Professional Web Applications Themes

Fireworks MX2004 -- not ready for prime time - Macromedia Fireworks

Really love the new Noise and Blur filters, but the speed and performance issues of FWMX04 vs FWMX are just too great to overcome. I've decided to stay with Studio MX until the patched version of 04 is available. I finally made the leap away from Photoshop with FWMX and had great hopes for 04. But the one or two new features aren't worth the performance hit. The most noticeable problem occurs when doing an Alt+Drag copy of multiple objects. Try creating an 800x800 72dpi doent and create 10-15 objects, then select all and Alt+Drag them. Especially if you have ...

  1. #1

    Default Fireworks MX2004 -- not ready for prime time

    Really love the new Noise and Blur filters, but the speed and performance issues of FWMX04 vs FWMX are just too great to overcome. I've decided to stay with Studio MX until the patched version of 04 is available. I finally made the leap away from Photoshop with FWMX and had great hopes for 04. But the one or two new features aren't worth the performance hit.

    The most noticeable problem occurs when doing an Alt+Drag copy of multiple objects. Try creating an 800x800 72dpi doent and create 10-15 objects, then select all and Alt+Drag them. Especially if you have any live effects on. It truly is like sliding on ice.

    Seems like FWMX04 is a real memory hog and has a lot of inefficiencies compared with FWMX. Resource usage spikes up to 100% when doing some simple operations. I believe someone mentioned that Macromedia incorporated some Flash components inside of 04, perhaps the gradient preview pop up menu or things like that, which may be the culprit. Personally I know what a linear gradient looks like and I really don't need to see a pop up menu preview. Lose the eye candy and focus on horsepower, please.

    BTW, I'm running Win2000 Professional, 1GHz Pentium III, 256 MB RAM. My main point is that FWMX works wonderfully and the new version does not on the same exact system.

    Love Macromedia, but waiting for the code fixes. And I really appreciate them providing a full function 30 day trial so I could make that decision without spending $$ for the upgrade.

    Alex



    Alex@RainBird webforumsuser@macromedia.com Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re:Fireworks MX2004 -- not ready for prime time

    Yow--I just used it today for the first time and I have to say I'll be returning to the previous Fireworks too. There seems to be a bout a 20 delay on everything and preview fuctions do not always work.
    I'm on System 10.2.6, Mac dual 1gig.



    Alenux webforumsuser@macromedia.com Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re:Fireworks MX2004 -- not ready for prime time

    After reading the above posts, I guess I'll be sticking with my MX. Guess I can save my hard-earned (and scarce) money.

    New fan of Macromedia products.
    Beatleman webforumsuser@macromedia.com Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Re:Fireworks MX2004 -- not ready for prime time

    They aren't universal problems. They are affecting some people... but many
    many others are having no problems.

    If you can try the 30-Day Trial to see if your system has issues. If not,
    then decide whether to upgrade or not.

    Tanks,
    [url]www.wwiivehicles.com[/url]

    "Beatleman" <webforumsusermacromedia.com> wrote in message
    news:bmpnp6$g5e$1forums.macromedia.com...
    > After reading the above posts, I guess I'll be sticking with my MX. Guess
    I can save my hard-earned (and scarce) money.
    >
    > New fan of Macromedia products.

    wwiivehicles.com Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re:Fireworks MX2004 -- not ready for prime time

    Don't give up hope yet -- it's free to download the 30 day eval. You should pull it down and check it out for yourself on your own system. It might just be my system, although I've heard from quite a few others about performance issues and I believe it's on the issue list so Macromedia is aware of it.

    FWMX04 has some really nice new features like the add noise filter and blur filters. Opens up a whole new range of artistic options that I used to have to go back to Photoshop for.


    Alex@RainBird webforumsuser@macromedia.com Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Fireworks MX2004 -- not ready for prime time

    "AlexRainBird" [email]webforumsusermacromedia.com[/email] wrote:
    > The most noticeable problem occurs when doing an Alt+Drag
    > copy of multiple objects.
    I don't see that "multiple alt-drag slow" listed in the Fireworks
    Emerging Issues technote yet, but I do know that this symptom has shown
    up on multiple systems here in the newsgroup. I'm hoping that the EI
    technote is updated soon with this specific info and current knowledge
    about what the dev team knows about how to reproduce it on demand.
    [url]http://www.macromedia.com/support/fireworks/ts/doents/emerging_issues.htm[/url]

    > Especially if you have any live effects on.
    True, that's a lot of calcs. There may be ways to smooth this, and I'll
    defer to the FW team for final word.


    "Alenux" [email]webforumsusermacromedia.com[/email] wrote:
    > Yow--I just used it today for the first time and I have to say
    > I'll be returning to the previous Fireworks too. There seems to
    > be a bout a 20 delay on everything and preview fuctions do not
    > always work. I'm on System 10.2.6, Mac dual 1gig.
    You've got a different problem there. The previous person was talking
    about alt-dragging many items at once... you're talking about
    "everything" taking 20 seconds. Check the technote above for links to
    current diagnostic tips.

    jd






    --
    John Dowdell, Macromedia Developer Support, San Francisco CA
    Search technotes: [url]http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/[/url]
    Soapbox column: [url]http://www.macromedia.com/desdev/jd_forum/[/url]
    Daily technical diary: [url]http://www.macromedia.com/go/blog_jd[/url]
    Offlist mail is trapped by spam-filters... best here, thanks!

    John Dowdell Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Fireworks MX2004 -- not ready for prime time


    "AlexRainBird" <webforumsusermacromedia.com> wrote in message
    news:bmp6e9$j25$1forums.macromedia.com...
    >
    > BTW, I'm running Win2000 Professional, 1GHz Pentium III, 256 MB RAM. My
    main point is that FWMX works wonderfully and the new version does not on
    the same exact system.
    >
    Win2000Pro here, with 1.4GHz P4 & almost 2GB ram, the trial 2004 version is
    slow as molasses, even when barely using any memory. I'll stick with MX
    until these software companies stop using their valued customers as guinea
    pigs to shake out bugs that should've been done in the lab. MX wasn't
    broken, why try to "fix" it? Then again I guess if we just bought something
    *once* the company wouldn't last long.

    Peace.

    Paul


    Paul Goodwin Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: Fireworks MX2004 -- not ready for prime time

    Hello Alex,

    I'm running XPPro on a P4 (Dell) and just tried selecting numerous objects
    (Cntrl+A), with a number of live effects - drop shadow, masks, etc - some of
    the objects being groups of graphics and text (upwards of twelve objects
    each) and had no problem Alt+Dragging numerous copies of the graphics.

    Sounds like it may be a problem specific to Win2000.


    --

    Karen Boyle, PVII Support
    Certified Dreamweaver MX Developer
    [url]http://projectseven.com/[/url]


    > Really love the new Noise and Blur filters, but the speed and performance
    issues of FWMX04 vs FWMX are just too great to overcome. I've decided to
    stay with Studio MX until the patched version of 04 is available. I finally
    made the leap away from Photoshop with FWMX and had great hopes for 04. But
    the one or two new features aren't worth the performance hit.
    >
    > The most noticeable problem occurs when doing an Alt+Drag copy of multiple
    objects. Try creating an 800x800 72dpi doent and create 10-15 objects,
    then select all and Alt+Drag them. Especially if you have any live effects
    on. It truly is like sliding on ice.
    >
    > Seems like FWMX04 is a real memory hog and has a lot of inefficiencies
    compared with FWMX. Resource usage spikes up to 100% when doing some simple
    operations. I believe someone mentioned that Macromedia incorporated some
    Flash components inside of 04, perhaps the gradient preview pop up menu or
    things like that, which may be the culprit. Personally I know what a linear
    gradient looks like and I really don't need to see a pop up menu preview.
    Lose the eye candy and focus on horsepower, please.
    >
    > BTW, I'm running Win2000 Professional, 1GHz Pentium III, 256 MB RAM. My
    main point is that FWMX works wonderfully and the new version does not on
    the same exact system.
    >
    > Love Macromedia, but waiting for the code fixes. And I really appreciate
    them providing a full function 30 day trial so I could make that decision
    without spending $$ for the upgrade.
    >
    > Alex
    >
    >
    >

    Karen Boyle Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: Fireworks MX2004 -- not ready for prime time

    Me too--no problem, 20 objects drop shadow on win xp pro. Apparently this
    is a win 2k problem.
    "Karen Boyle" <kboyleNoSpamPleaseprojectseven.com> wrote in message
    news:bmq5tt$350$1forums.macromedia.com...
    > Hello Alex,
    >
    > I'm running XPPro on a P4 (Dell) and just tried selecting numerous objects
    > (Cntrl+A), with a number of live effects - drop shadow, masks, etc - some
    of
    > the objects being groups of graphics and text (upwards of twelve objects
    > each) and had no problem Alt+Dragging numerous copies of the graphics.
    >
    > Sounds like it may be a problem specific to Win2000.
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Karen Boyle, PVII Support
    > Certified Dreamweaver MX Developer
    > [url]http://projectseven.com/[/url]
    >
    >
    >
    > > Really love the new Noise and Blur filters, but the speed and
    performance
    > issues of FWMX04 vs FWMX are just too great to overcome. I've decided to
    > stay with Studio MX until the patched version of 04 is available. I
    finally
    > made the leap away from Photoshop with FWMX and had great hopes for 04.
    But
    > the one or two new features aren't worth the performance hit.
    > >
    > > The most noticeable problem occurs when doing an Alt+Drag copy of
    multiple
    > objects. Try creating an 800x800 72dpi doent and create 10-15 objects,
    > then select all and Alt+Drag them. Especially if you have any live
    effects
    > on. It truly is like sliding on ice.
    > >
    > > Seems like FWMX04 is a real memory hog and has a lot of inefficiencies
    > compared with FWMX. Resource usage spikes up to 100% when doing some
    simple
    > operations. I believe someone mentioned that Macromedia incorporated some
    > Flash components inside of 04, perhaps the gradient preview pop up menu or
    > things like that, which may be the culprit. Personally I know what a
    linear
    > gradient looks like and I really don't need to see a pop up menu preview.
    > Lose the eye candy and focus on horsepower, please.
    > >
    > > BTW, I'm running Win2000 Professional, 1GHz Pentium III, 256 MB RAM. My
    > main point is that FWMX works wonderfully and the new version does not on
    > the same exact system.
    > >
    > > Love Macromedia, but waiting for the code fixes. And I really
    appreciate
    > them providing a full function 30 day trial so I could make that decision
    > without spending $$ for the upgrade.
    > >
    > > Alex
    > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >

    Rick B. Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: Fireworks MX2004 -- not ready for prime time

    "Karen Boyle" <kboyleNoSpamPleaseprojectseven.com> wrote in message
    news:bmq5tt$350$1forums.macromedia.com...
    > Sounds like it may be a problem specific to Win2000.
    That would be most disheartening :o(

    Cheers,
    Sam


    Sam Poikail Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: Re:Fireworks MX2004 -- not ready for prime time


    "wwiivehicles.com" <webguyTAKEMEOUTwwiivehicles.com> wrote in message
    news:bmpo85$gkv$1forums.macromedia.com...
    > They aren't universal problems. They are affecting some people... but many
    > many others are having no problems.
    >
    I would second this. I think FWMX2004 is the best FW ever. I've not had
    any problems with it find it a joy to work with--in fact, I've been playing
    around with it so much my other work is suffering! :0)

    I would usually be the first to express disatisfaction but of all the MX
    2004 releases, I think FW is the best. No speed issues here either on a
    PIII 600mHz Dell Dimension w/ 756 MB's RAM with Windows XP Professional.

    sb


    bliss66 Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: Fireworks MX2004 -- not ready for prime time

    <RANT>
    I have reverted back to FW4 on my PC. Even MX seems like a pain in the
    a.. I can't belive I am the only one who finds MX to be bloted and
    inefficent in many ways. The way the duplicate buttons feature works
    for example. FW4 gives you the option of updating only the current
    button rather than updating all instances by default. And the whole
    bit with the property inspector...you know how the text in the button
    inspector is different from the text entered in the property inspector
    and so on...who's idea was this? And how this is deemed to be an
    "improvement" is beyond me. There may be some added features in MX
    which I run on my Mac, but I'm sticking with 4 on the PC untill I see
    some effort made to really make the program more efficent and less
    bloated. Adobe has set the bar with it's litter of tiny pallets
    containing dozens of "hard to see without squinting" icons, arrows
    buttons etc. and Macromedia seems to be on the bandwagon. The "do it
    all" direction software vendors are taking is making the "new"
    releases less rather than more attractive.
    </RANT>
    DD


    "It's easy when you know how..."
    Johnny Shines
    David DeCristoforo Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: Fireworks MX2004 -- not ready for prime time

    After the debacle of SP4, why would waste any time upgrading to Windows XP?

    sb


    "Sam Poikail" <indigo_wolfSPAMBITEShotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:bmqeid$bn4$1forums.macromedia.com...
    > "Karen Boyle" <kboyleNoSpamPleaseprojectseven.com> wrote in message
    > news:bmq5tt$350$1forums.macromedia.com...
    > > Sounds like it may be a problem specific to Win2000.
    >
    > That would be most disheartening :o(
    >

    bliss66 Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: Fireworks MX2004 -- not ready for prime time



    David DeCristoforo wrote:
    > I have reverted back to FW4 on my PC. Even MX seems like a pain in the
    > a.. I can't belive I am the only one who finds MX to be bloted and
    > inefficent in many ways. The way the duplicate buttons feature works
    > for example. FW4 gives you the option of updating only the current
    > button rather than updating all instances by default.
    Fireworks MX and MX 2004 both give you the option of updating only the
    current button. The difference is that you do it in the Property
    inspector instead of having in the button editor.
    > bit with the property inspector...you know how the text in the button
    > inspector is different from the text entered in the property inspector
    > and so on...who's idea was this? And how this is deemed to be an
    > "improvement" is beyond me.
    It's easier to do it in the Property inspector because it is always
    open, as opposed to having to open and reopen the button editor.


    Linda Rathgeber
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Design Aid: 10-Palette Pack for Fireworks & Flash
    [url]http://www.webdevbiz.com/graphics.cfm[/url]
    Playing with Fire | [url]http://www.playingwithfire.com[/url]
    Victoriana | Theme Pack 03 - Club | [url]http://www.projectseven.com[/url]
    Team MM Fireworks Volunteer | [url]www.macromedia.com/go/team[/url]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Linda Rathgeber Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: Fireworks MX2004 -- not ready for prime time

    I have no debacle with SP4.

    --
    Murray --- ICQ 71997575
    Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver MX
    (If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
    ==================
    [url]news://forums.macromedia.com/macromedia.dreamweaver[/url] - THE BEST WAY TO GET
    ANSWERS
    ==================
    [url]http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com[/url] - Template Triage!
    [url]http://www.projectseven.com/go[/url] - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
    [url]http://www.DreamweaverFAQ.com[/url] - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
    [url]http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/[/url] - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
    ==================

    "bliss66" <mynamemyisp.com> wrote in message
    news:bmqmsc$j65$1forums.macromedia.com...
    > After the debacle of SP4, why would waste any time upgrading to Windows
    XP?
    >
    > sb
    >
    >
    > "Sam Poikail" <indigo_wolfSPAMBITEShotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:bmqeid$bn4$1forums.macromedia.com...
    > > "Karen Boyle" <kboyleNoSpamPleaseprojectseven.com> wrote in message
    > > news:bmq5tt$350$1forums.macromedia.com...
    > > > Sounds like it may be a problem specific to Win2000.
    > >
    > > That would be most disheartening :o(
    > >
    >
    >

    Murray *TMM* Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: Fireworks MX2004 -- not ready for prime time

    Murray *TMM* wrote:
    > I have no debacle with SP4.
    Neither did I at work where I upgraded 5 Win2K workstations recently. At
    home I find XP to be far better than Win2K in every respect. It's
    faster, more stable and I couldn't live without ClearType anymore. It
    was like giving my computer a second life (I was running Win98SE on the
    same hardware before) and the performance difference is staggering. It
    isn't one of the fastest new machines either (AMD Athlon 1GHz) but it
    runs all my sortware without problem (including all of Studio MX 2004)
    and it is snappy and responsive in almost all of them. FreeHand MXa does
    have performance issues with raster effects and the extrude feature but
    Fireworks MX 2004 is faster for me than MX was.

    Stéphane

    Stéphane Bergeron Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: Fireworks MX2004 -- not ready for prime time

    >Fireworks MX and MX 2004 both give you the option of updating only the
    >current button. The difference is that you do it in the Property
    >inspector instead of having in the button editor.
    This would make sense if the property inspector and the button editor
    showed the same information...but they don't and there are many
    instances where this is a problem.
    >It's easier to do it in the Property inspector because it is always
    >open, as opposed to having to open and reopen the button editor.
    How is it easier? A simple double click on the button you want to edit
    pops up the button editor with no need to "mouse over" to the property
    inspector. Also, a quick double click on the text frame opens the text
    editing window which I find much easier and faster than using the
    property inspector.

    Don't get me wrong Linda...I have the utmost respect for your obvious
    talent and your experience in using this program. I am just "bent'
    differently I guess. For people like myself who are not "professional"
    web designers but who need to maintain a site or two, programs like FW
    and DW are invaluable tools. But they do not need to be as complex as
    they are becoming. Sometimes simpler is better.
    DD


    "It's easy when you know how..."
    Johnny Shines
    David DeCristoforo Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: Fireworks MX2004 -- not ready for prime time

    Stéphane:

    I am not sure what the difference is between my systems and the others that
    are constantly giving people problems. But I can tell you this. I am not
    lucky. I am pretty sloppy actually. My systems and their hard drives look
    like a page of code after inserting ImageReady HTML.

    But W2KPro and WXPPro have both been 'debacle-less' for me, and are amazing
    operating systems for my tiny business....

    --
    Murray --- ICQ 71997575
    Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver MX
    (If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
    ==================
    [url]news://forums.macromedia.com/macromedia.dreamweaver[/url] - THE BEST WAY TO GET
    ANSWERS
    ==================
    [url]http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com[/url] - Template Triage!
    [url]http://www.projectseven.com/go[/url] - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
    [url]http://www.DreamweaverFAQ.com[/url] - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
    [url]http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/[/url] - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
    ==================

    "Stéphane Bergeron" <stephbergwebfocusdesign.com> wrote in message
    news:bmrsju$2r6$1forums.macromedia.com...
    > Murray *TMM* wrote:
    > > I have no debacle with SP4.
    >
    > Neither did I at work where I upgraded 5 Win2K workstations recently. At
    > home I find XP to be far better than Win2K in every respect. It's
    > faster, more stable and I couldn't live without ClearType anymore. It
    > was like giving my computer a second life (I was running Win98SE on the
    > same hardware before) and the performance difference is staggering. It
    > isn't one of the fastest new machines either (AMD Athlon 1GHz) but it
    > runs all my sortware without problem (including all of Studio MX 2004)
    > and it is snappy and responsive in almost all of them. FreeHand MXa does
    > have performance issues with raster effects and the extrude feature but
    > Fireworks MX 2004 is faster for me than MX was.
    >
    > Stéphane
    >

    Murray *TMM* Guest

  19. #19

    Default Re: Fireworks MX2004 -- not ready for prime time

    Well that's disappointing to hear. Windows 2000 Professional has been a rock solid OS for me and I really don't see any compelling reason to upgrade to XP Pro at this point. What I don't understand is why FWMX works so well on Win2K but FWMX04 chokes so badly.

    I suppose I could just get a new Dell at home, but my office isn't likely to go to XP anytime soon.

    Maybe they can patch it to work better on Win2K.


    Alex@RainBird Guest

  20. #20

    Default Re: Fireworks MX2004 -- not ready for prime time

    Alex:

    FW2004 runs like a champ on my W2KPro. Perhaps there is something else
    happening for you?

    --
    Murray --- ICQ 71997575
    Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver MX
    (If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
    ==================
    news://forums.macromedia.com/macromedia.dreamweaver - THE BEST WAY TO GET
    ANSWERS
    ==================
    http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
    http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
    http://www.DreamweaverFAQ.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
    http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
    ==================

    "AlexRainBird" <com> wrote in message
    news:bn13sh$f15$macromedia.com... 
    rock solid OS for me and I really don't see any compelling reason to upgrade
    to XP Pro at this point. What I don't understand is why FWMX works so well
    on Win2K but FWMX04 chokes so badly. 
    to go to XP anytime soon. 


    Murray Guest

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. A problem with Math::Prime::XS
    By ofer@ilunix.org in forum PERL Modules
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: February 20th, 04:59 AM
  2. Flash MX 2004 not ready for prime time
    By Adam Albright in forum Macromedia Flash
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 5th, 04:16 AM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: December 8th, 12:28 PM
  4. How to enable ToolTips in Dreamweaver and Fireworks MX2004
    By JHalldors webforumsuser@macromedia.com in forum Macromedia Fireworks
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 19th, 12:04 AM
  5. Fireworks MX2004 slow on winxp - user spec. problem?
    By Baytides in forum Macromedia Fireworks
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: October 17th, 11:10 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139