Flash MX 2004 / Pro
- Started
- Last post
- 43 Responses
- Ladyvipb0
LOL OMG I JUST PWNED THAT T3XT 37 TIMES IN A ROW! FL4SH ROXXORZ!!!!!
- jox0
Neat!! you can spin the text like a real h4XoR!!
- JazX0
Thank you for contacting Macromedia Customer Service.
Educational versions of our software do not have upgrade paths. You can
purchase the Studio MX 2004 with Flash Professional at the educational
price of $249. You can also purchase the educational standalone version
of Flash MX Professional 2004 for $149. Please visit the Macromedia
Educational store at
http://www.macromedia.com/resour…Thank you,
Mark Koch
Macromedia Direct Sales
- eps0
Actionscript 2 is just a more strict version of Actionscript. For example, it is now case sensitive. It just conforms closer to the ECMA standards and has some added features. It is not Java. It is no more Java then MX. But it has some new javascript features like error handling.
It is not that big of a change. You can choose to use version one or two in your projects. BUt some of the new features like databinding and the new halo components are created using AS2.
Eric
- _noah_0
actionscript 2 is like a combination of Java, .NET, Authorware, and Macromedia Acrobat.
It's totally crazy
- unfittoprint0
A comparison chart:
- ok_jason0
ActionScript2 = Java ?
- AD0
"Upgrade from Flash MX to Studio MX 2004 = $500
Upgrade from Studio MX Plus to Stuido MX 2004 = $500 "
i don't think that's correct - i i'm pretty sure I saw $399 for a level2 upgrade (if you studio prior ) or $499 for a level 1 (Flash MX prior)
i'm not 100% but I think i remember reading that
- Recycle0
I assume that ActionScript 1 deals with manipulating the elements on the stage (like JavaScript does with HTML) and ActionScript 2 deals more with sockets, XML, and data transfer (like Java).
- cinder0
I wish the friggin beta testers would come out and share some info on this beast.
I wanna know what's with this ActionScript 2 junk.
- jevad0
"And come on, we all know that ImageReady sucks. "
pppfffttt!!
- Recycle0
Fireworks is quite a good app actually. In most cases I'd say it's better for web work than Photoshop, which is really more of a print app. Though it's hard to get used to if you're a hard-core Photoshop user, it's more intuitive and logical than Photoshop when doing web graphics. And come on, we all know that ImageReady sucks.
And NO ONE should ever use Fireworks' and ImageReady's HTML output capabilities.
In my opintion Fireworks does a better job at compressing images, too.
On the other hand, Fireworks has an annoying bug or too, like all Macromedia crap that's released.
- JazX0
lol
- unknown0
fireworks is jesus cake
- JazX0
ohhh heh e
- niku0
this post isn't about macromedia.
- JazX0
please stop posting Macromedia crap
- cinder0
uh, or BBEdit.
- unfittoprint0
fireworks sucks balls.... it's html output is full of unnecessary garbage, twice the code of what you need, it's like constructing a webpage using Imageready...
My substitute for Fireworks? Adobe's batch actions/files.
for the rest use Dreamweaver MX...
- JazX0
please stop the constant posting of Macromedia