Auto Play Vs. Macromedia Director MX

[Bauhaus]

Just looking for obective view points on which software to purchase.
Any enlightening observations in the differences between the two programs
will be most appreciated.
Bauhaus

[itamar]

HI there,
Write us what are you trying to do, and then we can compare both of the programs.

Itamar.

[Corey]

Hi. Well for me I only use software I enjoy using. I would reccomend you download the free trial of both software titles and try them out. Spend 15 minutes using AMS and 15 minutes using Director and I think you will go with AMS. Director is not fun to use, even for advanced users whereas AMS has a really nice workflow. In terms of power, AMS has a 3rd party plug-in structure which allows you to really leverage all sorts of great technologies, the add-ons site is here http://www.autoplay.org

For some free online videos on using AMS try out http://www.autoplayzone.com The "Getting Started" video is only five minutes long and is well worth watching...

If you have any specific questions regarding certain features feel free to ask away, we're here to help. :) It's probably also worth noting that we offer extremely good after sales support.

Corey Milner
Creative Director, Indigo Rose Software (http://www.indigorose.com)

[eric_darling]

For me it comes down to one central point.

A major benefit of Director MX 2004 is that you can now build runtimes for Mac and PC out of the software - no matter which platform you run it on. If you need to distribute Mac compatible projects, Director is the clear winner. If you don't need Mac, then don't bother with Director. It's as simple as that. Macromedia wishes they had the built-in functionality, ease-of-use and product support that Indigo Rose can surely boast about. There's no contest in those crucial areas.

[Bruce]

Hear hear Eric! I used Director for almost four years. Once I found AMS, it was VERY easy to move over with NO regrets what so ever.