Flash MX
I got an email today from Macromedia announcing Flash MX. It apparently has a wealth of new features that sound interesting.
But I am more curious about Macromedia dropping their naming strategy (Flash 4 then Flash 5) that they have been using for all of their products to go with this MX thing. Any one have any ideas why they did this? If it's just to signify that it is native for OS X and Windows XP, then that's pretty lame.
<a href="http://www.macromedia.com/software/flash/productinfo/features/" target="_blank">Flash Feature Tour</a>
[ 03-04-2002: Message edited by: Stroszek ]</p>
But I am more curious about Macromedia dropping their naming strategy (Flash 4 then Flash 5) that they have been using for all of their products to go with this MX thing. Any one have any ideas why they did this? If it's just to signify that it is native for OS X and Windows XP, then that's pretty lame.
<a href="http://www.macromedia.com/software/flash/productinfo/features/" target="_blank">Flash Feature Tour</a>
[ 03-04-2002: Message edited by: Stroszek ]</p>
Comments
[ 03-04-2002: Message edited by: disco ]</p>
<strong>Macromedia is developing a whole suite of integrated products under the umbrella term MX. There will be a Dreamweaver MX, Fireworks MX, ColdFusion MX, etc. Seems a bit silly to me, as most of their products are compatible/integrated already. I'm guessing that this is their first real push at integrating the Macromedia and Allaire product lines.
[ 03-04-2002: Message edited by: disco ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
So then will the next version after this one be Flash MX v2? or do they go to Flash MY? Or is MX just an umbrella term and it is still Flash 6 and it's just been MXed? Does that make sense?
WHICH FLASH?
Flash the authoring environment?
Flash the plugin?
or Flash, the standalone player?
This is partially a way to get away from this confusion.
because now it's Flash MX
Flash 6 plugin
and Flash 6 player
gettin a little better . . .
and yeah, the new features in Flash MX are AWESOME.
10 days . . .
I wish I could be using that new timeline NOW . . .