Dreamweaver MX 2004 for Mac | WPDFD.com Forums http://www.wpdfd.com/forums/wpdfd/miscellaneous/dreamweaver_mx_2004_for_mac/ A Miscellaneous forum thread at WPDFD.com en-us 01/05/04, 005 44 2004 2004:%i:1073306665 07:44:25 06/07/13, 158 54 2013 2013:%i:1370595262 04:54:22 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss NineLabs Framework Feed Generator sitemaster@wpdfd.com sitemaster@wpdfd.com Timr said: http://www.wpdfd.com/forums/wpdfd/miscellaneous/dreamweaver_mx_2004_for_mac/#p62 01/05/04, 005 44 2004 2004:%i:1073306665 07:44:25 http://www.wpdfd.com/forums/wpdfd/miscellaneous/dreamweaver_mx_2004_for_mac/#p62 Joe Gillespie said: http://www.wpdfd.com/forums/wpdfd/miscellaneous/dreamweaver_mx_2004_for_mac/#p63
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.

Joe]]> 01/05/04, 005 46 2004 2004:%i:1073310379 08:46:19 http://www.wpdfd.com/forums/wpdfd/miscellaneous/dreamweaver_mx_2004_for_mac/#p63 Mpj said: http://www.wpdfd.com/forums/wpdfd/miscellaneous/dreamweaver_mx_2004_for_mac/#p64
PS I don't ork for the company!!!]]> 01/05/04, 005 54 2004 2004:%i:1073310887 08:54:47 http://www.wpdfd.com/forums/wpdfd/miscellaneous/dreamweaver_mx_2004_for_mac/#p64 Kam said: http://www.wpdfd.com/forums/wpdfd/miscellaneous/dreamweaver_mx_2004_for_mac/#p65
I currently use GoLive 6.01. Do you have any experience with GoLive to compare the two?]]> 01/06/04, 006 03 2004 2004:%i:1073401390 10:03:10 http://www.wpdfd.com/forums/wpdfd/miscellaneous/dreamweaver_mx_2004_for_mac/#p65 Laurentm said: http://www.wpdfd.com/forums/wpdfd/miscellaneous/dreamweaver_mx_2004_for_mac/#p66 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 ? ???]]> 01/07/04, 007 42 2004 2004:%i:1073468526 04:42:06 http://www.wpdfd.com/forums/wpdfd/miscellaneous/dreamweaver_mx_2004_for_mac/#p66 Joe Gillespie said: http://www.wpdfd.com/forums/wpdfd/miscellaneous/dreamweaver_mx_2004_for_mac/#p67
Hopefully, both programs will improve with their next releases.]]> 01/07/04, 007 10 2004 2004:%i:1073470250 05:10:50 http://www.wpdfd.com/forums/wpdfd/miscellaneous/dreamweaver_mx_2004_for_mac/#p67 Mpj said: http://www.wpdfd.com/forums/wpdfd/miscellaneous/dreamweaver_mx_2004_for_mac/#p68 01/12/04, 012 21 2004 2004:%i:1073949671 18:21:11 http://www.wpdfd.com/forums/wpdfd/miscellaneous/dreamweaver_mx_2004_for_mac/#p68 Col3 said: http://www.wpdfd.com/forums/wpdfd/miscellaneous/dreamweaver_mx_2004_for_mac/#p69
its beyond slooooow! i'm just lucky i got it through my old college and the bundle only cost $99. ]]> 04/01/04, 092 12 2004 2004:%i:1080850342 15:12:22 http://www.wpdfd.com/forums/wpdfd/miscellaneous/dreamweaver_mx_2004_for_mac/#p69 Joe Gillespie said: http://www.wpdfd.com/forums/wpdfd/miscellaneous/dreamweaver_mx_2004_for_mac/#p70
Only malt whisky and some wines improve with age, and then only up to a point!]]> 04/01/04, 092 55 2004 2004:%i:1080852907 15:55:07 http://www.wpdfd.com/forums/wpdfd/miscellaneous/dreamweaver_mx_2004_for_mac/#p70 Col3 said: http://www.wpdfd.com/forums/wpdfd/miscellaneous/dreamweaver_mx_2004_for_mac/#p71

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  :]]> 04/01/04, 092 54 2004 2004:%i:1080856492 16:54:52 http://www.wpdfd.com/forums/wpdfd/miscellaneous/dreamweaver_mx_2004_for_mac/#p71 Mpj said: http://www.wpdfd.com/forums/wpdfd/miscellaneous/dreamweaver_mx_2004_for_mac/#p72
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.]]> 04/02/04, 093 05 2004 2004:%i:1080947117 18:05:17 http://www.wpdfd.com/forums/wpdfd/miscellaneous/dreamweaver_mx_2004_for_mac/#p72 Baffone said: http://www.wpdfd.com/forums/wpdfd/miscellaneous/dreamweaver_mx_2004_for_mac/#p73 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.]]> 04/30/04, 121 55 2004 2004:%i:1083318939 05:55:39 http://www.wpdfd.com/forums/wpdfd/miscellaneous/dreamweaver_mx_2004_for_mac/#p73 Joe Gillespie said: http://www.wpdfd.com/forums/wpdfd/miscellaneous/dreamweaver_mx_2004_for_mac/#p74
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.]]> 04/30/04, 121 48 2004 2004:%i:1083322108 06:48:28 http://www.wpdfd.com/forums/wpdfd/miscellaneous/dreamweaver_mx_2004_for_mac/#p74 Baffone said: http://www.wpdfd.com/forums/wpdfd/miscellaneous/dreamweaver_mx_2004_for_mac/#p75 Forum said:
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
]]> 05/01/04, 122 13 2004 2004:%i:1083456811 20:13:31 http://www.wpdfd.com/forums/wpdfd/miscellaneous/dreamweaver_mx_2004_for_mac/#p75 Joe Gillespie said: http://www.wpdfd.com/forums/wpdfd/miscellaneous/dreamweaver_mx_2004_for_mac/#p76
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 ]]> 05/02/04, 123 36 2004 2004:%i:1083494207 06:36:47 http://www.wpdfd.com/forums/wpdfd/miscellaneous/dreamweaver_mx_2004_for_mac/#p76