 | Nov 17 2009 |
REVCO Looks like Public Beta is Intel only.
(Version 2.0.0.10760) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Oct 10 2009 |
MACLOVER1.1 AIR: possibly the worst piece of crap ever invented on mac.
(Version 1.5.2) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Oct 10 2009 |
MACLOVER1.1 I've never had issues as I have with Adobe products, I'll vote them most horrendous company after Microsoft.
(Version 1.5.2) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Nov 25 2008 |
RPPHOTO Does Air actually work on Apple computers? It probably does, but not for me: every time I try to install an Air application, I get an error box that says Air is not installed properly. So, I uninstall every element I can find, go to Adobe and run the new installer. No luck. I've tried every version, always with the same result. Anyone know how to fix it?
(Version 1.5) | |
| [ 2 Replies - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Feb 27 2009 |
ALBION Of course it works. This could be a sign that something else about your system needs troubleshooting.
(Version 1.5.1) | |
| Jun 17 2009 |
ROGER KATZ I get the same problem.
(Version 1.5.1) | |
| Sep 21 2008 |
MACSWEEP Sounds like to me Adobe Air emulates (on the desktop) the server-side environment to test web apps. PHP and some others scripts need to be on the server to function.
(Version 1.1) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| May 28 2008 |
SZABESZ "So, it is a development system?" No, it is not. It is a runtime environment like one Java has, and needs to be installed in order to run applications developed for it. "There aren't enough development systems in the world?" Yes, you are right. There aren't enough development systems in the world. Period. "Why do I want to run on the Adobe servers?" Obviously you don't want, and you don't have to. Except for de download time of the installed package. "If I loose internet connection I'm down, instantaneously? Sounds like back to "Save Often or loose it all!" " In this case, you miss the point. It has nothing to do with continuos internet connection.
(Version 1.0.1) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| May 27 2008 |
JNSBOW So, it is a development system? Another development system?!? There aren't enough development systems in the world? Why do I want to run on the Adobe servers? If I loose internet connection I'm down, instantaneously? Sounds like back to "Save Often or loose it all!"
(Version 1.0.1) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| May 27 2008 |
MEGAMOOSE To the earlier reviewer who was wondering how this is different than Flex, AIR allows developers to write stand-alone applications using Flex, HTML, and/or Javascript. In other words, it allows us web developers to create stand-alone applications using the technologies we use every day. This is not like Google Gears or Firefox's offline data storage -- these are full blown applications that have much the same capabilities as a native application (with the huge advantage of being cross-platform). I've already used it to convert some of my Flex apps into standalone applications for use at trade-shows.
(Version 1.0.1) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Feb 25 2008 |
TIM27 I don't understand what AIR is for, especially since Flex is out. You already have Flex, Flash, Widgets and Gadgets. They all can do similar things. And Flash content can be integrated into Widgets and Gadgets. And on top of that, now you have another app to download and install rather than just a widget or gadget, which is integrated into the operating system of either Windows or Mac OS. This seems like a complete waste of time or resources. Either that, or Adobe should be combining Flex with this? But it seems like they do pretty similar things already.
(Version 1.0) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Jul 30 2007 |
MORI57 For those of you too busy to do more than make snide comments about a product you haven't bothered reading even the simplest introductory article on (many readily available from Adobe's wiki), I thought I'd take a few minutes out of my own busy schedule: 1) AIR (formerly "Apollo") is to the desktop what Flash Player is to the web browser. That is, you write content for AIR, compile it, and then people can download it and run it like a regular desktop application. And, yes, this means that you now have access to desktop-side faculties, such as the filesystem. 2) One chief difference between AIR and other dev tools is that you can use a mixture of HTML, XML, Javascript, Actionscript, Flex, etc. You're not limited to the script libraries that Adobe provides, either. Jack Slocum's Ext library, for example, is used to create a really nifty looking Task tracking app. 3) Adobe's purpose is to create an application development platform that allows the huge community of web developers use of their already-existing skills for desktop development. A secondary purpose, of course, is to allow web apps to be brought to the desktop for offline-enabled apps... apps that update when you're connected, but are still usable (in a limited sense, like composing email using Mail offline) when you're not. 4) The fact that Adobe has put more effort into bringing this technology out in a beta form shows more interest in creating a grassroots community. Branding can come later; the hardest part is getting developers interested in using the tools. 5) AIR is cross-platform. There is a runtime for Mac and for Windows, and I'm certain that if the Linux community gets pushing, there will be one for them as well. 6) Not only that, but Aptana has plug-ins that allow you to develop HTML/Javascript based AIR apps, for free, at the moment. Whether that will stay that way, I haven't heard, but you can at least give it a try.
(Version 1.0b1) | |
| [ 1 Reply - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Nov 27 2007 |
PETER DA SILVA It sounds like Konfabulator with less transparency and more overhead. Konfabulator is already as cross platform as AIR, and has been around for years...
(Version 1.0b2) | |
| Jul 28 2007 |
BRIAN KENDIG So, what is this? Is it a free tool to let me write Flash applications? Or some kind of front-end if I already purchased the Flash developer kit, or what?
(Version 1.0b1) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Mar 19 2007 |
SCHMELDING This is a serious question: Is this worth the download? I fear Adobe's bent for bloatware. If that's the case, I'll continue coding by hand, thank you very much.
(Version 1.0a1) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Mar 19 2007 |
MARSVIOLET Well at least Adobe's application icons now accurately reflect the quality of its products and the aesthetic taste of its upper management.
(Version 1.0a1) | |
| [ 8 Replies - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Mar 19 2007 |
PENNYHEAD1 I like the new application icons, I can now find Photoshop on the dock with ease. I think their old icons were a little too busy :).
(Version 1.0a1) | |
| Mar 19 2007 |
MARSVIOLET If all they care about is people being able to spot Photoshop in a crowded Dock, a large Inuit phallus fetish would have worked just as well, and would have required some actual graphic design skill to execute successfully.
(Version 1.0a1) | |
| Mar 20 2007 |
DOUG S. You ever seen the work of Joseph Müller-Brockman? You know, the father of graphic design? The man was all about simplicity. I agree the new icons are very nice. They are clear and easy to spot and there's nothing about them that makes me think them ugly. They follow reductive design, which is you take away all the elements that have nothing to do with the root concept and don't help convey the main idea of what the thing is. All the extra stuff on Adobe's icons, while nice, was just fluff. At the end of the day what else is an icon but a box with a little logo of some sort to let you know what you're really looking at?
(Version 1.0a1) | |
 | Mar 20 2007 |
MARSVIOLET If all you have is Photoshop's blue [Ps], sure it'll stand out and be easily identifiable but get four or five of these things in your Dock god forbid ten or more things are gonna get ugly. Plus, relying on letter combinations is a really poor idea. Let me illustrate. Tell me what these apps from my Dock are: [Tr] [Qt] [Ma] [Ap] [Gb] [Fl] [Pr] [Tx] [Mo] Even if I color-coded them it would be a needlessly abstract puzzle. I believe in minimalism in graphic design consider the original simple System 1 icons but even Egyptian hieroglyphics would have been better than this utter silliness.
(Version 1.0a1) | |
| Mar 20 2007 |
DOUG S. First, who uses that many of their products on a daily basis? I have four, Illustrator, Photoshop, Dreamweaver and Flash. I can see maybe having InDesign and Acrobat as well... But not too many more. Ten would be hard. Plus, you'd know what the icons were anyway. Besides, it's not a big change from Macromedia's icons. Instead of being circles they're squares. Besides, the way the brain recognises things is by matching shapes and colours together. You see two letters on a blue square you'll know Photoshop. A squiggly F on red, well I just bet that'll be Flash.
(Version 1.0a1) | |
| Mar 20 2007 |
MARSVIOLET Well, I hope so. Then again, the only Adobe app I still use is Photoshop, so really I'm sort of barking just for the sake of barking. I never used the CS or CS2 icons either. I held onto the older, prettier ones.
(Version 1.0a1) | |
| Jul 28 2007 |
CHRIS_S I guess when you have no clue what the software does, nor have taken the time to try it out to remotely have anything of substance to add toward commenting about the body of the article, it's a popular hobby here to become an icon reviewer. Thankfully, some people actually base their opinions about software products on what the software does on not on the visual appearance of the icon that invokes it. Personally I find AIR to be rather useful software and I highly suggest anyone interested to at least try the product and not pay much attention to the comments about it's icon (something I also find to be quite appealing BTW) which have nothing to do with what AIR provides developers :)
(Version 1.0b1) | |
|
Main
