Comparisons with Flash MX?

Troy Rollins troy at
Wed Mar 27 22:29:01 EST 2002

On Wednesday, March 27, 2002, at 06:10 PM, Terry Judd wrote:

>> Thanks for the feedback Troy, could I just ask for a bit more detail:
>>> MX is very weak when it comes to system level operations and use 
>>> and/or management of local files. It has no ability to "talk" with 
>>> hardware.
>> I haven't got MX yet (my upgrade is in the post!) but one of my 
>> customers reckons he can save local data on a client machine, not just 
>> return it to a server? Does this ring true with you?
> Director shockwave allows you to write 'pref' (text) files to a 
> dedicated shockwave folder. Presumably Flash can do the same.

We've been working with MX for a couple of weeks now (I have two people 
in it all day), and I can tell you - MX is NOT Director or even close. 
It's Flash5, with some workflow enhancements. I haven't checked 
personally, but one of my staff tells me that you still cannot create 
local files. (At least not easily.)
>> My client is looking to develop web-based information capture and 
>> advice using anything from desktops, to laptops and PDAs as the 
>> client.  He had been considering Java, but has been tempted by Flash 
>> MX.  He thinks it will provide a richly interactive front end for his 
>> data capture (into back end databases using XML etc.) and for 
>> displaying his advisor information, all from inside a browser window.
> If it's got to happen in a browser then Flash would seem to be a 
> reasonable way to go. It's also got pretty robust built in XML support.

Agreed. You sometimes can't fight the tide. Until (if they ever do) 
companies learn that the Internet is more than a web browser, some 
projects simply require Flash. We tend to turn to Flash when the 
absolute necessity is a browser. I would also agree that ubiquity is 
certainly appealing. One of the reasons Revolution is so attractive is 
it's TRUE write once run anywhere. That's a lot to be proud of. It's 
also what makes Flash cool for developers.

To us, it is unavoidable to work in several authoring platforms. 
Projects are examined based on functionality requirements, and the best 
tool for the job is selected. Flash MX definitely takes its turns in 
that role. However, it does NOT always win if the main requirement is 
Network connectivity (as some would think it might). Basically, if it 
has to be a browser based app. That's about it. For other purposes, 
Revolution is just plain more powerful, and iShell is just plain faster 
and more elegant to develop in.


More information about the use-livecode mailing list