Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

mrfurry · May 9, 2004, 04:00 AM

Hi,

I've recently gotten my first proper job, and this allows me to buy my first laptop/notebook. Up until now I've used Windows, but I thought this might be a good opportunity to make the switch. Only one thing - I need this laptop to run Dreamweaver MX 2004, and run it well. I'm in the process of designing a content management system, and I've put down too much effort over the last couple of years to switch to Golive or any other program. This new machine will replace my desktop PC (Intel P4 - 1,8 GHz).

I've read quite a few threads about the Dreamweaver performance people are getting on their machines, and I know of the patch released by Macromedia.

My question is: will Dreamweaver work well with OS X and a Powerbook/iBoook? I'm not looking for a "sufficient" machine here, but one that will respond promptly to commands etc. I've seen this kind of performance from Windows based laptops, but I'm not to keen on paying a fortune for some Dell plastic POS. An IBM could be an alternative, but they are also quite expensive.

Hopefully some of you are using the Mac/Dreamweaver combination, and will be able to tell me how functional it is.

iOliverC · May 9, 2004, 04:27 AM

I've heard MX 2004 is much better on Windows than it is Mac, if I were you, and if the only thing you were going to use is MX 2004, I'd get a Windows laptop.

Thanks,
Oliver

mrfurry · May 9, 2004, 04:33 AM

Originally posted by iOliverC:
I've heard MX 2004 is much better on Windows than it is Mac, if I were you, and if the only thing you were going to use is MX 2004, I'd get a Windows laptop.

Thanks,
Oliver

That's an honest reply, thank you!

Yes, Dreamweaver makes or breaks this deal. I've decided that after all that is the one program that I will be using constantly, and no matter how good the Powerbooks are, it would kill me to be left with a machine that didn't work as hoped.

jasong · May 9, 2004, 08:24 AM

I'd say get the machine you want. I am a professional Dreamweaver user, from version 1 through MX 2004. And with the latest patches, MX 2004 is no slower on my 1.0 Ghz TiBook with 512 MB RAM and OS X 10.3.3 then on my my Dell Optiplex 2.8 Ghz P-IV with 1 GB of RAM and Win XP Pro.

Notice I said no slower, and not as fast as. MX 2004 is not the most responsive program out there. Also, while Dreamweaver itself is fine, the Mac version of the Extension Manager is much slower than it's Windows counterpart. This isn't usually an issue as you're probably not installing extensions all the time, but leave yourself some time when you are setting it up for the first time.

And so you know, I am speaking from a large site perspective. Take a look to see for yourself. The design and development was done all in Studio MX - MX 2004, using some great plugins from www.dmxzone.com, split about 70% Mac, 30% Windows.
www.tepr.com

-- Jason

ryju · May 9, 2004, 08:30 AM

I definitely prefer the Windows counterpart. My XP machine that is 500MHz and 256mb ram runs it faster than my 400MHz iMac with 1GB ram. I guess it's different on the faster machines, but I would still prefer the Windows version vs. my iMac.

workerbee · May 11, 2004, 02:12 AM

Originally posted by jasong:
I'd say get the machine you want. I am a professional Dreamweaver user, from version 1 through MX 2004. And with the latest patches, MX 2004 is no slower on my 1.0 Ghz TiBook with 512 MB RAM and OS X 10.3.3 then on my my Dell Optiplex 2.8 Ghz P-IV with 1 GB of RAM and Win XP Pro.

I'd second that. DW MX 04 with the .1 bugfix runs quite well on my PowerBook -- not noticeably slower than the other DW releases over the years (I think I've used DW since 1.3). It certainly likes its RAM in big helpings, though. The UI, however, is not as optimized on OS X as it is on Windows.
I probably wouldn't buy a Windows box for myself, even if it was for Dreamweaver only, but from a purely technical point of view, you might be better off using Windows for Macromedia apps.

chalk_outline · May 11, 2004, 03:10 AM

Originally posted by iOliverC:
I've heard MX 2004 is much better on Windows than it is Mac, if I were you, and if the only thing you were going to use is MX 2004, I'd get a Windows laptop.

Thanks,
Oliver

Ditto..

threestain · May 11, 2004, 07:14 AM

I find it runs fine on my TiBook 1Ghz 512Mb RAM, with no real difference from my housemates P4 2GHz Dell, so I would say go with whichever laptop you fancy (hint Apple hint)!

mitchell_pgh · May 11, 2004, 10:07 AM

I agree that this application will run faster on a Windows computer.

That being said, there are other reasons to consider the Mac. The OS, compounded by the nice hardware and amazing user base is reason enough for me to stick with Mac.

quietjim · May 11, 2004, 09:36 PM

I use DW 2004 MX and while it was a real problem when it first came out, the patch has largely fixed it. As to the person using the 400 MHz Mac...DW states it's minimum requirement is 600 MHz. I use it on a Pismo (400 MHz) too so I know it can be made to work but I understand the macine is underpowered. Looking forward to a new PB Friday and the hoped for speed up.

selowitch · May 12, 2004, 08:37 PM

Having used both, I'd have to grudgingly admit that the Windows version of DW is a lot perkier and feels faster. It also seems to be coded more efficiently. This is unusual, because generally the Mac is better in almost all other respects. But not in this case.

m a d r a · Jun 3, 2004, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by quietjim:
I use DW 2004 MX and while it was a real problem when it first came out, the patch has largely fixed it. As to the person using the 400 MHz Mac...DW states it's minimum requirement is 600 MHz. I use it on a Pismo (400 MHz) too so I know it can be made to work but I understand the macine is underpowered. Looking forward to a new PB Friday and the hoped for speed up.

i've been using it on a 500mhz pismo and it was a real dog when it first came out. the patch has improved things a bit but i don't think it's a '70%' speed improvement [as the macromedia site claims], although it seems acceptable-ish. mind you, i can't vouch for the entire 'doing the whole thing in dreamweaver' experience as i tend to jump between CSSedit, subethaedit and dreamweaver, depending on which particular bit of a site i'm tweaking.

as regards those system requirements. i haven't seen them myself, but if that's true then my response is WTF?!!! 600mhz minimum requirement for what [let's face it] is a glorified text editor with the ability to display small [compressed for web] inline graphics? that's f**kin ridiculous! i remember when 'back in the day' we used to somehow manage to edit video on an 8100/av at college with a whole 80mhz of power at our disposal. how come you need a computer nearly ten times that fast today, just to move a bit of text and a couple of images about on a page?