Studio MX 2004 released Support Product Page
This topic was archived
2004 flakey - why didnt they fix 6.1 first?
Posted 15 Sep 2003 12:39:03
1
has voted
15 Sep 2003 12:39:03 Bruce Lawson posted:
After installing the demo, i cant recommend anybody to rely on dmx 2004 for a living. After all - macromedia opted to publish this new flakey product instead of fixing 6.1´s bugs. After the first day of trials i tried to install latest extensions from dmxzone - boom, dmx 2004 stopped working. Removing extensions didnt help - the icon jumped but nothing happened. Finder said it was active - but no visible screens! Quitting and restarting didnt help. Reinstalling didnt help - can you beleive this. I dont dare to upgrade as i have to make a living with this product (org DMX and DMXZone ext. that is) - If they will not fix the old DMX, and will not deliver a belivable, stable demo - dont buy it.gunni grahn
(moved to forum by moderator from article)
Replies
Replied 17 Sep 2003 15:18:26
17 Sep 2003 15:18:26 Jason Greene replied:
Macromedia has become no different than Adobe, and they now share the throne as kings of software upgrades that ignore existing bugs.
Secure FTP transfers? Great. Have they fixed the basic FTP engine yet, you know, the one that times out, isn't capable of resetting itself to ensure transfers get completed? (any range of free/shareware FTP clients have no problem on my end)
Same goes for CSS. They never offered any patches to fix their system, yet running Dreamweaver-produced CSS through a validator like TopStyle -- included with Dreamweaver, no less -- showed errors!
What's worst for me is that I've paid for support with Macromedia to help deal with bugs, which they've then verified can be reproduced on their system, and then simply apologized and offered to help me find a workaround.
Guess the workaround is another $200 to upgrade to new bugs.
Secure FTP transfers? Great. Have they fixed the basic FTP engine yet, you know, the one that times out, isn't capable of resetting itself to ensure transfers get completed? (any range of free/shareware FTP clients have no problem on my end)
Same goes for CSS. They never offered any patches to fix their system, yet running Dreamweaver-produced CSS through a validator like TopStyle -- included with Dreamweaver, no less -- showed errors!
What's worst for me is that I've paid for support with Macromedia to help deal with bugs, which they've then verified can be reproduced on their system, and then simply apologized and offered to help me find a workaround.
Guess the workaround is another $200 to upgrade to new bugs.
Replied 17 Sep 2003 16:38:47
17 Sep 2003 16:38:47 gunni grahn replied:
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Macromedia has become no different than Adobe, and they now share the throne as kings of software upgrades that ignore existing bugs.
Secure FTP transfers? Great. Have they fixed the basic FTP engine yet, you know, the one that times out, isn't capable of resetting itself to ensure transfers get completed? (any range of free/shareware FTP clients have no problem on my end)
Same goes for CSS. They never offered any patches to fix their system, yet running Dreamweaver-produced CSS through a validator like TopStyle -- included with Dreamweaver, no less -- showed errors!
What's worst for me is that I've paid for support with Macromedia to help deal with bugs, which they've then verified can be reproduced on their system, and then simply apologized and offered to help me find a workaround.
Guess the workaround is another $200 to upgrade to new bugs.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
You are absolutely right - these guys havent got the deasensy to to give us what we payed for in the first place- and then they ask why software piracy blossoms - we/those who pay doesnt seem to get any working software for our bucks - so why should pirates pay. To ask for money for a product aught to mean that the developer is commited to supply a FULLLY WORKING program - AND a reasonable amount of support - needed to get a chance to iron out the bugs that users find. Its practically a free beta-testroom for the developers that users provide when reporting bugs anyhow.
Macromedia has become no different than Adobe, and they now share the throne as kings of software upgrades that ignore existing bugs.
Secure FTP transfers? Great. Have they fixed the basic FTP engine yet, you know, the one that times out, isn't capable of resetting itself to ensure transfers get completed? (any range of free/shareware FTP clients have no problem on my end)
Same goes for CSS. They never offered any patches to fix their system, yet running Dreamweaver-produced CSS through a validator like TopStyle -- included with Dreamweaver, no less -- showed errors!
What's worst for me is that I've paid for support with Macromedia to help deal with bugs, which they've then verified can be reproduced on their system, and then simply apologized and offered to help me find a workaround.
Guess the workaround is another $200 to upgrade to new bugs.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
You are absolutely right - these guys havent got the deasensy to to give us what we payed for in the first place- and then they ask why software piracy blossoms - we/those who pay doesnt seem to get any working software for our bucks - so why should pirates pay. To ask for money for a product aught to mean that the developer is commited to supply a FULLLY WORKING program - AND a reasonable amount of support - needed to get a chance to iron out the bugs that users find. Its practically a free beta-testroom for the developers that users provide when reporting bugs anyhow.
Replied 18 Sep 2003 16:27:52
18 Sep 2003 16:27:52 Bruce Lawson replied:
I'm happy to pay for most any upgrade, however these days it seems that most companies have gotten into the habit of simply charging $200 or more for upgrades to software that never works properly in the first place.
Within Dreamweaver (and for that year, Ultradev), the most basic problems involving FTP connections/transfers and CSS have never been fixed, in any version. With each upgrade I hope that problems get fixed, yet they never are.
Simply enabling "secure FTP" won't fix the problems with the entire Site interface if the root FTP engine itself isn't retooled. Similarly, what good will enhanced CSS validation be if it doesn't apply styles properly in the first place?
I'll be a sucker and fork over the $200 for the upgrade regardless, if only because when you don't upgrade then Macromedia makes you feel like a complete leper if you even dare ask for support.
Jason Greeene
(moved from poll by moderator)
Within Dreamweaver (and for that year, Ultradev), the most basic problems involving FTP connections/transfers and CSS have never been fixed, in any version. With each upgrade I hope that problems get fixed, yet they never are.
Simply enabling "secure FTP" won't fix the problems with the entire Site interface if the root FTP engine itself isn't retooled. Similarly, what good will enhanced CSS validation be if it doesn't apply styles properly in the first place?
I'll be a sucker and fork over the $200 for the upgrade regardless, if only because when you don't upgrade then Macromedia makes you feel like a complete leper if you even dare ask for support.
Jason Greeene
(moved from poll by moderator)
Replied 19 Sep 2003 06:57:36
19 Sep 2003 06:57:36 gunni grahn replied:
<b>Where is my fix?</b>
I originally switched from GoLive as i learned that Dreamweavers database functionallity was better - and it was more expandable due to its "extensions" feature.
Dreamweaver lacks one crusial thing though - that GoLive had when they where not under Adobes wings - a fixing strategy - for the stuff they didnt get right i the first place!..
Dreamweaver MX(6) isnt delivered yet - the product is faulty and should be replaced by something that isnt.
We should demand to get the product we where promised, and we dont demand anything they didnt promise themselves - a working copy of what we payed for.
DMX(6) still quits all over the place - stating a script has been partially removed, or that it cant connect to the server or something else.
DMX(6) still doesnt have an even basically functioning ftp client. <b>Any</b> other ftp client does much better - even the free ones! But i want to stay in dreamweaver to perform these tasks.
DWMX6 forgets its palettes all the time and one has to reactivate constantly.
DMMX6 often reloads the database schema - and never gets out of that loop.
DWMX6 cant even offer a proper way of applying a simple :hover in CSS - you have to open the stylesheet manually and copy the tag you want to make a :hover function to.
DWMX6 goes into a loop if you have more than one webpage with the same filename - it keeps on uploading associated files and end up starting all over again - and keeps on doing this.
DWMX6 often places the Span/class tag inconsistantly and therefore often ends up ruining the :hover function - one has to manually go in and move the code to get it to work.
DWMX6 often cant clean up properly after itself - when applying a server behaviour - and later wants to remove it - it often leaves tons of useless code behind - reapplying the function or even other functions will make it apply multiple versions of the same bits of code - causing the page to fail due to double entry's.
<b>Extension manager</b> sometimes goes into limbo - and allways quits unexpectedly.
...and this is not even all - so again Macromedia - make things right by fixing dwmx6 before even trying to charge us 200 bucks for an upgrade that should have been free (and bugfree).
-or at least communicate with us (as you state you HAVE done in cooking up this new flaky activation scheme)
I originally switched from GoLive as i learned that Dreamweavers database functionallity was better - and it was more expandable due to its "extensions" feature.
Dreamweaver lacks one crusial thing though - that GoLive had when they where not under Adobes wings - a fixing strategy - for the stuff they didnt get right i the first place!..
Dreamweaver MX(6) isnt delivered yet - the product is faulty and should be replaced by something that isnt.
We should demand to get the product we where promised, and we dont demand anything they didnt promise themselves - a working copy of what we payed for.
DMX(6) still quits all over the place - stating a script has been partially removed, or that it cant connect to the server or something else.
DMX(6) still doesnt have an even basically functioning ftp client. <b>Any</b> other ftp client does much better - even the free ones! But i want to stay in dreamweaver to perform these tasks.
DWMX6 forgets its palettes all the time and one has to reactivate constantly.
DMMX6 often reloads the database schema - and never gets out of that loop.
DWMX6 cant even offer a proper way of applying a simple :hover in CSS - you have to open the stylesheet manually and copy the tag you want to make a :hover function to.
DWMX6 goes into a loop if you have more than one webpage with the same filename - it keeps on uploading associated files and end up starting all over again - and keeps on doing this.
DWMX6 often places the Span/class tag inconsistantly and therefore often ends up ruining the :hover function - one has to manually go in and move the code to get it to work.
DWMX6 often cant clean up properly after itself - when applying a server behaviour - and later wants to remove it - it often leaves tons of useless code behind - reapplying the function or even other functions will make it apply multiple versions of the same bits of code - causing the page to fail due to double entry's.
<b>Extension manager</b> sometimes goes into limbo - and allways quits unexpectedly.
...and this is not even all - so again Macromedia - make things right by fixing dwmx6 before even trying to charge us 200 bucks for an upgrade that should have been free (and bugfree).
-or at least communicate with us (as you state you HAVE done in cooking up this new flaky activation scheme)
Replied 19 Sep 2003 08:27:34
19 Sep 2003 08:27:34 gunni grahn replied:
<b>Mac and pc version works together? NO WAY</b>
The mac version of DWMX6 cannot work in a mixed mac/pc production environment - the mac version cannot support the long filenames that the pc version can - and it is <b>NOT</b> because of OSX but due to some lame decision on Macromedias executive floors (or more likely because they just slapped the mac version together on top of old ultradev/dreamweaver code to make a quick buck).
Macs and PC are used together i web production environments you know - and since when is it justyfiable to make two versions of the same program for two platforms that cant work together?
Just try to download files with long filenames on the mac - and it will most likely ruin the workflow right there!..
The mac version of DWMX6 cannot work in a mixed mac/pc production environment - the mac version cannot support the long filenames that the pc version can - and it is <b>NOT</b> because of OSX but due to some lame decision on Macromedias executive floors (or more likely because they just slapped the mac version together on top of old ultradev/dreamweaver code to make a quick buck).
Macs and PC are used together i web production environments you know - and since when is it justyfiable to make two versions of the same program for two platforms that cant work together?
Just try to download files with long filenames on the mac - and it will most likely ruin the workflow right there!..
Replied 19 Sep 2003 08:37:10
19 Sep 2003 08:37:10 gunni grahn replied:
<b>Somethings missing</b>
GoLive was always able to make any button able to control an external pictures state - say a button could change a picture elsewhere on the page.
Why cant DWMX6? In Macromedia environments one is expected to pay up extra for Fireworks or Flash to get this kind of basic functionallity?
One cant even reedit rollover images in DWMX6 - once done You have to go into the code - or completely replace the rollover image. Rollover images dont even have a "target" input?!?!
Is this really supposed to be regarded a "fullfledged" web development package or what?
GoLive was always able to make any button able to control an external pictures state - say a button could change a picture elsewhere on the page.
Why cant DWMX6? In Macromedia environments one is expected to pay up extra for Fireworks or Flash to get this kind of basic functionallity?
One cant even reedit rollover images in DWMX6 - once done You have to go into the code - or completely replace the rollover image. Rollover images dont even have a "target" input?!?!
Is this really supposed to be regarded a "fullfledged" web development package or what?
Replied 19 Sep 2003 17:33:20
19 Sep 2003 17:33:20 Roger Morton replied:
<b><font color=red>That is completly true !</font id=red></b>
They should have finished fixing the 6.1 bugs first.
I hope they don't start doing things the MS way, which is highly anoying.
They should have finished fixing the 6.1 bugs first.
I hope they don't start doing things the MS way, which is highly anoying.