Studio MX 2004 released Support

Overview » Impressions » The Quarkification of Macromedia

This topic was archived

The Quarkification of Macromedia
Timothy Swan Member Since: 07 Jul 2001 Posts: 1	Posted 19 Sep 2003 13:46:18 As it now stands with Macromedia, I'll be forever paying them $200/year for the privilege of using DW, or $400/year for the use of Studio. All of this just for the addition of new features (most of which I don't need, some of which I expected from the previous version). I work on the Mac and have been using DW since the first version. The latest version is one of the least feature rich and most expensive upgrades yet. O.K., they use Opera's rendering engine to more accurately render css (question: why not use Apple's Web Kit, like the intriguing HyperEdit?) and they added sFTP. Yet the FTP engine is still slow and buggy as hell, text input is slow, general performance is slower than MX, and they've added a braindead new authentication scheme. It seems to me that this is a .1 release -- fixing some bugs, enhancing a few features -- and not a full version release. I have many clients that use DW to do simple updates to their sites, but I'll be recommending they all hold onto their money until Macromedia addresses some of the longstanding weaknesses and newly added bugs. I'm extremely disappointed. As it now stands with Macromedia, I'll be forever paying them $200/year for the privilege of using DW, or $400/year for the use of Studio. All of this just for the addition of new features (most of which I don't need, some of which I expected from the previous version). I work on the Mac and have been using DW since the first version. The latest version is one of the least feature rich and most expensive upgrades yet. O.K., they use Opera's rendering engine to more accurately render css (question: why not use Apple's Web Kit, like the intriguing HyperEdit?) and they added sFTP. Yet the FTP engine is still slow and buggy as hell, text input is slow, general performance is slower than MX, and they've added a braindead new authentication scheme. It seems to me that this is a .1 release -- fixing some bugs, enhancing a few features -- and not a full version release. I have many clients that use DW to do simple updates to their sites, but I'll be recommending they all hold onto their money until Macromedia addresses some of the longstanding weaknesses and newly added bugs. I'm extremely disappointed. 1 PERSON HAS PEOPLE HAVE VOTED vote! undo vote!

The Quarkification of Macromedia

Since: 07 Jul 2001
Posts: 1

Posted 19 Sep 2003 13:46:18

As it now stands with Macromedia, I'll be forever paying them $200/year for the privilege of using DW, or $400/year for the use of Studio. All of this just for the addition of new features (most of which I don't need, some of which I expected from the previous version).

I work on the Mac and have been using DW since the first version. The latest version is one of the least feature rich and most expensive upgrades yet. O.K., they use Opera's rendering engine to more accurately render css (question: why not use Apple's Web Kit, like the intriguing HyperEdit?) and they added sFTP. Yet the FTP engine is still slow and buggy as hell, text input is slow, general performance is slower than MX, and they've added a braindead new authentication scheme.

It seems to me that this is a .1 release -- fixing some bugs, enhancing a few features -- and not a full version release. I have many clients that use DW to do simple updates to their sites, but I'll be recommending they all hold onto their money until Macromedia addresses some of the longstanding weaknesses and newly added bugs.

I'm extremely disappointed.

As it now stands with Macromedia, I'll be forever paying them $200/year for the privilege of using DW, or $400/year for the use of Studio. All of this just for the addition of new features (most of which I don't need, some of which I expected from the previous version).

I work on the Mac and have been using DW since the first version. The latest version is one of the least feature rich and most expensive upgrades yet. O.K., they use Opera's rendering engine to more accurately render css (question: why not use Apple's Web Kit, like the intriguing HyperEdit?) and they added sFTP. Yet the FTP engine is still slow and buggy as hell, text input is slow, general performance is slower than MX, and they've added a braindead new authentication scheme.

It seems to me that this is a .1 release -- fixing some bugs, enhancing a few features -- and not a full version release. I have many clients that use DW to do simple updates to their sites, but I'll be recommending they all hold onto their money until Macromedia addresses some of the longstanding weaknesses and newly added bugs.

I'm extremely disappointed.

1 PERSON HAS PEOPLE HAVE VOTED vote! undo vote!

paullette schwartz
Member

Since: 29 Jul 2003
Posts: 1

Replied 19 Sep 2003 17:18:44

I certainly won't be gracing Macromedia with a penny on this upgrade. I have just learned to live with constant and irritating crashes and bugs in MX. I don't think I could bear the stress of working to a deadline with a product that simply does not co-operate for no apparent reason. At least I know what to avoid on MX.

I will not upgrade this version, or the next, until Macromedia start to show that they do listen and that they do deliver, and that they do fix bugs. Until then I will not be forced into an annual subscription of several hundred dollars to use their less than perfect product.

My primary aim of used DW was the time saving. However, I am increasingly looking to other vendors for products that do the job that DW is surpossed to do - without the bugs & crashes. If I am using several other products to do jobs that DW is surpossed to do - I have to seriously question the reason I use it in the first place.

Edited by - paullette on 19 Sep 2003 17:21:43

Studio MX 2004 released Support

The Quarkification of Macromedia

Reply to this topic

Live Support

Studio MX 2004 released Support

Message
Reply