each copy and paste action will be slower than the last. By the fourth or fifth copy and paste, I see the “spinning beach ball” and Flash locks up completely.This bug renders a $300 upgrade virtually unusable in my production environment. The majority of my work involves cartoon style animation where re-use of keyframes is a necessity. I simply can’t use my upgrade until this bug is fixed. :(Also…please bring back the old undo system + scale and transform dialog box.

  128. jason says:

    one thing I’ve noticed…in Flash 5/MX, when you hit CTRL+Enter to test the movie, it creates a .swf with the same filename as the movie…MX2004 on the other hand uses the publish settings to create the test .swf…Technically, not a big deal – but it does screw up my old version control system (keep a main, current final version from publish settings…test movies in the middle use .fla file names). not sure if anyone else has noticed this, or it’s just my quirky styles…but it caught me a few times throwing things online that weren’t the files I expected them to be (test movie with changes after publishing, didn’t want the changes to go up)…etc…rant over.

  129. D. Latz says:

    Unnötig!Es ist keine neue Version und nur wenig erweitert. Flash 2004 wäre eigentlich besser als kostenloses Update rausgekommen!Ich bleibw auf jeden Fall fürs Erste bei lash Mx!

  130. Jan says:

    I’ve been using FMX2004 for several weeks now. Made the mistake of starting some projects in it. And now i’m stuck :)A few issues :Change UNDO back to old way !!!FMX2004 does funky stuff in the back of my system, it causes other software to act weird or even crashAfter a while the “transform” panel doenst react anymore, You can change values, but nothing happens, jumps back to 100%The stage is a lot slower then in the old FMX, selecting an dragging mc can take a whileI’m using a P4 2.3 Ghz, 512 Mb RAMI hope we get the update real soon !!!!Apart from this, thanks MM for this great piece of software. Just save your reputation, and fix these problems fast.

  131. Eric says:

    Man – I was so stoked to get MX Pro. I got it a week ago, have been working on a project since I got it and all the sudden………..CRASH!!! It crashes every time I copy and paste frames.I’m on the horn right now with Macromedia and I better get a solution because for some reason, I can’t open the MX Pro document with the old Flash MX.I’m in trouble!!!

  132. Oran Dennison says:

    Bentley Wolfe wrote:”I’m sure our experienced developers know that we cannot comment on whether or not there will be a dot release. Not only is it against policy to do so, but it’s dangerous to make forward looking statements”Sorry Bentley, but that is simply ridiculous. In principle it’s great to have a policy to not make dot releases, which implies a commitment to excellence and a commitment to doing it right the first time. Obviously, based on the comments in this thread and elsewhere on the web you’ve already broken the implied reasons for having such a policy. You’ve released an incomplete, broken product – and it’s costing you money. I know this for a fact, because in my position in the IT department at a large university I personally stopped a planned upgrade for all of our studio MX licenses to MX 2004. If there are other IT managers like me out there (and I know there are) this type of thing has to be making an impact. Frankly I just don’t want to deal with all of the headaches this upgrade will cause for our users.I’ll end with a true story about company policies and their effect on doing business. Once upon a time there was a sandwich store, which had a strict company policy to only serve a menu of seven sandwiches. When someone suggested that they add a turkey sandwich to the menu it rocked their organization, but after much deliberation they finally added it to the menu. Hundreds of new stores and millions of dollars later the turkey sandwich is still Subway’s top seller. Had they not bent company policy they wouldn’t be the franchise they are today.Bottom line? You’re not perfect, nobody is- we’re all human. Let’s admit this fact. Create a dot release and make your customers happy, and in turn make yourselves lots of money. Let’s not wait 18 long months to release the version of flash that mx 2004 could’ve been (and in the meantime further tarnish MM’s reputation). Let’s make MX 2004-SR1 the great release that we all know you are capable of making. And please, in the meantime (as Dr. Evil would say) “throw us a frickin’ bone here”.

  133. Jason Merrill says:

    Weird things happen sometimes in 2004 Pro. Last night, I was trying to load a movie clip, and my code simply said to load “fileB.swf” for example, but when I tested the movie, I kept getting an error that seemed to come to an old code reference I once made to an old file “fileA.swf” (the error was cannot find “fileB.swf”, and yet fileA.swf never got loaded in). I checked everywhere for the old code that once called “fileB.swf”, and it was nowhere to be found – it drove me nuts. FileB.swf was even still in the same place it had always been. I restarted Flash, re-saved the file, looked everywhere possible the code could be trying to load the old .swf file, and finally gave up and went to bed thinking my .fla was corrupted. So this morning when I got in to work, I didn’t change a thing to my file, and tested the file out of curiosity. Worked perfect. Like somehow overnight some gremlin got in my machine and deleted the old actionscript reference to load fileB.swf that I had deleted a long time ago. Or that somehow rebooting my machine cleaned up the .fla.Also, weird behaviors with lots of large single keyframe animations on a timeline. Sometimes Flash MX 2004 Pro will just wig out and not let me edit the timeline, not let me select things, place code in the wrong keyframe, not draw the timeline correctly, etc. Only happens when I bring in Swift3D keyframe animations. And yes, I have updated my video drivers.Also, my Transform panel doesn’t work anymore. I cannot get others to replicate this, but mine is corrupted and doesn’t work anymore.I guess I need to re-install or something.

  134. BJ says:

    Oran Dennison wrote:”Sorry Bentley, but that is simply ridiculous.”I don’t thing he meant that dot releases are against comp.pol. but that commenting on them is (though it does seem that that is the policy… er, No comment!)

  135. pete hawkes says:

    Only just starting to get into MX2004. I’ve been working in flash since version 3, and each version has added more without alienating new users or old users.I teach a beginning Flash class, and I must say .. I feel for my students. Learning this beast will scare away plenty of potential flashers. It looks more like a hard core development tool than the agile, unique program it’s been.A couple personal disappointments that severely impede the speed/convenience I had in previous versions:Scale and Rotate dialog box.Extremely useful. The trasform panel is good for viewing current settings, but not for applying precise, incremented transformations.Independent UNDO sequences.It may have bogged down memory after awhile, but it was SO nice to go back into a movieclip an hour later and undo some little thing. Now the UNDO moves the playhead, jumps around through symbol views and doesn’t always do it right (doesn’t remember Edit In Place). So now the default setting is 1000 undo levels.. a useless number. It was nice to have it separate and non-linear. That’s what made Flash so powerful in the first place.Library’s default is docked, even after you’ve undocked the thing. Just plain annoying.Here’s to hoping things will get better as I adjust.

  136. BJ says:

    –quote from Flashcoders:”once you right click on the movie in which mouse pointer is hidden, itbecomes visible!!!”

  137. Mario Noble says:

    I’ve been a Flash designer since Flash 3. I’ve enjoyed it very much but I question the current thrust of Macromedia’s development for Flash and marketing to needs outside of its core user base.Why did people decide to use and create Flash sites/content in the first place?Because it engaged people utilizing animation, sound and greater interactivity than was possible at that time. I’m not so sure that’s still true.Plus, you didn’t have to deal with many browser incompatibilities and limitations if you operated off an app that wasn’t browser dependant. I’m not so sure that’s still true anymore as well.It was more consistent, easier to design for (I felt I had greater freedom and room to be creative) and excited my clients and I.Once again, I’m not so sure that’s still true.Macromedia, and I believe Media should be the operative word here, seems to be moving farther and farther towards content delivery and processing, which is fine, but if that’s not my priority or more importantly my client’s priority, I think I’ll stick with standard html. Particularly if work created is not backwards compatible.I care about my clients, and if the current trend continues, I won’t recommend Flash as the main medium to present a website (perhaps as “animation blocksâ€? or navbars using F4 or F5 players).Yes, the latest app is more probably robust from a developer standpoint, but is it more designer/animator (or even client) friendly now? It doesn’t seem like things are heading in that direction.Why would we switch? If you take out the nifty fx aspect, why wouldn’t a client just use a modern html based website with a robust backend if it accomplishes the main task, which is – communicate their message? If it’s reinforced by nifty effects for not much time and trouble, great! More money and time? No thanks.Much of what is coming out seems like a reinvention of the wheel For many, Flash is associated with bells and whistles spectacle and that’s value added from a clients POV.But it’s not value added if it takes longer for me to develop as a designer, takes forever for me to learn (and deal with massive amounts of bugs) and in the end doesn’t really add much to the visitors experience and the clients bottom line.It’s trying to do everything and I’m not sure that’s particularly wise or necessary. After reading tons of posting on the new MX2004, I’ve decided to wait on buying the new version and start phasing it out as an often used app for my clients.I still appreciate all the work that team Macromedia has done over the years. I think they’ve made something special but I also think that MM needs to revisit it’s original mission.

  138. Mario Noble says:

    Sorry about the wacked characters folks. should’ve previewed my posting…

  139. Jim Wheaton says:

    My god, the frustration! Don’t get me wrong, I think MM is going in the right direction with this thing, but the IDE is a complete PILE OF $#%. Never have I encountered so many bugs and instability problems with anything before. Who wrote this thing anyway! It crashes all of the time (doesn’t matter what apps I have open), screws up other applications all the time and my OS (I can’t create child windows -> can’t even launch task manager to kill flash). Some of the components seem buggy too. I spend most of my time debugging these than my own code. I was excited at the prospect of AS2.0, but I must say that the EXTREMELY BUGGY IDE has squashed all of my joy. Macromedia should be embarrassed for putting out such a lousy product. Terrible, terrible, terrible.

  140. ben says:

    huge problems working with keyframes that contain movie clips – will not move delete or copy and paste without crashing.

  141. Joshua Sera says:

    Private instance variables are behaving like static variables. I’m using the following class definition:class arrayExp {private var aNotStatic:Array = [];public function arrayExp() {this.aNotStatic[this.aNotStatic.length] = “Hi There!”;}public function exposeArray():Void {trace(this.aNotStatic);}}Then, in the root timeline, I’m doing this:stop();objOne = new arrayExp();objTwo = new arrayExp();objOne.exposeArray();Since arrayExp’s private array wasn’t declared static, each instance should have it’s own array, but the trace showed that objOne’s array contained two items.

  142. Joshua Sera says:

    As a follow-up, this class definition worksclass arrayExp {private var aNotStaticpublic function arrayExp() {this.aNotStatic = [];this.aNotStatic[this.aNotStatic.length] = “Hi There!”;}public function exposeArray():Void {trace(this.aNotStatic);}}So, for some reason, explicitly declaring the type as an array seems to turn aNotStatic into a static variable.

  143. jason says:

    You guys… Give me back the normal mode for action scripting. I don’t have time to learn how to code by hand…This is a serious issue. You’ve created massive problems for designers who don’t know how to code properly, and potentially for beginners who haven’t started learning flash. I know if I were to have started using flash at mx2004, I would have given up pretty fast.So you give us the behaviours. This is so incredibly ridiculous. They are rarely useful, and well NEVER replace the normal AS mode. Your rationale for using the behaviors and removing the normal editing mode is laughable.Why have you REMOVED things when you could have (BUT SHOULDN’T) switched them off? Always give your users options guys, sheesh… That’s a no-brainer.This is a historical screw-up. All will be forgiven, I’m sure, if you give us back what we so obviously need.

  144. Jason Campbell says:

    If I had one thing I would like to see back it would be in the form of the transform tool. In MX the point of influence of the transform was defaulted to the registration point of the symbol, and if you wanted it to be in a different spot well no problem it would snap to each handle of the transform gizmo as well as the center of the object. In MX it defaults to the center and snaps to nothing. This has really been a hassle to me in development and a I pray to God that you fix this as soon as humanly possible.Thanks.

  145. Just saw the offcial notice about a patch coming in November.Thanks guys. Glad to see MM doing the right thing.Many many thanks.Now put the undo back like it was PLEASE!Chris

  146. dave h says:

    I’ve been using Flash since version 3, and I have generally been happy with the direction that Flash has taken. When Flash 5 came out and actionScript had changed so drastically, I remember being very frustrated and I wondered at the wisdom of moving towards javaScript rather than Lingo – in retrospect, this was obviously foolish :). So I am cautiously optimistic about the move to AS 2.I have to say though, that as a working developer, I am always weighing the potential benefits of learning any new languages/technologies – and the problems highlighted here, coupled with my own slow-motion experience of the MX 2004 IDE, the incredibly poor docs, the apparent amnesiac approach to Flash Remoting which I have just finished learning, etc., make me wonder whether I would be better off spending my time learning C#, SVG, maybe some J2ME — basically, something else. Hopefully the dot upgrade and more documentation will address the problems, but until then I can see no compelling reason to recommend an upgrade to the managers here – until there is a book on the shelves that I can learn from, or some documented APIs that I can use (and *other developers* can also use), there’s absolutely no point.So, I have very mixed feelings at the present time – I love Flash, it has been my constant companion every day for the last 4 years, so please keep it going!

  147. Promth says:

    http://www.svachon.com/articles/?ref=2003_09_12That about sums it up. I give MX2004 (both Pro and normal) a 1/10.

  148. Prometh says:

    http://www.svachon.com/articles/?ref=2003_09_12That about sums it up. I give MX2004 (both Pro and normal) a 1/10.

  149. Steven says:

    Hi Prometh,After reading your link, I’II give it a -5/10!!!1/10 is way to generous .. one that mm does not deserve,Anyway it seems that the mm guys here have dissappeared! won’t be surprise if this feedback page gets deleted in the next couple of days!mm – when r u going to fix it!

  150. Tom Klepl says:

    MX2004.. I quite like where this is all going. The new data components are really cool. A lot was added to this release and Macromedia must have had a lot of pressure to add standards compliant features such as web services, accessibility, and e-learning features. So it’s not surprising that there are bugs and areas that need work. I think MM now needs to get back to basics and really fix up the stuff that has been bugging flash developers for a long time, and work on perfecting the new features…aaaand IMHO these fixes should appear in the form of a free update or two.Top mx2004 issues for me:- Undo (this really should not have been changed, it totally breaks my concentration and disrupts the development/design process). Especially don’t like how flash pops me out of edit-in-place mode. History palette doesn’t help. Can we please have the old multi-undo back?- Memory leak with web services connector. I built a simple web service with CF that loads some news items into flash. Each time this is triggered, about 300KB is added to IE’s mem usage. 300KB!! This can’t be right.- Global find/replace doesn’t always work properly – it doesn’t always find all instances. Also, when text is found in an actionscript block, the cursor should jump to the point where the text was found.- What happened to flash remoting – I expected this to be improved upon with this release, not swept under the rug. Not really sure where MM is going with this. It seemed like a really big deal at the Flash in the Can conference just 6 months ago.. I’m getting mixed messages…- Array of objects returned from a web service – for some reason only works if object names are specified in ALL CAPS. Also, About 1 in 20 times, web service connector just doesn’t work and my app sits there doing nothing. Would be nice if it retriggered itself if no response is received. Seems to happen on Mac mostly.- What happened to the scrollbar component?- Better documentation required. Connecting Flash to a database is still pretty tedious/laborious and needs to be outlined & detailed better. I *do* however like the new help interface and prefer it over the old html/java version. I don’t like it being a pane though, I would prefer it to be a separate windows app. I’m always getting it mixed up with the actions pane.- Slow load time of IDE :(- GUI: looks nice – I think MM can stick with this for a while now, no need to update the look of the panel title bars in each release.. Rounded corners etc. look cool but realistically, this is not that important for me.- As others have said, there were issues with previous versions of flash that weren’t fixed in this release, such as:- Actions pane loses focus when alt-tabbing back from another application. Focus should be restored to wherever it was.- Type1 fonts are not fully supported (type1 fonts often have many styles other than Bold and Italic, which are not selectable in flash!)- Still not able to change the character spacing of dynamic text..- Ever since flash mx we can no longer change color/alpha properties of a movieclip by clicking its keyframe. We must click the object itself on the stage, adding a step to the process. This was better in flash 5! I think context sensitivity in the property inspector should be re-evaluated. Why is half the property inspector area devoted to sound controls when I have selected a keyframe without any sound??- It is my feeling that MM needs to do more studies of the working habits of Flash users before making changes to the UI, and to seek feedback on existing issues that people have. Even the slightest change can really throw a wrench into the design/development process. But a well thought out change can be really helpful.- As for stability/performance, it has been ok for me (P4 1.8Ghz/512MB,XP) as long as I don’t do something like open the Quiz template. Dreamweaver on the other hand needs a great deal of work.Thanks for listening (MM, if you’re still reading these.)

  151. Tom Klepl says:

    And I can’t forget – text wrapping bugs in a multiline text field.Even with player 7, hyphens end up on the beginning of the following line instead of the end of the first line, and spaces somehow end up at the beginning of lines. This is a big one! I’m surprised it wasn’t fixed yet.

  152. James says:

    Yeah, the cut and paste thing is bloody annoying. wah!

  153. Mark says:

    I only got about a third of the way through the comments before jumping down to the Post fields, so hopefully this isn’t too redundant. I can say positively that I haven’t crashed Flash MX 2004 Pro much at all (Gateway laptop, XP Pro, P4 1.2 GHz, 512 MB RAM (upgraded from 256 MB when I installed Flash)). I am surprised to see how often that’s been encountered. I did have one nasty run-in with .ID3 properties of an mp3 file I had loaded. Even inside a conditional statement, just the presence of that AS code would keep it from publishing and sometimes crashed it.BIG negative in my book, coming from a background working extensively with XML and Microsoft’s implementation across their products – where’s full XPATH support?And I also agree with many of the comments regarding HTML & CSS support. It’s great to be able to pull an image in through .html text, but I can only align it left and right, etc?The IDE is a bit clunky, especially when your screen only supports 1024 resolution. I’m constantly opening and closing panels, and I share the complaint that when I alt-tab or otherwise leave the IDE, I return and immediately start typing only to find I’m bouncing around the tool palette rather than writing ActionScript in the editor (where I left off). Little non-intuitive selections like this occur often and I’m forcing myself to learn to take extra steps to ensure I’m doing what I think I’m doing. And if I find myself doing something different…I’m often not sure what I’m undoing when I ctrl-Z.Finally I have to admit that I’m new to Flash and have started myself out on MX 2004, so I don’t have much for a point-of-reference. I just completed a project incorporating animation/timeline effects, loading of external content, ActionScripted events, etc, so all-in-all, it works and I haven’t felt my investment was a waste. But some things could be much more intuitive.

  154. Mike,I just upgraded to Flash 2004 Professional. I am very disappointed in what I see. MX was a great version with the addition of video importing and other UI improvements, but this new version seems so foreign.The timeline effects are clunky (reminds me of PowerPoint Effects). There is absolutely no documentation anywhere I can find, No tutorials to teach us about the new video enhancements, Nothing.Perhaps when some documentation comes out I can grasp the new additions but until then I will continue to use MX.

  155. Steve says:

    It seems to me that Flash MX 2004, both normal and Professional, are early alpha releases with “final” slapped on the front. They can’t be complete. They’re just too sloppy. Macromedia seems to be living by Microsoft’s philosophy on software development – “People don’t pay for bug fixes, they pay for new features”. Well, this new version of Flash has both few bug fixes and few new features. What’s even more unfortunate is that the majority of those new features are pointless and redundant. The 3 features that originally got me excited about MX 2004 aren’t enough to justify the amount of money required to use them. If you feel like wasting your money on this garbage, feel free. I’m not jumping on that sinking boat.

  156. Curtis Wiens says:

    I was expecting the patch to bring back the old undo functionality… : ( AAAAAAAAAAAHHH!!! I cant use mx04 until this happens. It makes me feel insane the way it now works. Popping all over the place…leave symbol edit mode.. up, you lost your undo history, sorry. This is how I have to work in MX04: Publish and check to make sure all works. Save quickly. repeat, repeat etc… when something breaks close window, don’t save, go back to saved copy. Big step backwards. Where was the feedback during beta on this subject???Never expect only hope…..

  157. BJ says:

    What’s the story on the undo, Macromedia? Why did it change? How come there’s not an preference to change it back to MX style? It’s extraordinarly frustrating.

  158. Birck Cox says:

    I’m new to Flash; I just finished taking a class in it, which was taught in MX. With my ephemeral student discount, I had just purchased MX 2004 Pro, and couldn’t understand why I was having so much trouble learning interactivity (buttons, movie clips, etc)at home on my Mac. Things seemed to be going fine in class, but I was totally stymied at home.The reason:The Actions Panel is now handled solely in actionscript. No user-friendly dialogue boxes for those unfamiliar with AS or java. Supposedly, the Actions panel methods of MX and earlier are now handled by “Behaviors”,a panel which may be new as of MX 2004. In other words, while the animation process is largely identical to MX and earlier, the interactivity functions in both MX 2004 and Professional can be handled either via AS or via Behaviors.Do I like it? I don’t like being blind-sided by Macromedia. I now have to learn the entire interactivity business on my own. Assuming that the newest version of Flash is more powerful than its predecessors, I will probably like the whole package once I get over being pissed.

  159. Kecske says:

    Hi Mike!I’m juggling a software budget for making a rich internet application for the county’s largest animal feed supplier at the moment. Before Flash MX 2004 came out I’d pretty much decided to purchase Flash MX with Cold Fusion MX so I could use Flash Remoting. In tests I did with MX and Coldfusion MX to evaluate possible solutions, Flash Remoting performed brilliantly.However, the lukewarm support for Flash Remoting in MX2004, non functioning DataGlue, etc. makes me wonder whether Macromedia’s heart is really in Flash Remoting. And if it’s not, should I feel confident enough to get my firm to invest in it? Should I bet the ranch on it?I would feel a lot easier about commiting my enitre software budget for 2004 on a Remoting solution if the “real” Flash MX 2004 Remoting plug-in is released and MM started making more reassuring noises about their commitment to remoting.Anyway, have a great day!Kecske Bak

  160. dw says:

    What an amazing product experience. I went from wow to absolutely distrusting macromedia in about a minute. How on earth could you let this thing out without normal mode. I guess you got tired of unqualified people saying they write code. Did some lead programmer get dissed by a cocky designer type or did you just rushed it out the door about 3 months early.I love the help in “ActionScript editor changes” that should have raised a red flag. This has got to be the most petty, geekcentric, worst show ever decision made in this field.

  161. Mark Statkus says:

    Praise:Tabs, interface, pane layouts. I run dual monitors and that simply is the best way to run this interface for anyone feeling cramped.Frustration:Library disapears every time I start flash. Would it pane (pun intended) someone to keep it up.@work the Properties tab sometimes doesn’t update and remains grey. I have to click on the tab and it appears to come up like it was minimized but wasn’t. Just a strange occurance.@home suddently started exporting / publishing to the Recycle Bin. Couldn’t locate my SWF’s then realized my Recycle Bin was full of SWF’s. Haven’t been able to duplicate.Components – you guys put a nice learning curve on them, but since learned you can extend them … just a curve.Books – Hope a decent one comes out soon. Figure it will be mid 04′ before i make sense of this all fully.I thank Macromedia for giving me a platform to design on other than HTML. Some of these posts are a bit critical, however I feel they have to remain competitive. You can create highly interactive applications that give you what a VB type interface lacks. I’ve taken full advantage of dynamic content, XML, Remoting and it has only made me realize further that this platform allows me to quickly create and deploy my projects the way I want them to look and feel.I’d like to point out I felt the same belly aches in .NET coming from ASP. You have to learn an assimalte the knowledge and get used to the new features in order to feel as productive as you use to feel in previous versions/languages. Plenty of people are available to help online.Thanks

  162. JH says:

    I am very concerned, as many others are, as to the intentions Macromedia has with regard to fixing MX 2004 (both versions). It seems an understatement that releasing these versions at this point of development has been premature.I have downloaded the trial version of MX 2004 and intended to install the Pro version, but after reading these posts, I will not attempt a migration to MX 2004 until some things are remedied and salient issues addressed.I interpret Macromedia’s intentions for the new versions (especially 2004 Pro and AS2) as creating a platform trying to be one platform for all people.The capabilities (or promise, actually) of these new versions may be able to bridge the divide between sites and applications that are visually appealing (design-centric) and those that are capable of doing “really serious” work (developer-centric). There seems to be promise of the ability to create gorgeous, dynamic, powerful applications, although wasn’t much of that same promise realized with MX/ColdFusion/Remote?AS2 may be able to take things to a level beyond prior capabilities, but I am not familiar enough with an OOP to know completely where this will take us beyond MX/ColdFusion/Remoting.A serious concern – what is happening with Remoting? There are several posts discussing concern over the disposition of Remoting. I am beginning a $200,000 research and development program in January TBD end of 2004, specifying Flash, ColdFusion, and Remoting as the principle development applications. This definition of development was authored prior to MX 2004 Pro being available. I do not want to develop applications that may rely on software being phased out.MM needs to communicate clearly, directly, and immediately with its developer community as to the disposition of fixing MX 2004 (both versions) and what the future holds for Remoting – their vision of its use, or lack of same (with MX 2004 at least). I remember Generator and Flash 4, then Flash 5 came along and killed the need for Generator entirely. Understandable – as product development evolves, integration applications drop out/change. But a heads-up would be greatly appreciated regarding Remoting.MM needs to act fast to rebuild developer confidence and move this transition into a positive event. I know all developers out there can relate to production deadlines, customer requirements and expectations, and the like. It seems Macromedias own developers had to work with the mandates of their customer (Macromedia corporate executives) and were forced to deploy a major product transition prematurely. Who among us thinks the programmers at Macromedia felt comfortable releasing MX 2004?

  163. Alex Birch says:

    I have the update installed…1. flash doesn’t remember when you stretch the timeline labels section. Next time you load the file the timeline is back to where it started.2. if you’re editing an actionscript section then preview your movie and then close that movie, the focus is no longer on the actionscript window (so if you press delete or tab delete you might delete a movieclip / object). You have to click on the action script window again. Very counterintuitive3. I have the actions tab down the bottom with the properties. if I preview a movie with the actions tab open then the actions tab goes away and the properties tab takes up the leftover space (90% of my screen) – I then have to minimise it to view the previewed movieclip. when I close the movie the properties tab is again taking up all my screen and I have to minimise it and maximise the actions tab! (that’s my fave bug)4. Combobox.scaleX and scaleY do not work at all – this is definitely somthing that testing should have picked up5. multiple undos on a per context level basis were much better than global undo in my opinion – how about being able to choose between both in the preferences.6. Data connectivity (DataGrids / Sets etc. ) need paging capabilities. It’s a bit slow returning 50 million results through my data connector and whacking it in a DataGrid. 20 at a time would be much better (.NET DataGrids do that)7. Trying to get the Color Mixer to choose the color of the item I’m selecting is touch and go at best8. Horizontal scroll bars for DataGrids plz.9. Text wrapping for DataGridsFlash MX 2004 is fantastic “in theory”, what is the likelihood of all these things plus the countless other highlighted issues being fixed?Incidentally, mx 2004 pro has only crashed on me once after heavy heavy use (even before the update) contrary to a lot of other users out there

  164. Bog says:

    There is now way to have a preloader when using the form application model!!!???

  165. Mark says:

    When will I be able to install the software I’ve spent $1000 on on both my Mac and PC.

  166. asl plz says:

    lookin’ for John Smithers

  167. Robert Mura says:

    Like many people, i’m kind of annoyed that there still isn’t full support for HTML and CSS. However, the current support is fairly workable, though could be expanded upon.Unlike other ppl, MX2k4 runs just fine on my machine. And that’s saying something. I’m running it on a P2 400mhz cpu with 256 megs of RAM, and yet it runs fine without slowdowns.

  168. Andy Smith says:

    I’m getting repeated crashes when publishing a movie, it’s happened every time I’ve tried to publish a Flash detection page at the same time as the swf.Powerbook 550mhz / 512mb Ram / 10gb free HD / OSX 10.3.2

  169. Jan Albartus says:

    I want to keep avoiding the upgrade as long as possible. I agree MX2004 is a step forward but the absence of normal mode FORCES me to spend way more time typing some common stuff.I am looking for an ‘plugin’ or ‘patch’ or whatever helps me to get a kind of normal mode panel back.Anyone knows such a thing???

  170. Frank says:

    Think the product has alot of potential, but that seems to be where it stops. I’m new to flash only a week into it.Biggest problem for me is that most components that MM ship are just awful, and large in size.First problem, simply create a button, button.onpress(function) { xyz } publish V7 and AS2 button does bugger all in previewSecond, datagrid, using just AS2, create datagrid using import mx.controls.DataGrid & gridclasses.DataGridColumn + the DataProvider.I can get dataprovider working with datagrid but cant get it working with columns and addItem. NO DocsMore I seem to use the product, seems I need to rewrite all the components I paid extra for in the first place, thats why I brought them not to reinvent the wheel.

  171. david says:

    Anybody at MM still reading this?

  172. Lalit says:

    How to convert Flash Mx 2004 fla file to flash mx fla file.Lalit Gupta

  173. JD Robbins says:

    Where’s MM?

  174. bas horsting says:

    Flash MX 2004 Professional is proving to be unusable for us. Backward compatibility of flash 7 authoring using Actionscript 1 scripts from MX(6) files is pathetic. The updated TextField is a SHAME especially when it comes to IMG-tag (non) support. How do you guys think you can get away with a textField object this bad… try dynamically adding an image with a hyperlink on (around) it to the htmlText and then ask the textfield what it’s htmlText is… you’ll have as much fun as I am having right now, trying to finish a rich content editor before Friday. It just throws the tags all over the place.Or just make an input text field and place some images in it and let users fool around with the text in them… I mean, doesn’t that make you feel really ashamed of yourselves? If you want to I’ve got a class for flowing text around images that performs 1000x better, you can just put that in, the TextField object right now perfoms as if it were programmed in actionscript anyway (is it?).The program is so unstable (under winXP) it reminds me of the old days when I had to struggle with Flash 5 on a Mac (now THAT was a badly programmed application!). It takes ages to start up, runs processes in the background that crash on their own behalf or don’t get killed when the program stops/crashes. Accidentaly make an actionscript infinite loop in a big enough script with some other programs open and you’ll have XP blocked until you restart (or maybe wait an hour? we don’t have an hour here!).I’m also wondering why I should have access to all flavours of Japanese character encoding ALWAYS when I ALWAYS work on Spanish projects, when I just want to embed some characters in my flash I now have to know all about international character encoding or I might just miss something out… ayayayThe undo behaviour, well, I’m still too surprised to even be angry about it. Did you actually try to write an application in this program? You should give it a try, I’ve got some clients waiting here I could really have some help with by now after wasting hours on all the abovementioned.Bas HorstingPublis NCM

  175. jamey says:

    I’m new to flash and I am taking a class at school and enjoying the hell out of it. It’s fun. I was considering shelling out the money to buy the program but tried the 2004 demo and hated it.I don’t know how you excpect newbies to get the hang of actionscripts without normal mode. I know my University faculty can’t believe the 2004 changes. They said they won’t be shelling out the cash for 2004 either.

  176. Anna says:

    I prefer FMX over FMX04, but thats just me.I havnt been using flash for very long, and mostly have been teaching myself how to work it with the exeptions of those nice lessons in Flash MX that i noticed ’04 doesnt have. Anyways, i learned alot quicker with FMX. Seeing that I am only 12, and i cant spend all day working on flash, the lessons in FMX worked real well for me. I did notice some crashing with 04, not much, but the fact that it didnt save, and just crashed annoyed me quite a bit.Overall it’s a good product, but you should stick with FMX.

  177. Chino says:

    Flash MX 2004 ‘s short coming.I’ve been using Flash for several years now and have found ways of doing things that I thought we impossible.Now what I find impossible is Macromedia showing the blind eye from an ever so present Market.Yes remoting is a wonderful concept and it works, but why give us PHP/MySQL people the run around.Java, NET, cold fusion…..no, no noHow hard could it have been to have a PHP remoting component embeded in the Pro version. Jebus, even the open source community managed to build it from scratch.Just don’t get it, everything else is almost magical in MX2004 except for that one minor detail which I believe was a major +, data-connectivity. Truely a short coming, ah well can’t stop the open source world. Until then, amfphp has made my Flash MX2004 just that much more enjoyable. Moreover, don’t need a server with a cold fusion license…c’mon, this is starting to sound a bit like a Microsoft monopoly story. Would not venture that way if I was macromedia; connectivity for NET and not PHP, who’s scratching who’s back in this story.

  178. cigars says:

    It has created a great deal of problems on our online cigars website. It conflicts with older versions and we had to eventually create an html backup so that when it conflicts the html pops up with the information. It was especially problematic in category pages such as the section for humidors,”>humidors,”>humidors,”>humidors,”>humidors,”>http://www.cubancrafters.com/accessories_list.php/catid/27/category/CUBAN+CRAFTERS+HUMIDORS“>humidors, and the sections for cigarcutters.”>cigarcutters.”>cigarcutters.”>cigarcutters.”>cigarcutters.”>http://www.cubancrafters.com/accessories_list.php/catid/15/category/CUBAN+CRAFTERS+CIGAR+CUTTERS“>cigarcutters. If I had to do it again, I would not and would be concerned about how the smokers of cigars find the site instead of how pretty it is. The functionability proved to be more important to the cigar smokers.

  179. Wiebe says:

    I’m currently automating a lot with the JSFL, it rules!But the implementation is buggy, incredible!, this is far worse than a microsoft beta release! every failed call to an external file causes flash to completely break down, so do a lot of other (failed) calls.Shoudn’t be a problem, but creating/debugging the scripts is hell.I’m also disappointed to see that JSFL doesn’t support the AS2 syntax, (or does it?) and that you can’t automate flash using COM/OLE (the custom DLL support is nice though)This has been said many times before, but the colon syntax is an absolute mistake i.m.o (variable:type). Also, AS2.0 pretends to be an (I know it complies to ECMA specs but they are the worst outdated specs ever) modern OO language, but is still far from it.Lacks:- interface support with properties- delegation- overloading- decent runtime errors for AS2.0 within the components (except for the IDE 🙁 )The performance of the components is absolutely uncomparable to any compiled language, I’d like to see a JIT compiler for SWF to improve performance.

  180. Suresh says:

    hican you please explain how to change the highlight color in the data grid component in flash MX2004 and also how to restrict the row selection display to a cell selection display.thank you

  181. erik says:

    I commonly seperate functionality by using external .as files.Likewise, I use breakpoints to debug, and also use breakpoints as visual references to important functions/sections of code.So, when I am working on the “main.fla” that will include various .as files, I need to have both the fla and the .as files open simultaneously.This way, I can change code in the .as file and compile thru the main.fla.Unfortunately, it seems I cannot set a breakpoint in an .as file when I am working on it within the flash environment ???Should’nt I be able to debug (use breakpoints and robust syntax highlighting) in my .as files , and not just .flas ?Am I missing something obvious ?Anyone know how to set a breakpoint in an external .as file ? Is it possible ?Am I being forced to go back into an external editor that has synatax highlighting features, …very inconvenient ?

  182. ivan pedraza says:

    I am not like the rest of you professional guys but have a complaint about the 2004 pro. It still have the scroll bar dissapearing problem even with the 7.01 upgrade and sometimes the actionscripts won`t work like in the mx version

  183. ahmed sabry says:

    jsfl batch for bitmapshi there,actually i’m surrounded by nightmares because of (JSFL).i have more than 3,000 flash files made by mx,each one has more than 200 bitmaps stored on the library with property (PNG/GIF).the point is:—– To Change all the bitmaps properties to JPEG and allow smothing and let the publish manage the quality., then remove the sound clips from the library., then import a publish profile for all the files., finally publish them as swf 6.0.

  184. RB says:

    I’m absolutely pissed off about some boneheaded decisions in MX2004. I JUST upgraded because I saw some benchmarks showing improved performance of even Flash 6 stuff published with MX 2004.Don’t get me wrong, there are great new features like aliased text, but here are the big complaints:1. Can’t keep the library undocked.2. Undo is linear. This is a big step backwards for anyone who edits lots of clips, nested objects, animation etc… Flash previously had THE most powerful Undo system I have ever experienced (and I’ve been working in interactive media since 1989). You blew it by trying to imitate Photoshop. Didn’t you know YOu had the better system?? How could you not? Did you have a big changein management or something?3. Library asset updating no longer shows you which items are “new”. used to be you could select several bitmaps or sounds in the library, right-click, choose “Update” and only those assets which had newer versions “waiting” would be checked on. In MX2004 ALL of them are checked on regardless. Gee thanks.4. Interface wastes lots of space. Panels have wasted space on the right side. Toolbar is wider than necessary. There’s lots of places where the layout could be much tighter, resulting in bigger “workspace”. It’s all about the workspace. Everything else is secondary “helper” stuff.5. Actionscript window size keeps resetting when I get back from doing a “Test Movie”.That’s all I can remember now. Basically, these things that bother me are serious enough that I want to use MX instead.

  185. Christine says:

    I am having some real problems using gradient fills when I’m drawing. I choose or create my own gradient, then I try to fill something – and more than half the time it fills it with some solid color.I figured out a fix – Close Flash, open it back up, open my file, go back to the item I’m trying to fill – now the gradient works.Very frustrating and time-consuming when drawing with Flash.I hope someone has a solution for me or can tell me what I’m doing wrong.Thanks

  186. P3lvi5 says:

    Pros -I like the gui, tabs, and as2Cons -the ONE and only complaint I have regarding mx pro is the lack of definitive percentile scaling. I hit the familiar ctrl+alt+s combo and suddenly found myself living in a nightmare. Other than that I have had no other problems with crashing or instability issues of any sort.Suggestion -Raise ctrl+alt+s from the dead, and implement the grid into it for a dynamic preview of the scale. W00t! Until then, it’s back to mx for me.

  187. Paul says:

    Am very annoyed that I can now only use expert mode for scripting, the behaviours panel is very basic and extremely limited. I havent the time to learn actionscript, so it’s a major thumbs down for me. Very slow and unstable, I’m now going back to MX.Very poor show indeed Macromedia !!!

  188. haripratap says:

    How can i implement the TAsk of Making my JPG images that are loded In The Movie Clip to Become the Objects of My SWF so that i can play even i remove my JPGis there any way for that

  189. Tommy says:

    MX2004 = profit only, and to hell with the users.and now were on to Flash 8 geewhiz even the weather dosent change that quick.

  190. tommy says:

    p.s. Its back to flash 5 for me.

  191. Tommy says:

    p.p.s. I am being a bit harsh but I am fed up with all these new versions of software not just from macromedia but from all other types of applications and games software companies, who promise a lot but deliver very little, but expect the user to pay through the nose for there so called better and updated software?Am I a cynic or realist? u decide

  192. Tommy says:

    Actually Microsoft Powerpoint is a better choice than MX2004

  193. I had the beachballing problem when i switched between FLASH 8 and any other app on OS X 10.3.9I solved the issue by reducing the number of active fonts that I had in Font Book. Now im able to switch window focus between apps without having to wait forever to use flash again.Hopefully this helps anyone else with the same problem…PEACE.-PHRESH