Fireworks MX2004 -- not ready for prime time

[Alex@RainBird webforumsuser@macromedia.com]

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 document 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

[Alenux webforumsuser@macromedia.com]

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.

[Beatleman webforumsuser@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]

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" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:bmpnp6$g5e$1@forums.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.

[Alex@RainBird webforumsuser@macromedia.com]

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.

[John Dowdell]

"Alex@RainBird" [email]webforumsuser@macromedia.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/documents/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]webforumsuser@macromedia.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!

[Paul Goodwin]

"Alex@RainBird" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:bmp6e9$j25$1@forums.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

[Karen Boyle]

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 document 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.]

Me too--no problem, 20 objects drop shadow on win xp pro. Apparently this
is a win 2k problem.
"Karen Boyle" <kboyle@NoSpamPleaseprojectseven.com> wrote in message
news:bmq5tt$350$1@forums.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 document 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
> >
> >
> >

>
>

[Sam Poikail]

"Karen Boyle" <kboyle@NoSpamPleaseprojectseven.com> wrote in message
news:bmq5tt$350$1@forums.macromedia.com...

> Sounds like it may be a problem specific to Win2000.

That would be most disheartening :o(

Cheers,
Sam

[bliss66]

"wwiivehicles.com" <webguy@TAKEMEOUTwwiivehicles.com> wrote in message
news:bmpo85$gkv$1@forums.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

[David DeCristoforo]

<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

[bliss66]

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

sb


"Sam Poikail" <indigo_wolf@SPAMBITEShotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bmqeid$bn4$1@forums.macromedia.com...

> "Karen Boyle" <kboyle@NoSpamPleaseprojectseven.com> wrote in message
> news:bmq5tt$350$1@forums.macromedia.com...

> > Sounds like it may be a problem specific to Win2000.

>
> That would be most disheartening :o(
>

[Linda Rathgeber]

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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Murray *TMM*]

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" <myname@myisp.com> wrote in message
news:bmqmsc$j65$1@forums.macromedia.com...

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

XP?

>
> sb
>
>
> "Sam Poikail" <indigo_wolf@SPAMBITEShotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bmqeid$bn4$1@forums.macromedia.com...

> > "Karen Boyle" <kboyle@NoSpamPleaseprojectseven.com> wrote in message
> > news:bmq5tt$350$1@forums.macromedia.com...

> > > Sounds like it may be a problem specific to Win2000.

> >
> > That would be most disheartening :o(
> >

>
>

[Stéphane Bergeron]

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

[David DeCristoforo]

>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

[Murray *TMM*]

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" <stephberg@webfocusdesign.com> wrote in message
news:bmrsju$2r6$1@forums.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
>