Well I've spent a lot of time with Flash 2004 now and can conclude absolutely that in its current state, it is absolutely unusable for the kind of work we do.

We've just released a large application written in Flash MX with Firefly and it works really well. On the back of that, we HAD decided to use Flash for other projects - but then came along the new 'improved' 2004 and we really have to re-evaluate the decision.

Why ? Well it seems to be a big step backwards - sure you can still do the nice graphic stuff and you can also get some really basic data connectivity stuff up and running - so 'examples' look great! But once you hit the 'real world' where people want to use REAL data, present it in a USABLE manner, 2004 just collapses.

To my knowledge there are problems with:

Server Side Paging - one of the most useful aspects of Firefly. Is it even PRESENT any more ?

Schema Formatting - arranging fields using this, on data directly retrieved from a database just doesn't work at all! So my Grid has to show all those horrible internal datafields the user really should never be aware of. Not good.

And... even then, where the user has to see those horrible columns in the grid... they can't scroll it because as soon as you remotely strain the grid with more than, say, a dozen columns, it can hardly scroll vertically at all!


There are plenty more problems but just those three alone are enough to prevent Flash being a feasible platform for corporate application development.

Now, I know... these are probably just BUGS... teething problems... but look at the history... how many patches did Macromedia release for MX to fix the bugs and teething problems IT had ? How many fixes were released for the Data Connection Kit - which had LOADS of bugs and teething problems ?

None. Zero. Not a sausage.

So this kind of negates the "wait a while and they'll fix it" counter-argument because there's no track record of 'fixing it' to inspire confidence that this might happen. Of course, we could wait a year for Flash 2005 with its own unique brand of 'teething problems' but... well a year's a long time to wait and I'm not sure anything much will change.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention the abysmal quality of the documentation! But then I'm sure someone else can cover that issue adequately ;-) Ah sod it; I'll do some of it here - WHY not have some fully printable PDF documentation on the disk ? A 'User Guide', a 'Reference Guide', some good RELEVANT code examples etc. It's NOT a cheap product; surely we're owed more than just an executable and a kiss goodbye ?!

But you know what ? What's worse for me than finding the bugs and wondering when they'll get dealt with ? It's the silence. The total lack of good, solid communication between Macromedia and the User Community. All it would take would be an 'update page' listing issues they're aware of, issues they're working on, estimated time of arrival for any patches. Because... we all have DEADLINES to meet. Timescales to estimate etc. We need this information.

With one of the Gnu products I can understand the user community having to support the product itself but when it's an expensive product sold by a large corporation I can hardly believe the contempt the users appear to be held in sometimes.

Flash is a FANTASTIC product. It really is superb. Don't get me wrong, I love it. But something needs to be done about the current situation with the 2004 Suite before the user base starts to look elsewhere, never to return. Nothing's forever guys.

Jamie.

for whatever it's worth:
take a look at -
http://www.macromedia.com/support/flash/ts...ging_issues.htm

and also keep in mind (not that it's any surprise at this point) MM has an actual internal policy against updating their software.

chris georgenes
mudbubble.com
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Flash
search forum first - 90% of questions have been answered

Thanks; I'd seen that. It doesn't mention most of the problems though; just a select few. The true story is a LOT worse!

An INTERNAL POLICY AGAINST RELEASING PATCHES ?!

What's the reasoning behind that - any idea ?

Does this mean that despite the buggy release and despite so much being broken in the product, they'll not release a patch because they have a 'policy' against it ? Ludicrous! I could understand this if they also had a policy to not release software until it had been fully tested but apparently they don't.

Arrgrghhhh! I just want to scream! Never thought I'd see the day but .Net is looking more attractive than ever :-(

Jamie.

the policy thing was a quote from a public blog from an MM employee - it's somewhere here:
http://www.markme.com/mesh/archives/003360.cfm

chris georgenes
mudbubble.com
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Flash
search forum first - 90% of questions have been answered

Scott - thanks for the clarification! amazing how something can be mis-interpretated so easily - i qustioned this comment on that original blog but nobody bothered to correct me there - glad you did.

thanks!

chris georgenes
mudbubble.com
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Flash
search forum first - 90% of questions have been answered

Whoa- hold on, that's a pretty wide misrepresentation of what Mike had said
in his 'blog, and I'm assuming you're referring to the following snippet (at
the link provided below):

Thanks both of you for caring to discuss this here.

A question to you, though, Scott - I can fully understand a policy against discussing timelines for dot releases - for the reasons given in Mike's Blog. But a policy against discussing the possibility ? Surely that's dangerous ?

Certainly with no reassurance that the bugs in the product will be resolved, the user base has in some cases little alternative but to start looking elsewhere ? Is there no responsibility, upon selling something that is faulty, to make it right - either by refunding customers or by fixing what is broken ?

Software seems to be the only commodity that can be sold 'as perfect' when it's actually 'in tatters' and there's no easy comeback for the consumer. This release has hurt the community pretty bad, I think - and a policy of "we're not going to tell you what, if anything, we're going to do about it" seems like pretty bad P.R. to me.

Some kind of statement like "We're working on it and will produce a patch but no timelines will be published for the time being" would make me (and I'm sure many others) a great deal happier.

I'll be honest, it's a new release of something radically different from before - there are BOUND to be teething problems and initial bugs - and anyone used to the IT industry expects a certain amount of this - but they also expect resolution and some degree of communication. Give us that much at least!

Cheers,

Jamie.

"phatkow" [Email Removed] wrote:

Ummm... I think your post proves my case!

The URL you gave: http://www.macromedia.com/downloads/updates/

Where are any Flash MX fixes for the problems with that product ? Where are any Data Connection Kit fixes for some of the many problems with that product ?!

THIS is what scares me - that these two products NEVER had patches released for them to resolve the problems - instead, Macromedia ploughed on with 2004. What I'd like to see is some formal indication that we'll not be treated the same way again - a statement declaring that a patch WILL be bought out *at some point*.

Jamie.

John:
thanks for clarifying - hope i didnt spark a false rumour. it's just that nobody corrected me in that original blog - so now i stand corrected as to what the original post was meant to convey thanks to you and scott.

-chris

chris georgenes
mudbubble.com
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Flash
search forum first - 90% of questions have been answered

Chris... you know what ? If that comment had appeared on a blog about most companies, it wouldn't have been misinterpreted like that - because it would have been demonstratably false - no one would have understood it to mean what you did.

But it's testament to Macromedia's attitude regarding communication to the users and to producing patches that this situation occurred at all. Bottom line is, the misinterpration was believable because it fit well enough.

Jamie.

yeah well - i totally read it the wrong way nevertheless - flash has always worked well for my needs since version 4 - so my angle on all this is somewhat distant in terms of bug issues - but i'm interested in what other have to say regardless.
thanks.

chris georgenes
mudbubble.com
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Flash
search forum first - 90% of questions have been answered

Hi John,

Why must MM handle the forward looking statements so differently than
Microsoft? Microsoft is happy to map their software a couple years into the
future, whether you love the practice or hate it (some people say it's FUD;
actually I like to know where a software suite is ostensibly headed even if
it's subject to change).

Maybe an entry on your blog would be a great way to address the issue. I
love MM products, but I think sometimes you guys hide behind your policies a
bit too much.

Best,
--
Marc A. Garrett
since1968.com

"John Dowdell" <[Email Removed]> wrote in message
news:bll7a6$ro1$[Email Removed]...