Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

terkwong · Dec 17, 2003, 10:28 PM

This app needs an entire overhaul by Macromedia!!! Even at 2004 version its really slow! Zero improvement from Dreamweaver MX. Try it if you dont believe it! The trial version is now downloadable from Macromedia.

gorickey · Dec 17, 2003, 10:56 PM

I thought the exact same thing when I tried it first week it was out...

Landos Mustache · Dec 17, 2003, 11:05 PM

Lots of topic on this and it has many improvements from the last version. Still buggy and slow but on a Dual G5 it is fine.

Chris Grande · Dec 17, 2003, 11:07 PM

Sad...since DW started as a Mac program.

jasong · Dec 18, 2003, 07:16 AM

Not that it matters, but Dreamweaver was always cross platform. That's why I chose it over GoLive CyberStudio (now Adobe GoLive).

I would say there are lots of improvements in MX 04 over MX. Would I mind if it was faster, not at all. Would I mind if they supported sheets, inline spellchecking and other Mac OS X goodies? Most definitely not.

-- Jason

Semantic Mike · Dec 18, 2003, 10:02 AM

I agree it's a terrible upgrade. We use both mac and PC versions and they're BOTH full of bugs - some the same, some not! It strikes me that getting the basics right (text editing, window updating, scrolling) would solve most of the issues I have with the program.

Mediaman_12 · Dec 18, 2003, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by jasong:
I would say there are lots of improvements in MX 04 over MX. Would I mind if it was faster, not at all. Would I mind if they supported sheets, inline spellchecking and other Mac OS X goodies? Most definitely not.

-- Jason

Implementing the inline spellchecker in Dreamwever could be a problem as you would have to make sure that it only works in the 'Design & Layout' views and not the HTML code view, they both use the same window, I think this is why it uses it's own built in Spellchecker engine rather than utilising the one built in to the OS.
More speed and Sheats would definately be welcome though. Also a 'tabbed' layout (a la Safari) for if you have more than one page open (like on the PC version) would be nice, as an option.

Chris Grande · Dec 18, 2003, 02:22 PM

Macromedia is very strange. Fireworks MX had sheets 2004 does not. But now Flash Does. Who knows.

I'd swear DW started on the Mac and thats why it didn't have a MDI on Windows, maybe I'm wrong no biggy. I do know that earlier version of DW didn't suck on the Mac.

DeathMan · Dec 19, 2003, 12:28 AM

Macromedia just makes me feel sad in side. I thought that it was just the mac side that was falling to pieces. I'm starting to hear badmouthing coming from the windows side as well.

Oh Macromedia, you have so much potential to make good products! Why don't you?!

jasong · Dec 19, 2003, 07:26 AM

Mediaman_12, I am sure you are right about the issues behind inline spelling, but Dreamweaver is able to tell the difference between text and source code, so it should be doable.

It's funny, until I upgraded to Panther, I also wanted the tabbed interface of the Windows version, but now that I have Expos� I don't miss it at all (and in fact prefer the Mac way where I can see what's going on behind DW).

Also, the rumors are true, DW MX 2004 isn't really any better or worse on the Windows side. While I like MX 2004, and I think it has some important improvements, it does need work. Dreamweaver has been flaky (but very useful) since UltraDev 4.

-- Jason

muchfresh · Dec 21, 2003, 04:11 PM

just downloaded trial. I have to agree slow and buggy. stinks of quick and dirty carbon port. Oh well.

Anyway I think HTML editors are on the way out. next gen will be CSS layout editors. . . I hope.

selowitch · Dec 30, 2003, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by muchfresh:
Anyway I think HTML editors are on the way out. next gen will be CSS layout editors. . . I hope.

As long as they are standards-compliant, that would truly be great!

Am I correct that DWMX 04 is still incapable of multithreaded FTP under OS X? How pathetic....

torifile · Dec 30, 2003, 03:55 PM

Why the hell is an HTML editor so slow? I can't understand it. A graphics program, I could see being this slow, but a largely text-based program? You shouldn't need a Dual G5 to run it.

Big Mac · Dec 31, 2003, 07:15 AM

I honestly can say I'm not that upset about all of the DW faults I'm hearing about. I was considering switching from Golive to it (because it's really time for me to upgrade) since everyone always said DW was superior. I guess Adobe got the message and Macromedia went to sleep.

Originally posted by DeathMan:
Macromedia just makes me feel sad in side. I thought that it was just the mac side that was falling to pieces. I'm starting to hear badmouthing coming from the windows side as well. [SNIP]

Why would you want the PC version to perform better than its Mac counterpart?

selowitch · Dec 31, 2003, 07:43 AM

I'm so disgusted with DW's performance and sluggishness that I've begun using it only when a WYSIWYG editor is absolutely necessary (like when I have lots of nested tables or a ton of photos).

The rest of the time, I hand-code with a combination of Transmit and PageSpinner — so much faster! Also, since Transmit has multithreaded FTP, I can keep working even when I'm uploading/downloading files.

workerbee · Dec 31, 2003, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by selowitch:
I'm so disgusted with DW's performance and sluggishness that I've begun using it only when a WYSIWYG editor is absolutely necessary (like when I have lots of nested tables or a ton of photos).

Of course, thats exactly when DW begins to really freeze in its tracks and behave like a Koala on Valium

turk.o · Jan 2, 2004, 01:22 AM

Dreamweaver MX 2004 is the first time i have ever installed a major app, used it for a day and then actually erased it and gone back to the older version. as a html editor, even with the WYSIWIG features it should be much, much faster than it is. Back to MX for me, and in the meantime, why doesn't SOMEONE write a good, solid full-featured WYSIWIG html editor? As cross-program integration isn't so important here (unlike, say indesign or illustrator), i bet thousands would switch to a good option if it was presented and the company could make millions. until then . . .

t.o

workerbee · Jan 2, 2004, 02:26 AM

Originally posted by jasong:
Also, the rumors are true, DW MX 2004 isn't really any better or worse on the Windows side.

Jasong: what I'd be really interested to know is how DW MX 04 works on Windows speed-wise. Is it as sluggish as on OS X, or is it in an entirely different class, and just buggy (as opposed to slow and buggy).
TIA!

sushiism · Jan 2, 2004, 06:39 AM

its pretty **** for windows too, bit less **** maybe but the osx verison has better features by default with the osx colour pal and stuff