>At first it took me a while to get my mind around the MX naming, but >finally it made sense to me. > >With numbering, while you may have different products made around the same >time and optimized to work together, it can be challenging to remember that >DW 4, FL 5, CF 5, FH 10 and Dir 8.5 all came out about the same time and >"go together." > >With the MX family of products from Macromedia, we've put more effort than >ever before into the interoperability/integration of our current round of >product offerings, so I beleive the "powers that be" wanted this to be >reflected in a naming convention that closely ties all the products >together and is easy to keep up with. > >Stated another way, it's a method of getting all the products on the same >"version" without having to back-up or advance version numbers (i.e. move >everything to version 11 so they all match, and then confuse folks who want >to know why we jumped 7 version numbers ahead on Dreamweaver, and/or backed >up 5 version numbers on something else) > >I hope this helps clarify it! >
Not to mention the fact that "MX" is a bit more of a marketable name than a product line with version numbers! ;) Thus far, I'm enjoying the Macromedia eXperience! Regards, Dave. ______________________________________________________________________ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
