Windows for Shockwave 3.0 review

> Chuck Neal of mediamacros.com has written a review of Windows for
> Shockwave 3.0 at
> http://mediamacros.com/item/item06687216 .
>
> In authoring environments like C++, Delphi, Visual Basic, Java, etc,
> there is no time line
> (unlike Director and Flash) and dev takes place essentially window by
> window, or menu by menu,
> and is less like a 'movie' than a 'flowchart'. Windows for Shockwave
> is toward net-based
> software art that can use both the 'movie' and the
> 'flowchart/application' paradigms as the
> occassion requires.
>
> ja
>
>
so true, so true….and (congratulations, jim, on this review, btw), macromedia has its eye on rivalling those that make the development environments (i.e. microsoft—no, the rumors weren't true, no microsoft/macromedia merge)=====god knows flash mx, with it's UI components, has added a whole buncha stuff that looks quite familiar to anyone whose ever used controls in visual basic or visual c+++—-

this is one of the reasons i like to work in flash, too—-because it can do not only timeline-based multimedia, but is also on its way to becoming a nice little development tool/////of course, i still use visual basic and c+++—–but i feel home in flash, and free because of the fact that these two areas are so (almost) seamlessly combined////

bliss
l

> so true, so true….and (congratulations, jim, on this review, btw), macromedia has
> its eye on rivalling those that make the development environments (i.e.
> microsoft—no, the rumors weren't true, no microsoft/macromedia merge)=====god knows
> flash mx, with it's UI components, has added a whole buncha stuff that looks quite
> familiar to anyone whose ever used controls in visual basic or visual c+++—-

'Development environments for what?' is an important question here. Microsoft offers development
tools for several environments, including the .net stuff, I guess, for the net, but my
understanding is that those tools are fairly business-specific (as opposed to art-centred), ie,
they are for retrieving business data and manipulating it, conducting transactions, and so on,
and I wouldn't be surprised if they require the Microsoft PC browser. In other words, they are
corporate tools addressed to an audience with dollars. How many net.artists use .Net Visual
Studio?

I don't see Macromedia seriously competing there, don't see them trying too hard either. Flash
has some form controls now and Cold Fusion is heading in that direction, but it looks like it is
small business oriented, not enterprise level industrial corporate Oracle and Application Server
fortified blah blah.

I have used Director since version 7 (it's at 9 (or MX)) now, and the feature set has changed
considerably. But the sort of things that have been introduced during this time are enhanced
audio capabilities, 3D, Real Media import abilities, Flash import abilities, multi-user server
functionality (used mostly for games) and that sort of thing, ie, not much better database
connectivity (although there is an XML unit for it), not e-commerce functionality. In other
words, they are not striving to turn Director into a business application development
environment. It is unexpectedly and perhaps even beautifully and certainly improbably
art-centred toward synthesis of arts, media, and programming with subtle granular control and
enough processing speed to be interesting.

The engineers who work on Director at Macromedia (the few who are left) are not out of touch
with the lists devoted to discussion of Director. There are several lists and different
engineers follow different lists, mostly the smaller ones that have a sense of 'community'
rather than the huge lists where you wouldn't couldn't read all the posts.

So I see Macromedia in a different light than Microsoft. Microsoft is a behemoth of industry and
has significant involvement in the Dept. of Defence. Macromedia is a flower child in comparison.
Not to say that it is a business of sweetness and light. But compared with Microsoft it is.
Director came from the Mac world in 1987 and was Mac-only for many years. You can still open up
source code in both the Mac and the PC. And of course .dcr's run on Mac and PC (though not
Linux, unfortunately).

The way to not compete with Microsoft is to do things that are fun. Microsoft doesn't go there.
They used to have a Flash-like program called, er, I think it was 'Liquid Image' in 97 but it
didn't last. I'm not sure how they're doing with Soft Image, which they purchased from
Montreal's Daniel Langlois, who started the Daniel Langlois Foundation with that money. Probably
they're not doing well with it either. They're dangerous with an OS, a database, and a browser,
but give them something artistically interesting and it seems like they're just lost. I just
visited their site and looked at their list of products. There's stuff like Flight Simulator and
games, but I don't see anything like Flash or Director concerning multimedia. There's Xbox, but
I'm under the impression that you need a team of C++ developers to make games for that platform.
So they can address the kid's entertainment field, but that doesn't interest me much. So much
warnography for the little warrior.

ja

true—-they're environments aimed in quite disparate directions (i use the visual studio enterprise edition, by the way…not .net but the previous one, 6—–it supports a lot of networking options)////

the differences you point out are exactly what keeps me coming back to flash—i'm not suggesting that flash or director rival visual studio yet, but watch—–the trend has been toward development, and macromedia has created (as far as i'm concerned) some of the best multimedia development tools around—-visual studio is good for making applications at this point, but i'm not sure at all how cross-platform those applications are (much of my experience in visual basic has used micosoft common dialogues, which i'm assuming aren't available to mac OS users—-and visual c++ is heavily dependent on the microsoft foundation class (MFC, or "microsoft fried chicken")—again, not sure these are as cross-platform as they should be)))

////yeah, microsoft has effectively squeezed many great ideas out in favor of their own///look at what's happening to java….

bliss
l


> > so true, so true….and (congratulations, jim, on this review, btw),
> macromedia has
> > its eye on rivalling those that make the development environments
> (i.e.
> > microsoft—no, the rumors weren't true, no microsoft/macromedia
> merge)=====god knows
> > flash mx, with it's UI components, has added a whole buncha stuff
> that looks quite
> > familiar to anyone whose ever used controls in visual basic or
> visual c+++—-
>
> 'Development environments for what?' is an important question here.
> Microsoft offers development
> tools for several environments, including the .net stuff, I guess, for
> the net, but my
> understanding is that those tools are fairly business-specific (as
> opposed to art-centred), ie,
> they are for retrieving business data and manipulating it, conducting
> transactions, and so on,
> and I wouldn't be surprised if they require the Microsoft PC browser.
> In other words, they are
> corporate tools addressed to an audience with dollars. How many
> net.artists use .Net Visual
> Studio?
>
> I don't see Macromedia seriously competing there, don't see them
> trying too hard either. Flash
> has some form controls now and Cold Fusion is heading in that
> direction, but it looks like it is
> small business oriented, not enterprise level industrial corporate
> Oracle and Application Server
> fortified blah blah.
>
> I have used Director since version 7 (it's at 9 (or MX)) now, and the
> feature set has changed
> considerably. But the sort of things that have been introduced during
> this time are enhanced
> audio capabilities, 3D, Real Media import abilities, Flash import
> abilities, multi-user server
> functionality (used mostly for games) and that sort of thing, ie, not
> much better database
> connectivity (although there is an XML unit for it), not e-commerce
> functionality. In other
> words, they are not striving to turn Director into a business
> application development
> environment. It is unexpectedly and perhaps even beautifully and
> certainly improbably
> art-centred toward synthesis of arts, media, and programming with
> subtle granular control and
> enough processing speed to be interesting.
>
> The engineers who work on Director at Macromedia (the few who are
> left) are not out of touch
> with the lists devoted to discussion of Director. There are several
> lists and different
> engineers follow different lists, mostly the smaller ones that have a
> sense of 'community'
> rather than the huge lists where you wouldn't couldn't read all the
> posts.
>
> So I see Macromedia in a different light than Microsoft. Microsoft is
> a behemoth of industry and
> has significant involvement in the Dept. of Defence. Macromedia is a
> flower child in comparison.
> Not to say that it is a business of sweetness and light. But compared
> with Microsoft it is.
> Director came from the Mac world in 1987 and was Mac-only for many
> years. You can still open up
> source code in both the Mac and the PC. And of course .dcr's run on
> Mac and PC (though not
> Linux, unfortunately).
>
> The way to not compete with Microsoft is to do things that are fun.
> Microsoft doesn't go there.
> They used to have a Flash-like program called, er, I think it was
> 'Liquid Image' in 97 but it
> didn't last. I'm not sure how they're doing with Soft Image, which
> they purchased from
> Montreal's Daniel Langlois, who started the Daniel Langlois Foundation
> with that money. Probably
> they're not doing well with it either. They're dangerous with an OS, a
> database, and a browser,
> but give them something artistically interesting and it seems like
> they're just lost. I just
> visited their site and looked at their list of products. There's stuff
> like Flight Simulator and
> games, but I don't see anything like Flash or Director concerning
> multimedia. There's Xbox, but
> I'm under the impression that you need a team of C++ developers to
> make games for that platform.
> So they can address the kid's entertainment field, but that doesn't
> interest me much. So much
> warnography for the little warrior.
>
> ja
>
>