[jszrules]

I realize that these options are limited and that there are other similar applications out there, such as Freeway. But right now, I'm mainly concerned with how these two compare. Thanks!

[gralem]

There are only 2 web dev peices of software any OSX geek need: "vi" and "WebObjects Builder". Anything else is a waste of time and money!

---gralem

[wataru]

Taco HTML Edit.

[DeathMan]

Originally posted by gralem:
There are only 2 web dev peices of software any OSX geek need: "vi" and "WebObjects Builder". Anything else is a waste of time and money!

---gralem

This is obviously biased, and wrong. What are you doing? These two applications have their strengths and weaknesses.

I know GoLive has way better integration with Photoshop, so if your heavy in that department, it might be the way to go.

Dreamweaver is great especially as a code only tool, cause the PHP support is pretty good. I don't have too much experience with either one, but I can say that dreamweave could use a kick in the pants as far as speed goes.

[starman]

Originally posted by gralem:
There are only 2 web dev peices of software any OSX geek need: "vi" and "WebObjects Builder". Anything else is a waste of time and money!

---gralem

I've been writing HTML, LITERALLY, since Day One. Let me tell you something, anyone who tells you that all you need is vi/TextEdit/Notepad is doing nothing more that trying to show how L331 they really are. I'd really like to see someone whip together a complicated web page without WYSIWYG tools. Can't be done. I tried. I tried to think that I was knew HTML so well that I could do something like apple.com with my eyes closed. Looks like a simple page, doesn't it? It's not. I challenge ANYONE to put together the following with vi:

msn.com
aol.com
apple.com
microsoft.com

GoLive.

Mike

[Nathan Adams]

I'm a graphic designer, and that's where my strengths lie (I only do occasional web work). I go blind looking at code (although I can understand html and css). As such, Dreamweaver is a fantastic tool, been using it since version 4. MX kicks it up another notch, and the properties pallete is a godsend.

re: golive and photoshop intergration. I've never used golive, nor had the urge to, but photoshop intergration? why? photoshop spits out hideously large images, there's no way you'd use them on the web. (and imageready does not count, as it's it's a steaming pile in it's current os x incarnation). Fireworks intergration i would think is much more useful.

[TC]

Originally posted by Nathan Adams:
re: golive and photoshop integration. I've never used golive, nor had the urge to, but photoshop intergration? why? photoshop spits out hideously large images, there's no way you'd use them on the web.

In Go Live you can then specify exactly how parts of the photoshop images are saved, jpg, gif or png so they aren't so large and can be used on the internet.

Using imageready you can also specify parameters. As an example you could create one button in imageready and specify the text as a parameter and then in GoLive you could create as many buttons as you want just by changing that parameter. If you go back into imageready and make a change to the original button all the buttons in your design can automatically pick up that change.

If you haven't used this kind of thing and don't understand it maybe you shouldn't slag it off?

[Nathan Adams]

who said i slagged off?

point is, photoshop spits out large jpegs, gifs and jpegs. not just large, mammoth. therefore, it's useless. And Imageready, as I said, is a steaming pile. It has an os x interface that was thrown together in one afternoon as an afterthought, is slow as hell, and generally useless compared to Fireworks (which exports better quality, smaller images)

changing text parameters sounds nice on paper, but how useful is it? Shouldn't that kind of stuff be planned out before you even think about building the site?

[philzilla]

Originally posted by gralem:
There are only 2 web dev peices of software any OSX geek need: "vi" and "WebObjects Builder". Anything else is a waste of time and money!

---gralem

yes, yes. you're sooo 1337, using vi. did you notice the topic of the thread? it's not "how geeky are you?" is it? he's asking an opinion on 2 pieces of software. i didn't see you mentioning either.

back to the topic...

i prefer Dreamweaver, purely from a code point of view. i just don't like the code Go Live spits out. i use Fireworks too, so that ties in nicely

[TC]

Originally posted by Nathan Adams:
point is, photoshop spits out large jpegs, gifs and jpegs. not just large, mammoth. therefore, it's useless.

Save for Web from Photoshop, Go Live + Illustrator does not produce mammoth sized images.

If you're telling me there is a 10-20% difference between Adobe's Save For Web and your application of choice I could believe it + live with it, but using the word mammoth implies there is a much bigger difference.

You don't understand at all how integration between Go Live + Photoshop works but you chose to disagree with someone else who posted this as a major feature. I would call blindly arguing in this way slagging it off.

GoLive + Dreamweaver have different workflows, it doesn't have to be a case of one being better than the other, one's workflow suits some people better than the others. There's not much difference in the overall features they have.

[Nathan Adams]

yes, I do understand. it's like symbols. so if you have multiple instances, and want to change them all, you change the original symbol.
my point being, that if one actually does their job properly and designs their site before jumping into golive/dreamweaver, they wouldn't need to.

[TC]

Originally posted by Nathan Adams:
yes, I do understand. it's like symbols. so if you have multiple instances, and want to change them all, you change the original symbol.
my point being, that if one actually does their job properly and designs their site before jumping into golive/dreamweaver, they wouldn't need to.

No, that was just the parameter part of it. That was an extra thing I mentioned to explain how the products can work together.

Most people would just place a pre sliced image from photoshop into GoLive which has all the required buttons. Much easier to place the whole PSD file in than have to place the individual slices after you've saved them from Photoshop.

Your issue was with the size of images produced by using Photoshop files in Go Live. Sounded like you totally misunderstood and thought they where going to place PSD files on the internet and not jpegs + gifs.

Oh and on people doing their job properly, what happens when clients change their minds or want to expand their site. Do you just tell them you can't because you did such a good job before jumping into dreamweaver that you don't see why you should?

[wrwjpn]

As I use both for different projects. If I am using Photoshop a lot I use GoLive as it is better integrated for using Adobe products, duh! Fireworks and Dreamweaver are also integrated but why should I go about learning how to use Fireworks when I have been using Photoshop for so long and is pretty much the standard app for image editing? I like Dreamweaver especially the coding features. If there was a app that brought the best of both of them I would be in heaven. Wishful thinking never hurt anyone anyways. What this all comes down to is personal preference, so who can say one is better than the other. If one was then the other would disappear.

Just my two cents worth

[starman]

Originally posted by Nathan Adams:
who said i slagged off?

point is, photoshop spits out large jpegs, gifs and jpegs. not just large, mammoth. therefore, it's useless. And Imageready, as I said, is a steaming pile. It has an os x interface that was thrown together in one afternoon as an afterthought, is slow as hell, and generally useless compared to Fireworks (which exports better quality, smaller images)

changing text parameters sounds nice on paper, but how useful is it? Shouldn't that kind of stuff be planned out before you even think about building the site?

I use Photoshop all the time. Been using it since verion 2. Learn how to use it properly. I'm in the business of writing printer drivers and imaging data. I know what makes a good image, and Photoshop can only do what the specs of the file formats allow. It's not like they make hideously large JPEGs on their own. Photoshop does a tremendous job.

Mike

[Nathan Adams]

oh come on. i know how to use photoshop. and version number you first used it makes no frigging difference. just because I started at 3, doesn't mean i know any more or less than the person who started at 5.

no matter how much you fiddle around with export settings in photoshop (or imageready) though, it still does not do a good at web graphics as fireworks.

TC, i never thought that it was putting PSD's onto the site, just needlessly large jpegs and gifs.
I'd much rather do it manually than dumping a PSD in like the way you suggest PS/GoLive does. I do all my layouts with CSS positioning.

on clients changing things - that's why you get your mockups approved before building. And if you had to add an extra button or two down the line, it's just a simple matter of editing and re-exporting. hardly difficult.

[starman]

Again, you don't know dick if you say that Photoshop creates "ridiculously large images". Are you using the right DPI? Are you saving the JPEG with an embedded thumbnail or other extraneous data? ARE YOU?. JPEG is JPEG is JPEG no matter how you cut it. There's no "Photoshop special JPEG format". I make a living doing this sh*t.

Bottom line - human error (hint: yours).

Mike

[Nathan Adams]

wow, someone's an arrogant prick

yes, i'm sure im using the right dpi (72dpi - not that it makes one iota of difference to image size, because as we all know, it's the actual image dimentions [in pixels] that make the difference to file size)
and no, i'm not saving it with thumbnails and other junk. unlike what you so blindly try to imply, im not an idiot.

photoshop / imageready is simply not as good at optimizing as fireworks is. for identical image quality, fireworks spits out a smaller file. (or inversely, for same file size, the fw image is better quality)

so mike, maybe you should take your attitude and shove it somewhere where the sun don't shine.

[GORDYmac]

Dreamweaver was a quick study. I really enjoy using it.

[DeathMan]

Originally posted by Nathan Adams:
wow, someone's an arrogant prick

yes, i'm sure im using the right dpi (72dpi - not that it makes one iota of difference to image size, because as we all know, it's the actual image dimentions [in pixels] that make the difference to file size)
and no, i'm not saving it with thumbnails and other junk. unlike what you so blindly try to imply, im not an idiot.

photoshop / imageready is simply not as good at optimizing as fireworks is. for identical image quality, fireworks spits out a smaller file. (or inversely, for same file size, the fw image is better quality)

so mike, maybe you should take your attitude and shove it somewhere where the sun don't shine.

I don't think there is much basis to this argument. I don't think that one application is going to be much better than another at saving optimized images. I'd like to see some comparisons of this huge discrepancy.

I'd also like to see some nice graphics done in Fireworks. From what I've seen, its pretty weak. Not that it can't do good work, I just haven't seen it. I've seen a lot of crap created in photoshop too.

Phil or Nathan, do you guys have any work that I could see in Fireworks? Educate me.

[starman]

Originally posted by Nathan Adams:
wow, someone's an arrogant prick

yes, i'm sure im using the right dpi (72dpi - not that it makes one iota of difference to image size, because as we all know, it's the actual image dimentions [in pixels] that make the difference to file size)
and no, i'm not saving it with thumbnails and other junk. unlike what you so blindly try to imply, im not an idiot.

photoshop / imageready is simply not as good at optimizing as fireworks is. for identical image quality, fireworks spits out a smaller file. (or inversely, for same file size, the fw image is better quality)

so mike, maybe you should take your attitude and shove it somewhere where the sun don't shine.

OK, tough guy, show us some comparisons. Put your money where your mouth is.

Take an uncompressed BMP or TIFF or TARGA and convert it using both apps with the same settings and post them here.

If you can't do that, walk away with your tail between your legs.

Mike

[philzilla]

Originally posted by DeathMan:
Phil or Nathan, do you guys have any work that I could see in Fireworks? Educate me.

sure. gonna PM you

[Powaqqatsi]

I prefer Dreamweaver, GoLive is slow as hell, and ackward. I don't really care about the integration between Photoshop and GoLive since I do everything manually.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Nathan Adams:
who said i slagged off?

point is, photoshop spits out large jpegs, gifs and jpegs. not just large, mammoth. therefore, it's useless. And Imageready, as I said, is a steaming pile. It has an os x interface that was thrown together in one afternoon as an afterthought, is slow as hell, and generally useless compared to Fireworks (which exports better quality, smaller images)

changing text parameters sounds nice on paper, but how useful is it? Shouldn't that kind of stuff be planned out before you even think about building the site?

That's why I do my work in Photoshop, and use Imagready to compress them. I get just as good results as I did when I tried Fireworks.

Fireworks isn't a Photoshop replacement. Not by far.

[SubGeniux]

Don't really do much web coding work, but when I do I've kinda always drifted towards dreamweaver, feel good to use, gets the work done.

Photoshop, whew, don't know what I'd do without it, it's like a toolbox, few fancy wizardy things, but all the tools you need to get the job done, plus more. Also, whether it's design, web, video or film work (I do the lot), PS manages it all, never found anything to match it yet. But.. there's been a few other wee programs to help along, nothig to replace it though.

[FauxCaster]

DW's support for SSI internally sold me. If GoLive does it, it's not by default and I haven't found where to turn it on. Now that OsX has appache web server built-in, it's not as big a deal because it's easy to test SSI w/o uploading it to a testing server. However, it's still very nice to be able to use SSI as a WYSIWYG design element. Unless or until GoLive can do that, DW is a league apart.

Anyone know how to use SSI/WYSIWYG in GoLive?

[Mediaman_12]

GoLive only has one thing in it's favor. The overall site management. The way it creates a file for each site, in the same place as the rest of the site's files. You can archive sites on CD and still preserve the info, it's brilliant.
Dreamwever creates a local (to the app) DB that contains the info for all your sites, this often corrupts (so you lose all the site layout's ftp info etc. for all your sites), there is no way to back it up, and if you want to archive your builds on to CD you can wave goodbye to all the info. genius!

[clarkgoble]

At the moment I only use GoLive. So I can't really do a comparison. Many have told me that Dreamweaver's table support is far superior. But I don't have that complex of tables.

I initially loved GoLive. I still think its interface is among the best on OSX. I wish, for instance, that you could drag tabs out of Safari to create a window the way you can in GoLive.

Having said that though I've noticed lots of bugs during a recent involved update of my web pages (~100 pages I was working on) Templates often introduce weird little bugs with relative paths. Templates are very powerful. I'd used something similar way back when doing pages with a text editor. But the way GoLive does them is in theory much better. In my 100 pages I only have to change two web pages to change all the common links. In theory. In practice I got HTML like "<a href= ../Desktop/../../mydirectory>".

Fortunately BBEdit had sent me a free copy of their full version of BBEdit. (I'd written some code for them years back) So I used BBEdit to search for those types of code errors and fix them. However that along with a few other bugs have left me shellshocked about Templates. (This was for a corporate web page and the bug occured without me detecting it for a couple of weeks - with many links corrupted)

The other problem is when you have several words as a link. If you select a portion of that link and drag a file over it to create a new hyperlink you'd expect GoLive to remove the previous tag on tha text and add the new stuff. Unfortunately I updated about 30 pages before I found that it doesn't. That is a pretty annoying bug. Further to make a link regular text the same bug exists. You have to select exactly the text that is a link. The alternative is to go to the code window and try and find where that link is. And in practice you end up having to do that. Very annoying and time consuming.

The next bug is with fonts. Hit cmd-I to italicize text and it screws up the overall formatting for some reason. That in turn screws up ones css. I don't know why it doesn't just put the italic tag in the HTML. (And it is sometimes inconsistent on this point)

GoLive crashes at odd times as well - especially when uploading via FTP. There are a few other annoyances - especially when you try to delete the last character in a template field. (It beeps and ignores you)

On the other hand it has a great interface. Far superior to any HTML editor I used in years past.

I've kind of sworn to give Dreamweaver a try but haven't had the time to learn a new system. Further those templates tend to commit me to GoLive at the moment.

[jszrules]

Originally posted by Mediaman_12:
Dreamwever creates a local (to the app) DB that contains the info for all your sites, this often corrupts (so you lose all the site layout's ftp info etc. for all your sites), there is no way to back it up, and if you want to archive your builds on to CD you can wave goodbye to all the info. genius!

Wait, are you saying that if I wanted to move my Dreamweaver files from one computer to another (they both run Dreamweaver MX 6.0) via CD, I couldn't do it?

[philzilla]

Originally posted by jszrules:
Wait, are you saying that if I wanted to move my Dreamweaver files from one computer to another (they both run Dreamweaver MX 6.0) via CD, I couldn't do it?

i think you'd need to move the following file too, but i could be wrong:

~/Library/Preferences/com.macromedia.Dreamweaver.plist

[Mediaman_12]

Originally posted by jszrules:
Wait, are you saying that if I wanted to move my Dreamweaver files from one computer to another (they both run Dreamweaver MX 6.0) via CD, I couldn't do it?

you could 'do' it, it wouldn't damage any of the sites files (html, gif's etc). what wouldn't be preserved is the (individual) site info (FTP data, locked files etc.), this would need to be recreated on the 2nd machine. Unlike GoLive where this info is located with the site, and not with the app.

[mishap]

I prefer DreamweaverMX/FireworksMX to GoLive/ImageReady

[TC]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
The other problem is when you have several words as a link. If you select a portion of that link and drag a file over it to create a new hyperlink you'd expect GoLive to remove the previous tag on tha text and add the new stuff. Unfortunately I updated about 30 pages before I found that it doesn't. That is a pretty annoying bug. Further to make a link regular text the same bug exists. You have to select exactly the text that is a link. The alternative is to go to the code window and try and find where that link is. And in practice you end up having to do that. Very annoying and time consuming.

Next time you have this problem try doing it this way. Click anywhere on the link text to place your cursor in the middle of the text.

Look at the bottom of the current window where the markup tree is and you will see at the end <a> text, if you click on <a> or text it will select all the text in that link. It is then easy to change or remove the link for all the text.

[gralem]

Originally posted by DeathMan:
This is obviously biased, and wrong. What are you doing? These two applications have their strengths and weaknesses.

Originally posted by starman:
I've been writing HTML, LITERALLY, since Day One. Let me tell you something, anyone who tells you that all you need is vi/TextEdit/Notepad is doing nothing more that trying to show how L331 they really are.

I've been prorgramming in HTML since long before either of you, and let me tell YOU wanna-be web l337's something:

IT WAS OBVIOUSLY A JOKE!!! (get a frickin' life--also, my comment about programming HTML longer than you is a joke as well)

Please tell me someone knew my vi comment was a joke.

---gralem

[Powaqqatsi]

Originally posted by gralem:
I've been prorgramming in HTML since long before either of you, and let me tell YOU wanna-be web l337's something:

IT WAS OBVIOUSLY A JOKE!!! (get a frickin' life--also, my comment about programming HTML longer than you is a joke as well)

Please tell me someone knew my vi comment was a joke.

---gralem

[starman]

Originally posted by gralem:
I've been prorgramming in HTML since long before either of you, and let me tell YOU wanna-be web l337's something:

IT WAS OBVIOUSLY A JOKE!!! (get a frickin' life--also, my comment about programming HTML longer than you is a joke as well)

Please tell me someone knew my vi comment was a joke.

---gralem

Uh, if you really had your finger on the pulse of the web community like you THINK you do, you'd know that there really are people out there that think that way.

And no, you haven't been programming HTML before me.

Mike

[anti-sleep]

Well I've been programming HTML since before computers were invented. That means I have a better opinion on software. I'm not a pompous ass at all.

[starman]

Originally posted by anti-sleep:
Well I've been programming HTML since before computers were invented. That means I have a better opinion on software. I'm not a pompous ass at all.

No, you're just an ass.

Mike

[benb]

I am super 1337, becuase I used emacs and TextEdit for my site. Only because it is all CSS, and no WYSIWYG editor could handle the CSS properly. Heck, even IE6 can't. So I had to use emacs and TextEdit. Although I admit that doing CSS from a text editor is not a pain like doing layout with tables in HTML. If I were to go the "1990"'s route and butcher up the HTML specs using tables for design and layout usinge spliced-up image maps, I would probably use Photoshop and Dreamweaver.

[gralem]

Originally posted by starman:
Uh, if you really had your finger on the pulse of the web community like you THINK you do, you'd know that there really are people out there that think that way.

First of all, what the hell are you talking about--like I think I have my finger on the pulse of web community?! IT WAS A JOKE!!!

I may not know the pulse of the "web community", but I do know sarcasm. NO ONE would lump VI and WOBuilder in the same sentance and mean it.

And no, you haven't been programming HTML before me.

Mike [/B]

One more time. IT WAS A JOKE!!! NO ONE cares how long anyone has been programming in HTML.

---gralem

[starman]

Must be that Malaysian humor.

Mike

[TC]

Originally posted by benb:
I am super 1337, becuase I used emacs and TextEdit for my site. Only because it is all CSS, and no WYSIWYG editor could handle the CSS properly. Heck, even IE6 can't. So I had to use emacs and TextEdit. Although I admit that doing CSS from a text editor is not a pain like doing layout with tables in HTML. If I were to go the "1990"'s route and butcher up the HTML specs using tables for design and layout usinge spliced-up image maps, I would probably use Photoshop and Dreamweaver.

Way to go, the way you got your site to look just like the standard Apache test page by using CSS is fecking amazing.
Good job fella!!!

[itai195]

Originally posted by starman:

And no, you haven't been programming HTML before me.

Mike

Please, writing HTML is not programming

[Deal]

Quote from Nathan Adams:

...photoshop intergration? why? photoshop spits out hideously large images, there's no way you'd use them on the web.

This person does not know much about photo shop. If he is creating large images he is doing it by choice wether he knows it or not. Take an image in photoshop, click on the transfer to Image ready button, choose two-up to see your original and the optimized image, choose what you want your optimized setting to be (jpg, gif, png, etc... at whatever settings you choose for size/quality). Then save as optimized and you have exactly what you want. Also slice your image any which way you choose in either app. Then drop your slices into a table in GoLive (or whatever).

Between image ready (which comes with photoshop) and photoshop and GoLive you can do some great stuff.

It doesn't matter if you know code well or your just a beginner, you can learn the in's and out's of GoLive fairly easy. I don't know of a Macromedia product I can say that about.

Also, my GoLive code works on everything I've tried it on (98, xp, nt, OS 9, OS X -versions of: ie, netscape and safari).

Golive does make it fast and easy.

[absmiths]

Originally posted by Nathan Adams:
on clients changing things - that's why you get your mockups approved before building. And if you had to add an extra button or two down the line, it's just a simple matter of editing and re-exporting. hardly difficult.

Once again, this shows a naive approach to client relations. Clients change their mind - as the holders of the coffers that is their prerogative. Customers certainly will change the text they want on the buttons, even if they don't change they design.

Anyway, I have never ever seen a client approve something up front and not change a single detail on the way.

In any case, it is better to be safe than sorry.

[zonetuke]

I started with CyberStudio 2 back in the good old days. Adobe purchased a great application and has done very little to improve it.

GoLive is so slow on my machine it is rediculous. Running GoLive 6.01 on Dual 800 G4 with 1.2 GB ram. I just wanna slap Adobe in the face for not giving GoLive Mac the attention it needs to make it a first class program

I'm downloading DreamWeaver MX now. However, I don't think it will impress me either.

matthew

[Angus_D]

Freeway!

(note: I am sort of working for Softpress, but my own personal opinion is still that Freeway is the best solution out there for the majority of people).

[sandsl]

Freeway isn't a tool for professional web development. Freeway is the RealBasic of web development:
- Cheap.
- Quicker.
- Easier (good for beginners or designers)

- Less impressive sites.
- Lack of direct control.
- Not a major player in professional web development.
- Feels like Quark (yuck).

Macromedia Dreamweaver is not a perfect solution but its the best this platform has for advanced web development with a GUI (excluding html editors such as vi). Adobe Golive is a close second, simply because I prefer the work flow of dreamweaver.

*Note the difference between web design and web development explanation.

[Mediaman_12]

Originally posted by absmiths:
Once again, this shows a naive approach to client relations. Clients change their mind - as the holders of the coffers that is their prerogative. Customers certainly will change the text they want on the buttons, even if they don't change they design.

Anyway, I have never ever seen a client approve something up front and not change a single detail on the way.

In any case, it is better to be safe than sorry.

You just charge them. Before we do any 'HTML' page development we have the client sign a 'concept approval' (big changes are easier to do in a Photoshop 'concept' than when 90% of the site is done) which says that any major changes to the design (e.g. moving some pages in to a new navigational area) will be charged at our regular hourly rate in addition to the original quote.

[Angus_D]

Originally posted by sandsl:
Freeway isn't a tool for professional web development.

I'm sorry, perhaps you'd like to tell that to all our professional designers who use it.

- Less impressive sites.

I'm sorry, would you care to substantiate that?

- Lack of direct control.

In what way exactly?

- Not a major player in professional web development.

And this is a problem how?

- Feels like Quark (yuck).

I fail to see why this is a bad thing.

I'm sorry Luke, but I don't see your point.

*Note the difference between web design and web development explanation.

Indeed. You can use scripting languages with Freeway, and when used correctly you're decoupling the design from the development, which makes sense. Does Dreamweaver let you visually edit JavaScripts or something? Perhaps it has syntax colouring, but then I'd rather use BBEdit.

Anyway, my opinion might be biased, but as far as I can reemember I've always thought Freeway the best tool in the business going back to version 1.0.