Professional Web Applications Themes

Fireworks Survey question 8: having both MX and MX2004 installed - Macromedia Fireworks

I just filled in the form for the Fireworks performance survey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=34415274143 When I came across question 7: "Do you also have any MX products installed (in addition to the MX 2004 products)? If so, which ones?" I was puzzled. From what I know, FWMX2004 and FWMX MAY NOT be installed simultaniously. The End User Licence Agreement prohibits that. Does it not? -- Coen "The only place where success comes before work is in the dictionary." _______________________________ Please, don't E-mail me about Fireworks questions. Please post them on the Forum. If otherwise - when I ask you to send ...

  1. #1

    Default Fireworks Survey question 8: having both MX and MX2004 installed


    I just filled in the form for the Fireworks performance survey at
    http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=34415274143
    When I came across question 7: "Do you also have any MX products
    installed (in addition to the MX 2004 products)? If so, which ones?" I
    was puzzled. From what I know, FWMX2004 and FWMX MAY NOT be installed
    simultaniously. The End User Licence Agreement prohibits that. Does it not?

    --

    Coen

    "The only place where success comes before work is in the dictionary."
    _______________________________
    Please, don't E-mail me about Fireworks questions. Please post them on
    the Forum. If otherwise - when I ask you to send me a file for helping
    you, send it to the address below.

    E-mail : ccnk at home.nl
    ================================
    Enhance Fireworks with these Productivity Resources

    *** DevNet ***
    http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/mx/fireworks/
    *** Styles ***
    http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/mx/fireworks/articles/style_samples.html
    http://wetworks.nl/freestyler
    http://richiebee.ca/fireworks.htm
    *** Flash Panels ***
    http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/mx/studio/articles/fw_command_in_flash.html




    Coen Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Fireworks Survey question 8: having both MX and MX2004 installed

    Yes, which is something MM really needs to rethink. I mean, what's it to
    them if someone has two or more versions installed?

    John

    "Coen Naninck" <nl> wrote in message
    news:nl... 
    not? 
    http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/mx/studio/articles/fw_command_in_flash.html 


    John Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Fireworks Survey question 8: having both MX and MX2004 installed

    John T wrote:
    | Yes, which is something MM really needs to rethink. I mean, what's it
    to them if someone has two or more versions installed?

    I don't think that is the issue for them. What I think is that they want
    to avoid having FWMX installed on one system while FWMX2004 is installed
    on some other. MM probably doesn't care much about wehther an individual
    does that since they just want the latest version. But in big companies
    where lots of computers have a certain application installed it would
    become a cost effective way of working with their software. I mean, if
    one task can't be done in the old version then somebody else can perform
    it / gets the specific job. In the meantime, someone else with the old
    version installed can still be able to do tasks that both version can
    (such as drawing, slicing etc.). In effect, out of 20 computers only 10
    have been upgraded while 10 computers perform tasks which require the
    new software and the other 10 do old tasks. This could dramatically
    decrease MM's sales impeding their expectation.
    I think that is the issue here. So MM provided a EULA "rule" that
    prevents this. Should a company break this rule it would still be
    possible of course, but at least MM wrote in their EULA that it is
    prohibited. Companies who follow every rule of the EULA will therefor
    not make the mistake, buy the 10 extra licences, provide MM with the
    anticipated salesorder and MM have effectively handled. I understand and
    agree with them on this (if this is indeed the reason that is).

    What you will probably see in the future is that their Activation System
    will even *prevent* that two versions are installed on seperate
    machines (and on the same machine aswell). Most likely if they implement
    this, the Activation System software will refuse to install if the
    previous version is not detected on the same machine. After installation
    of the new version the user may be asked to remove the previous version
    otherwise the new one will not work. Or maybe the new version
    autodeletes the old one, or effectively overwriting the previous
    installation. This works for people that have 1 machine with two
    versions installed.
    However, if the new version is used on another machine the new version
    will still look for the old one and if it can't find it will refuse to
    install just the same.
    The current inactment of the Serial Number handling only needs the
    previous Serial Number to complete the install.

    You can be rest assured that even more dramatic measures will be
    (under)taken in the future to enhance the piracyprevention.
    The question remains that all of this has any effect to actually prevent
    piracy or abuse of EULA rules.

    Have a very nice weekend

    --

    Coen

    "The only place where success comes before work is in the dictionary."
    _______________________________
    Please, don't E-mail me about Fireworks questions. Please post them on
    the Forum. If otherwise - when I ask you to send me a file for helping
    you, send it to the address below.

    E-mail : ccnk at home.nl
    ================================
    Enhance Fireworks with these Productivity Resources

    *** DevNet ***
    http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/mx/fireworks/
    *** Styles ***
    http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/mx/fireworks/articles/style_samples.html
    http://wetworks.nl/freestyler
    http://richiebee.ca/fireworks.htm
    *** Flash Panels ***
    http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/mx/studio/articles/fw_command_in_flash.html




    John T wrote: 
    >
    > not?

    >
    >[/ref]
    http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/mx/studio/articles/fw_command_in_flash.html 
    >
    >[/ref]

    Coen Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Fireworks Survey question 8: having both MX and MX2004 installed

    >>What I think is that they want
    to avoid having FWMX installed on one system while FWMX2004 is installed
    on some other
     [/ref]
    have been upgraded while 10 computers perform tasks which require the
    new software and the other 10 do old tasks. This could dramatically
    decrease MM's sales impeding their expectation.
    I think that is the issue here.

    I don't quite follow the argument in relation to the 2004 EULA, Coen.

    Clause 4 from the EULA:
    "Upgrades
    If this copy of the Software is an upgrade from an earlier version of the
    Software, it is provided to you on a license exchange basis. You agree by
    your installation and use of such copy of the Software to voluntarily
    terminate your earlier EULA and that you will not continue to use the
    earlier version of the Software or transfer it to another person or entity
    unless such transfer is pursuant to Section 3."

    If a company has 20 MX licenses and upgrades 10 to 2004 then, according to
    the current EULA wording, they can use 10 copies of MX and 10 copies of MX
    2004. Each license is on a per-platform (seat) basis.

    How does the company gain and Macromedia lose sales? i.e. why is the current
    MX 2004 EULA wording required to contain the scenario you have laid out?

    Forgive me if I've missed the point.

    --
    Regards

    John Waller


    John Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Fireworks Survey question 8: having both MX and MX2004 installed

    That sounds fair enough to me, John!
    If you purchase (at a premium price) an upgrade release on those terms, it seems only fair that the new package would replace (licence and all) the previous version, thereby invalidating your rights etc to use the original package. However, should you purchase a completely new, off-the-shelf full package, there should be no problem having both versions sitting on your hard drive, or on separate machines surely?
    John Mc


    ************************
    Heck! I'm trying hard, at least!

    pyroteknix.co.uk
    Fireworks4 Tutorials, Hints and Tips!
    Take off the TOP before mailing me!
    goinon41 Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Fireworks Survey question 8: having both MX and MX2004 installed


    John Waller wrote:
    | I don't quite follow the argument in relation to the 2004 EULA, Coen.

    What I should have said was that when you buy 10 new licences for the MX
    2004 release (or any other release for that matter) you can't have 30
    computers with Fireworks installed on it. That is, 20 with the previous
    version, and 10 with the new version.

    Do you understand this?




    John Waller wrote: 
    >>[/ref]
    > to avoid having FWMX installed on one system while FWMX2004 is installed
    > on some other
    >

    >>[/ref]
    > have been upgraded while 10 computers perform tasks which require the
    > new software and the other 10 do old tasks. This could dramatically
    > decrease MM's sales impeding their expectation.
    > I think that is the issue here.
    >
    > I don't quite follow the argument in relation to the 2004 EULA, Coen.
    >
    > Clause 4 from the EULA:
    > "Upgrades
    > If this copy of the Software is an upgrade from an earlier version of the
    > Software, it is provided to you on a license exchange basis. You agree by
    > your installation and use of such copy of the Software to voluntarily
    > terminate your earlier EULA and that you will not continue to use the
    > earlier version of the Software or transfer it to another person or entity
    > unless such transfer is pursuant to Section 3."
    >
    > If a company has 20 MX licenses and upgrades 10 to 2004 then, according to
    > the current EULA wording, they can use 10 copies of MX and 10 copies of MX
    > 2004. Each license is on a per-platform (seat) basis.
    >
    > How does the company gain and Macromedia lose sales? i.e. why is the current
    > MX 2004 EULA wording required to contain the scenario you have laid out?
    >
    > Forgive me if I've missed the point.
    >[/ref]


    --

    Coen

    "The only place where success comes before work is in the dictionary."
    _______________________________
    Please, don't E-mail me about Fireworks questions. Please post them on
    the Forum. If otherwise - when I ask you to send me a file for helping
    you, send it to the address below.

    E-mail : ccnk at home.nl
    ================================
    Enhance Fireworks with these Productivity Resources

    *** DevNet ***
    http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/mx/fireworks/
    *** Styles ***
    http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/mx/fireworks/articles/style_samples.html
    http://wetworks.nl/freestyler
    http://richiebee.ca/fireworks.htm
    *** Flash Panels ***
    http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/mx/studio/articles/fw_command_in_flash.html




    Coen Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Fireworks Survey question 8: having both MX and MX2004 installed

    Yes, I agree with the Upgrade/Full version perspective. It should be
    exactly that!

    But is the EULA for the Upgrade version the same as the EULA for the
    Full version? If so, they should change this. I mean, you pay less
    because you already bought part of the (new) program. I sued to think
    however it is that you pay less because you supported them once and they
    return the favour now... or something like that. But it should sound
    reasonable to have a different policy with different versions.

    goinon41 wrote: 


    --

    Coen

    "The only place where success comes before work is in the dictionary."
    _______________________________
    Please, don't E-mail me about Fireworks questions. Please post them on
    the Forum. If otherwise - when I ask you to send me a file for helping
    you, send it to the address below.

    E-mail : ccnk at home.nl
    ================================
    Enhance Fireworks with these Productivity Resources

    *** DevNet ***
    http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/mx/fireworks/
    *** Styles ***
    http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/mx/fireworks/articles/style_samples.html
    http://wetworks.nl/freestyler
    http://richiebee.ca/fireworks.htm
    *** Flash Panels ***
    http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/mx/studio/articles/fw_command_in_flash.html




    Coen Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: Fireworks Survey question 8: having both MX and MX2004 installed

    > Do you understand this?

    Yes. Very clear.

    But the 2004 EULA wording does not affect this.

    The current wording simply states that you cannot run MX on a machine which
    is also running MX 2004.

    Thus, in the scenario you describe, you would have 10 machines running MX
    and 10 machines running MX 2004. Even without the 2004 MX EULA, you could
    not run 20 machines with MX and another 10 with MX 2004 unless you purchase
    30 licenses.

    However, the crux of the matter is that, according to the MX 2004 EULA, the
    machines running MX 2004 cannot also run MX even if it may still be
    installed in a separate folder on that machine - which I think is complete
    nonsense. It's unfair to the end user and, frankly, it's unenforceable by
    MM.

    It's clear to me that MM are in no rush to do anything about the wording of
    the EULA which seems odd given their aggressive pursuit of other license
    misdemeanours and their high profile Product Activation scheme. They
    obviously pick their battles.

    I suspect that most people who have upgraded to MX 2004 are also running MX
    on the same machine.

    --
    Regards

    John Waller


    John Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: Fireworks Survey question 8: having both MX and MX2004 installed

    And, if you look at it from the perspective of people who answer questions
    on this forum, it is even to Macromedia's *advantage* for those people to
    have several versions installed, so they can answer questions for the
    version being asked about.

    However, that is handled by the TMM program, so I guess they feel they have
    that covered.

    -Amy

    "John Waller" <com.au> wrote in message
    news:bo22f7$6k5$macromedia.com... 
    >
    > Yes. Very clear.
    >
    > But the 2004 EULA wording does not affect this.
    >
    > The current wording simply states that you cannot run MX on a machine[/ref]
    which 
    purchase 
    the 
    of 
    MX 


    Amy Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: Fireworks Survey question 8: having both MX and MX2004 installed

    | Even without the 2004 MX EULA, you could not run 20 machines with MX
    and another 10 with MX 2004 unless you purchase 30 licenses.

    This doesn't make sense, because when you already purchased the 20 MX
    licences you can run them. But if you buy 10 MX2004 licences you can
    only run 10 MX and 10 MX2004. (Of course, we ARE talking Upgrade
    licences here, becuase if they were full versions the scenario WOULD
    actually work - 20 MX / 10 MX2004.

    | ..// and, frankly, it's unenforceable by MM.

    They will only check big corporations for licencing matters. The "Jack
    of all trades" people like myself aren't the ones they worry about. If
    some guy uses pirated software for a legit company, they don't worry
    about this. The same is they don't worry about one company having 2
    verions installed. What they worry about are the big corporations who
    buy 20+ licences at a time. And they send the chaps of the BSA (Business
    Software Alliance) to do their policework (check double versions per PC
    or pirated software).
    And you know what, to be honest here, if I wanted to I could be using 2
    versions on the same machine or use pirated software (for that matter).
    But the thing is, it just doesn't feel right to me to mess with the
    rules. If MM's EULA says I can't do this, I simply won't. Plain and simple.
    But, I completely understand why some people think differently and even
    some don't have 600 - 1000 Dollars to pay for (new) software. But that
    is a whole different discussion.

    I know however - from what I see around me in my hometown and abroad -
    that many people don't stick to the rules. And I better leave it at
    that, because if I get into piracy issues I probably can add ten more
    pages of text here. And about that issue I have just one thing to say
    which I mean sincerely: Piracy is piracy, but there are people that use
    pirated software and have loads of money but don't spend it because they
    don't care about buying software, AND then there are those that DON'T
    HAVE the cash but still want to educate themselves on the software. They
    use pirated software for a period of time and then when they have the
    money to buy it they WILL actually BUY IT.
    Let's leave it at that.

    I'm sorry if I went off topic a bit, but I felt like saying this.


    --

    Coen

    "The only place where success comes before work is in the dictionary."
    _______________________________
    Please, don't E-mail me about Fireworks questions. Please post them on
    the Forum. If otherwise - when I ask you to send me a file for helping
    you, send it to the address below.

    E-mail : ccnk at home.nl
    ================================
    Enhance Fireworks with these Productivity Resources

    *** DevNet ***
    http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/mx/fireworks/
    *** Styles ***
    http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/mx/fireworks/articles/style_samples.html
    http://wetworks.nl/freestyler
    http://richiebee.ca/fireworks.htm
    *** Flash Panels ***
    http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/mx/studio/articles/fw_command_in_flash.html



    John Waller wrote: 
    >
    >
    > Yes. Very clear.
    >
    > But the 2004 EULA wording does not affect this.
    >
    > The current wording simply states that you cannot run MX on a machine[/ref]
    which 
    running MX 
    could 
    purchase 
    EULA, the 
    complete 
    unenforceable by 
    wording of 
    running MX 


    Coen Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: Fireworks Survey question 8: having both MX and MX2004 installed

    | Even without the 2004 MX EULA, you could not run 20 machines with MX
    and another 10 with MX 2004 unless you purchase 30 licenses.

    This doesn't make sense, because when you already purchased the 20 MX
    licences you can run them. But if you buy 10 MX2004 licences you can
    only run 10 MX and 10 MX2004. (Of course, we ARE talking Upgrade
    licences here, becuase if they were full versions the scenario WOULD
    actually work - 20 MX / 10 MX2004.

    | ..// and, frankly, it's unenforceable by MM.

    They will only check big corporations for licencing matters. The "Jack
    of all trades" people like myself aren't the ones they worry about. If
    some guy uses pirated software for a legit company, they don't worry
    about this. The same is they don't worry about one company having 2
    verions installed. What they worry about are the big corporations who
    buy 20+ licences at a time. And they send the chaps of the BSA (Business
    Software Alliance) to do their policework (check double versions per PC
    or pirated software).
    And you know what, to be honest here, if I wanted to I could be using 2
    versions on the same machine or use pirated software (for that matter).
    But the thing is, it just doesn't feel right to me to mess with the
    rules. If MM's EULA says I can't do this, I simply won't. Plain and simple.
    But, I completely understand why some people think differently and even
    some don't have 600 - 1000 Dollars to pay for (new) software. But that
    is a whole different discussion.

    I know however - from what I see around me in my hometown and abroad -
    that many people don't stick to the rules. And I better leave it at
    that, because if I get into piracy issues I probably can add ten more
    pages of text here. And about that issue I have just one thing to say
    which I mean sincerely: Piracy is piracy, but there are people that use
    pirated software and have loads of money but don't spend it because they
    don't care about buying software, AND then there are those that DON'T
    HAVE the cash but still want to educate themselves on the software. They
    use pirated software for a period of time and then when they have the
    money to buy it they WILL actually BUY IT.
    Let's leave it at that.

    I'm sorry if I went off topic a bit, but I felt like saying this.


    --

    Coen

    "The only place where success comes before work is in the dictionary."
    _______________________________
    Please, don't E-mail me about Fireworks questions. Please post them on
    the Forum. If otherwise - when I ask you to send me a file for helping
    you, send it to the address below.

    E-mail : ccnk at home.nl
    ================================
    Enhance Fireworks with these Productivity Resources

    *** DevNet ***
    http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/mx/fireworks/
    *** Styles ***
    http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/mx/fireworks/articles/style_samples.html
    http://wetworks.nl/freestyler
    http://richiebee.ca/fireworks.htm
    *** Flash Panels ***
    http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/mx/studio/articles/fw_command_in_flash.html



    John Waller wrote: 
    >
    >
    > Yes. Very clear.
    >
    > But the 2004 EULA wording does not affect this.
    >
    > The current wording simply states that you cannot run MX on a machine[/ref]
    which 
    running MX 
    could 
    purchase 
    EULA, the 
    complete 
    unenforceable by 
    wording of 
    running MX 

    Coen Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: Fireworks Survey question 8: having both MX and MX2004 installed

    (Of course, we ARE talking Upgrade 

    I think we're both saying the same thing :-)
     

    No problem.

    --
    Regards

    John Waller


    John Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: Fireworks Survey question 8: having both MX and MX2004 installed

    This is a nonstandard license policy. Let's look at two other major
    vendors. Microsoft and Borland do not cripple their upgrades this way.
    Plenty of users would find it unacceptable. Imagine doing development in
    Visual Studio 6 or Access 2000 and then upgrading and no longer being able
    to support customers with the current version. Shackling developers only
    hurts the vendor, as developers will look for solutions that allow them to
    get their work done. If I need MX and MX2004, but they want me to buy two
    full licenses, forget it. If they really enforce this and there is another
    comparable solution available, I will be gone for good without looking back.
    I can't afford to buy a brand new full license every time, and I don't
    believe that other designers are really doing this either. And MM should
    not expect it.

    Chet

    "goinon41" <co.uk> wrote in message
    news:bo1mf2$nfj$macromedia.com... 
    seems only fair that the new package would replace (licence and all) the
    previous version, thereby invalidating your rights etc to use the original
    package. However, should you purchase a completely new, off-the-shelf full
    package, there should be no problem having both versions sitting on your
    hard drive, or on separate machines surely? 


    Chester Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: Fireworks Survey question 8: having both MX and MX2004 installed

    "Coen" <nl> wrote in message news:nl... 

    MM doesn't worry about software piracy? You either don't understand
    software piracy or didn't think about what you were saying. The whole
    reason for software activation and suffocatingly strict EULAs is piracy.

    Chet


    Chester Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: Fireworks Survey question 8: having both MX and MX2004 installed


    This is why I brought up the Piracy issue. Because when people start
    breaking those very rules MM imposes on its users, we are in fact in an
    act of piracy, sort of. That is something I said I always want to avoid.
    But yes, I can't help someone on the forum who has a MX specific
    question because I don't have the version installed anymore - neither
    CAN I have it installed without breaking the rules. Thus I can't help
    this users thus MM gets one more phonecall to their supportdesk.

    How cynically simple life can be at times....

    Chester Harold wrote: 
    >
    > seems only fair that the new package would replace (licence and all) the
    > previous version, thereby invalidating your rights etc to use the original
    > package. However, should you purchase a completely new, off-the-shelf full
    > package, there should be no problem having both versions sitting on your
    > hard drive, or on separate machines surely?

    >
    >
    >[/ref]


    --

    Coen

    "The only place where success comes before work is in the dictionary."
    _______________________________
    Please, don't E-mail me about Fireworks questions. Please post them on
    the Forum. If otherwise - when I ask you to send me a file for helping
    you, send it to the address below.

    E-mail : ccnk at home.nl
    ================================
    Enhance Fireworks with these Productivity Resources

    *** DevNet ***
    http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/mx/fireworks/
    *** Styles ***
    http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/mx/fireworks/articles/style_samples.html
    http://wetworks.nl/freestyler
    http://richiebee.ca/fireworks.htm
    *** Flash Panels ***
    http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/mx/studio/articles/fw_command_in_flash.html




    Coen Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: Fireworks Survey question 8: having both MX and MX2004 installed

    All i'm saying is that the big fish get caught first and they worry more
    about them than the little fish.

    Chester Harold wrote: 
    >
    >
    > MM doesn't worry about software piracy? You either don't understand
    > software piracy or didn't think about what you were saying. The whole
    > reason for software activation and suffocatingly strict EULAs is piracy.
    >
    > Chet
    >
    >[/ref]


    --

    Coen

    "The only place where success comes before work is in the dictionary."
    _______________________________
    Please, don't E-mail me about Fireworks questions. Please post them on
    the Forum. If otherwise - when I ask you to send me a file for helping
    you, send it to the address below.

    E-mail : ccnk at home.nl
    ================================
    Enhance Fireworks with these Productivity Resources

    *** DevNet ***
    http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/mx/fireworks/
    *** Styles ***
    http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/mx/fireworks/articles/style_samples.html
    http://wetworks.nl/freestyler
    http://richiebee.ca/fireworks.htm
    *** Flash Panels ***
    http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/mx/studio/articles/fw_command_in_flash.html




    Coen Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: Fireworks Survey question 8: having both MX and MX2004 installed

    It's such a bad policy that I would call on MM to enforce it. It is a
    shameful policy that has no validity regarding design tools and their use.
    I currently have MX installed and at some point will be installing MX2004.
    I will not be uninstalling MX and thereby crippling myself and my business.
    Come and get me.

    Chet

    "Coen Naninck" <nl> wrote in message
    news:nl... [/ref]
    in [/ref]
    able [/ref]
    only [/ref]
    to [/ref]
    two [/ref]
    another [/ref]
    back. [/ref]
    should [/ref][/ref]
    it [/ref]
    original [/ref]
    full 
    > >
    > >
    > >[/ref]
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Coen
    >
    > "The only place where success comes before work is in the dictionary."
    > _______________________________
    > Please, don't E-mail me about Fireworks questions. Please post them on
    > the Forum. If otherwise - when I ask you to send me a file for helping
    > you, send it to the address below.
    >
    > E-mail : ccnk at home.nl
    > ================================
    > Enhance Fireworks with these Productivity Resources
    >
    > *** DevNet ***
    > http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/mx/fireworks/
    > *** Styles ***
    > http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/mx/fireworks/articles/style_samples.html
    > http://wetworks.nl/freestyler
    > http://richiebee.ca/fireworks.htm
    > *** Flash Panels ***
    >[/ref]
    http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/mx/studio/articles/fw_command_in_flash.html 


    Chester Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: Fireworks Survey question 8: having both MX and MX2004 installed

    For what it's worth, I've been trying to raise attention internally on
    these threads, but it really helps if the feedback comes through more
    than one channel... if you're in any other communication with other
    Macromedians then please don't forget to relay your concerns about that
    particular current wording, thanks.

    jd




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

    John Guest

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: December 8th, 12:28 PM
  2. Advice on Fireworks MX2004
    By kwilliams in forum Macromedia Fireworks
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: November 3rd, 03:12 PM
  3. Fireworks MX2004 -- not ready for prime time
    By Alex@RainBird webforumsuser@macromedia.com in forum Macromedia Fireworks
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: October 29th, 06:00 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