Miscellaneous: Dreamweaver MX 2004 for Macstarted by Timr on Jan 5, 2004 — RSS Feed
I'm very unsure whether to upgrade having read a lot of posts about speed on a Mac - any experiences out there?
There have been a lot of complaints about MX 2004 performance on other forums. If you are changing from OS 9.x MX to OSX MX 2004, the slowdown is quite dramatic, especially with editing text on longer pages.
You can get a free trial at http://www.macromedia.com/cfusion/tdrc/index.cfm?product=dreamweaver and decide for yourself if the slowdown makes it unusable for your purposes.
I've tried the demo version of MX 2004 on a Mac running OS X.3 and had the same problems. It's slooow. If you're into coding rather than WYSIWYG check out Webdesign from Rage Software. There's a free trial version. I like it and use it by preference now.
PS I don't ork for the company!!!
mpj - thanks for the lead on Webdesign - I hadn't been aware of this software. I'm downloading the Webdesign demo & will try it out.
I currently use GoLive 6.01. Do you have any experience with GoLive to compare the two?
Some big changes are happening in my work place.
They want to purchase the studio MX bunddle which has dreamweaver and flash MX and only work on OSX platform.
We are not looking forward of doing the jump from Mac OS 9.2 to OSX.3, Because, apparently, OSX.3 does memory management of application that you may have.
Could it be the reason Dreamweaver MX 2004 get real slow ?
Is there anyway around it to speed up dreamweaver on OSX ? ???
I don't think there is anything that you can do to speed up Dreamweaver in OSX, it's Macromedia that needs to do it! There is no speed problem with GoLive in OSX although it has other problems that would stop me from recommending it in its current state.
Hopefully, both programs will improve with their next releases.
hi kam - no I don't have any experience of GoLive. I do remember reading a review of the latest (CS?) version in a wpdfd editorial from a month or two ago though.
I have the Studio MX 2004 bundle and i'm VERY UNHAPPY with it. i'm running it on my g4 iMac with OS 10.2.6.
its beyond slooooow! i'm just lucky i got it through my old college and the bundle only cost $99.
Join the club! With all the new features, bells and whistles, I think that software (including MacOSX, all Macromedia and Adobe software) is actually less good than it was five years ago!
Only malt whisky and some wines improve with age, and then only up to a point!
did i mention the crashing!?!
i'd say it crashed AT LEAST 30 times the first week i had it....i dont use it much anymore, so i kinda solved that problem :
Macromedia have released Updaters for (I think) all the major major compnents of Studio MX 2004. These appear to be major updates that replace the existing software.
They say that speed is dramatically improved but having not used them I can't say.
Yes, software is becoming way too complicated for OUR own good and expensive too. Would be nice if all of us designers could agree on a range of software (not necessarily from a single software house) and stick too it. It would give us much more clout in an area that is controlled jointly by the software houses and computer manufacturers. I think though that some of us would call that utopia and others hell (lack of individual choice) - either way very difficult, if not impossible to achieve.
It is slow, but not unbearably slow. BTW, Macromedia products never been fast. But I can run Dreamweaver 2004 MX on a PB @550Mhz, 768 MB, OS X 10.3.3 without excessive problems. But it's true that I use a lot BBedit for hand coding (integration between the two products is goos).
Where I don't agree with our Administrator is when he states that
With all the new features, bells and whistles, I think that software (including MacOSX, all Macromedia and Adobe software) is actually less good than it was five years ago!Photoshop, for instance (it's from Adobe) is better and better, at light-years from where it was 5 years ago...
Perhaps it's a question of having or not competitors. Photoshop doesn't have any competitor, and any new version can be tested for good. Dreamweaver has competiitors, and it must come out with an upgrade or a new version each time its competitor does the same.
That depends on your definition of 'better'. Is a Porsche 911 'better' than a Renault Espace? They are both motor vechicles and will get you from A to B. Which one is faster? That depends on what you are carrying. A Renault Espace will get eight people from A to B MUCH faster than the Porsche. A Renault Espace will also get eight people from A to B faster than a bus.
In the end, 'better' means 'better suited to the purpose that you intend to use it'. Is Photoshop any better suited to the task of producing Web graphics than it was 5 years ago? I'm not aware of any significant improvements. I'm not aware of it being any faster. What I am aware of is that I have to wade through more stuff to get to what I want than I used to.
Dreamweaver also has masses of (to me) totally redundant and superfluious features. In GoLive, which I much prefer, I can go in a switch off all this stuff so it doesn't load nor appear - mind you, I do object to having to pay for it in the first place. Why can't they sell you the plug-in modules that you need instead of bundling them all from the outset? Well, I guess I know the real answer to that! Few people would buy them.
So, if you want to drive nails into a piece of wood, an old hammer is MUCH better than a new hammer drill.
That depends on your definition of 'better'.
Very right. Right to such an extent that your original statement about products used to be better five years ago doesn't make sense, either
Folks, I believe we have a pardox.
The word 'better' is very like the word 'nicer'. It depends where you are standing, who is standing beside you and how you hold your mouth
You must login to reply