[EddieDesignsDotCom]

I am a long time Dreamweaver user since version 1! And I am patiently waiting for MX to be released, no problem. But I just read a review in MacWorld [May 2002] and it looks like a great alternative. It's been given a 9.2 rating outta 10 and judging from the article it looks feature intensive.

My question is, well you know, Dreamweaver or GoLive?on OS X of course. why? why not? etc, etc.

[Sharky K.]

Golive can do a lot and the site managment is very good. The only problem is that Golive's interface is not as good as it was when it was called Golive CyberStudio. There is not some default ways for different tasks.

They should totally redesign the interface

[MojoRising022]

Because of the lengthy wait for Dreamweaver MX and my desire to get rid of classic as soon as humanly possible, I took a long look at Go Live 6.

After sending time learning the new interface (which just isn't as intuitive as it should be), I found Go Live tedious to use. It does have noce site management tools, but so does Dreamweaver. It seemed I was doing twice as muich work to get the same thing done with Go Live.

I have been using Dreamweaver forever and impatience is no reson for me to make the switch...after using Go Live, i simply do not like it and would rather wait.

[Mac Guru]

I second the above post.

I used quite a lot of Tables on 95% of my site design. GoLive made me feel like I was trying to wrestle a 4000 lb. Gorilla to get a freaking simple Table to align properly. Dreamweaver is a clear winner and from what I have heard from my friends in the channel, Summer should be mighty good to us in the Macromedia world. Hopefully our wait is soon over.

Mac Guru

[Macanoid]

did you know there's a third option: Freeway 3.5 (www.softpress.com). this is what macuser UK had to say about it:

Freeway 3.5 from Softpress could be the hottest Web site software in 2002. While Dreamweaver and GoLive fight for the position of best Web site programming tool, Freeway has won over some creatives as an excellent design-focused Web site tool.

The latest version, Freeway 3.5, runs natively in Mac OS X, is a free update for Freeway 3 users and adds useful new features. It has also lost the reliance on the old GX Graphics extension, which worried potential users. OS X support is a key part of the upgrade, and the Carbonized version handles well. Mac OS 9 users aren't left out, though, as there are exciting feature enhancements. Those with OS 8 must use Freeway 3.1, but at least that version is included on the CD.

For those unfamiliar with Freeway, layouts are created in an interface that wholeheartedly applies the most useful features in QuarkXPress page layout to online production. Graphic and HTML text boxes are placed on pages and handled as you'd expect, while master pages and automatic style sheet creation streamlines production tremendously.

Style guru

Styling up text automatically produces and updates style sheet entries in the Styles palette. These can be edited, renamed and, of course, applied to other text. Graphic text can use any typeface available and is published as Web-ready graphic content. HTML text styles are generated as font tags and, where appropriate, Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) code on export: all the user does is set text in the normal way.

Freeway has always handled graphics well, scaling and cropping images on the page, and accepting common DTP file formats, such as TIFF and even native Photoshop and Illustrator files. Freeway 3.5 now also supports Illustrator 10 and Photoshop 7 files, complete with full layer effects rendering.

Another new feature is bilinear image scaling, which gives smoother results for graphics scaled in the layout, and is on by default. Equally useful is support for importing transparent PNG and masked TIFF files. These file formats, which include native Macromedia Fireworks documents and TIFF files with alpha channels, will show background images and underlying elements through transparent areas. This brings Photoshop Layers-like abilities to the layout environment.

Overlapping graphics items are merged on output by default, but making perfectly sliced Web graphics is just a matter of turning off the Combine Graphics option for the appropriate items. Results are converted to Web-ready formats when previewed and published, and Graphics Preview mode shows exactly how each image's output format (GIF, JPEG or PNG) and compression will look.

Page turner

Sites and individual pages can be produced as plain HTML 3.2 code, HTML 4.0, or the useful HTML 3.2 + CSS hybrid, which provides the best of both worlds. Changing the page setting at any time doesn't affect the look, just the way the underlying code will be built.

Links are managed for you so renaming pages or moving them into different folders in the site won't break anything. Even links in Flash movies can be managed: use simple placeholder links in the Flash movie, apply the Flash Action and map links to your pages, and it's managed like the rest. Site management is equally automatic, with outdated elements dealt with automatically during the publish and upload process.

Freeway's weakness is in dealing with sites created elsewhere. HTML import is pretty poor so it's almost always better to recreate layouts from scratch rather than try to swallow existing pages. And, of course, you'll never get optimal HTML from any visual design tool. If that is a problem for you, you'll need to invest in a good text editor.

For those keen on extending the code produced by Freeway, Actions take away much of the donkey work. These are plug-ins written in a mixture of JavaScript and XML that modify and extend the code. The Actions API includes AppleScript calls for controlling other applications, which can further automate the production process.

The power of Actions can be difficult to grasp, but they provide tremendous flexibility for serious code production. Writing an Action to put the right custom code into a page correctly takes longer than typing it in directly but, from then on, repeating it is a matter of picking it from a list.

Customising the code involves using simple pop-up menus, text fields and buttons in the Actions palette window. This reduces the possibility of error and insulates the code's functionality from changes in the page design.

Get in on the Action

Actions can also help divide up Web design jobs in a meaningful way. A designer doesn't have to become a database engineer to be able to collaborate with one on the creation of a data-driven Web site. By encapsulating hard code elements within Actions, the engineer can focus on improving back-end functionality while the designer is busy moving elements of the page to improve usability and appearance. Both can remain secure that the code will still work. What's more, that same code becomes part of a 'toolbox' that can be applied to new projects, further improving the return on their investment.

Designing Web sites needn't mean swallowing a code dictionary and learning to speak geek. Freeway 3.5 does something no other Web package has managed: it makes Web site design as accessible and as flexible as regular DTP, but without making life difficult for serious code users.

[TC]

In my experience people are even more polarized about GoLive V Dreamweaver than Mac V PC.

If you use GoLive first you will probably never go over to Dreamweaver and vice versa.

I started with GoLive and every time I try to use Dreamweaver I get put off by the interface.

GoLive isn�t perfect but some of its new features are great. The ability to take a photoshop/illustrator/livemotion graphic and change it�s attributes before it is saved for the web in GoLive is amazing.

[Hobbes]

EddieDesign, I was in the same boat as you. I'd been using Dreamweaver since version 2, but was REALLY wanting to move to X only. So I used an old copy of PageMill to get the upgrade price on GoLive.

Overall, I've been very pleased with GoLive. Like any change, it does take some getting used to. In my opinion, GoLive and DW take two totally different approaches to web design. In some cases I think GoLive's approach is better, in others DW still has an advantage. One big advantage of GoLive over previous versions of DW, is its support for PHP, instead of just ASP and ColdFusion like DW. It also supports WAP development.

The way I look at it, it really boils down to productivity. Will you save time by using a X-native development app, even if it takes some getting used to? In my case the answer is definitely YES, especially considering that there's been absolutely no word from Macromedia as to a release date. So for me it was worth it.

[Northform]

I would go with Freeway from softpress. It combines the strengths of a desktop publisher and a web designer into one easy to use and carbonized program (http://www.softpress.com/).

If you really want to use one of the big two though I would go with Dreamweaver. (Then again the only Adobe product I've ever liked was ImageStyler).

[oranjdisc]

BBEdit.

[rstevens]

golive & bbedit, hands down.

[KidRed]

Dreamweaver hands down. Golive is backwards, more work to insert an image, ugly and overly complicated UI, working with tables and cells is much easier in DW, opening a large 80k page in Golive with a lot of graphics takes, forever to parse, then switching to source and back again, it has to pasre the page all over again.

Dreamweaver for many reasons.

[pdjr]

Dreamweaver

[zazou]

Another vote for DW.

GoLive is an Icon nightmare and only gets worse on higher resolution screens. There are things i like about it... shading closed template areas for one. But in the end it works against me rather than with me. I have to watch it's code way to close... with DW I find myself more and more satisfies with what it generates.

No, DW isn't perfect but it is as close to as a W->G editor can get.

Expect WWDC news.

[KaptainKaya]

I'm in a mixed bag here. I've used Dreamweaver but got lost in the interface. GoLive was bought for OS X compatibility, although its not perfect either. At least for now I can do HTML in X without classic. I'll prob. get Dreamweaver whenever it comes out too.

[CheesePuff]

I've been using GoLive since version 4 (when Adobe bought it) and have never looked back. The newest version, 6, is the best yet. I can never see myself using Dreamweaver.

[torifile]

I started with golive bit I'm now a DW guy. Things are too unintuitive in gl and trying to decipher the code it uses is nearly impossible. I prefer to use DW beta than gl final. What does that tell you?

[Adam Betts]

Originally posted by CheesePuff:
<STRONG>I've been using GoLive since version 4 (when Adobe bought it) and have never looked back. The newest version, 6, is the best yet. I can never see myself using Dreamweaver.</STRONG>

I'm just curious... Do you use lot of tables?

Same as guy above, I use LOTS of table in most websites and DreamWeaver does them beautifully and easy. I've bought GoLive 6 and it just doesn't do it as well as DreamWeaver although I've tried to give it several chances because I've heard lot of positive reviews about it. I'd say stick with dreamweaver. The wait should be not that long though

People who used GoLive like GoLive
People who used DreamWeaver like DreamWeaver
People who used both like DreamWeaver. Go figure

[C.Shelby]

I prefer to use DW beta than gl final. What does that tell you?

It tells me that you have an opinion like everyone else

Seriously, I think the Dreamweaver v. GoLive thing is just like the Illustrator v. Freehand. Myself I prefer Illustrator and GoLive probably because that's what I started out with, and I'm used to them. I think people started to have a gripe with GoLive back when it would re-write your code (which is a legitimate gripe) but it doesn't do that any more. I think they're both pretty good.

[moss514]

It is my opinion that GoLive is one of THE BEST pieces of excrement that Adobe has come out with. The thing is so user un-friendly. I have always thought Dreamweaver was the best of the two. I can't wait for MX!!
I have heard good things about Freeway. The one bad thing about it, from what I understand, is you cannot tweak the code if you need to...
Have patience and wait it out for MX! Do not waste time or money on GoLive!!

Originally posted by C.Shelby:
<STRONG>

... I think people started to have a gripe with GoLive back when it would re-write your code (which is a legitimate gripe) but it doesn't do that any more...</STRONG>

Did they release an update? If so cool. That code rewriting was a bunch of crap.

[ARENA]

I say GoLive is the best. Specially now with GoLive 6.

[kent m]

After sending time learning the new interface (which just isn't as intuitive as it should be), I found Go Live tedious to use.

I second this.

~Kent

[Mac Guru]

Then again the only Adobe product I've ever liked was ImageStyler

Ummmm are you SERIOUS!? You don't like Photoshop?

Mac Guru

[godzookie2k]

Dreamweaver, I've never had (and this might be my own retardidity) any luck in conniving golive into creating somewhat decent code. Don't get me started on the interface. I *really* like Dreamweaver's split view, you can tell when thw WYSIWYG screws something up and you can fix it lickety split, much easier than going through all the code later.

[cwasko]

I've used both DW and GL. I 'grew up' on Cyber Studio and then GoLive. At this point I have way too many projects in GL.

I guess if I had to start from scratch, I'd proabably go with DW, but not having an OSX version right now kinda sux. I think if they had the OSX version out when I went to 'upgrade' to GL6, I would have seriously considerd making the switch then. I'll wait to see how good DW for OSX is when it comes out, if it is worthy, then I'll drop GL.

I don't find myself fighting with GL too often, but as I've said, I've been using it for over 3 years now so it has trained me well. The point is, use whatever you are most comfortable with. If you really like DW... then don't bother with GL because you will be disappointed.

[Sharky K.]

Originally posted by godzookie2k:
<STRONG>Dreamweaver, I've never had (and this might be my own retardidity) any luck in conniving golive into creating somewhat decent code. Don't get me started on the interface. I *really* like Dreamweaver's split view, you can tell when thw WYSIWYG screws something up and you can fix it lickety split, much easier than going through all the code later.</STRONG>

Golive also has a split view

[xdck]

I also use lots of tables, and find GoLive 6 table management better than Dreamweaver's, but some of my friends disagree, so maybe it's just up to you to try both and decide.

GoLive has a more convoluted interface, and sometime the code is heavier (especially if you use actions alot), but site management is waaay better than dreamweaver's, and the collaborative tools you get for cheap are invaluable when working on a shared project.

I must admit that when I need to fire up a fast prototipe still use a copy of Dreamweaver 2 - at that point I used to like it more than Cyberstudio, but I'm so displeased to go back to classic that I'll put a stop to this habit as soon as I can.

[hyteckit]

Wow, Golive 6 took all the good things about Dreamweaver. I actually prefer Golive now. Golive now has split view, better table manipulation, and the markup path below the edit window. I have no reason to stick with Dreamweaver. Site management is always better with Golive. Well, maybe I'll change my mind once Dreamweaver MX comes out.

[HappyStone]

For responsiveness, ease of use, price, and flexibility, I use Create and the Stone Studio.

Try it for free and see if you're not converted. Plus it's not "carbon-ized" but true cocoa.

The learning curve may seem high, but the apps are so intuitive and have so many built in short cuts that you'll forget all about dreamweaver and golive....
http://www.stone.com

[zigmeister]

I used GoLive but now I use DW because the tables and the code in GoLive drove me nuts. However, it took me awhile to get used to DW, I don't care much for its interface - but I do find it more reliable.

[Gee4orce]

I alternate between them both ! But, I prefer GoLives site management - anyone who thinks Dreamweaver can even begin to compete here obviously hasn't used GoLive. But in these days of dynamic web sites, static HTML management probably isn't the issue it once was.

Integration is much better in GoLive too - the way you can edit an image in photoshop and the GoLive version - yes, the exported .gif or .jpg version - updates to reflect it is amazing.

On the whole I find GoLive more Mac like and Dreamweaver much more PC-like.

Dreamweaver - no doubt.

I guess my big bias comes from dealing with idiots in web design. I had been using dreamweaver for awhile, and a client came to us with an ecommerce site that had been developed in GoLive. Anyway, I was astonished, and disgusted by the fact that *every* page was over 50k in size for the simplest things (rollovers for crying out loud!)

Not to mentions it's crazy extra tag atributs all over the place.

I tend to find that page made in golive are much more bloated and I can't stand that.

On the other hand, I don't think that really matters. Example: Word can make html files - they are butt-ugly with all the propietary code that gets crammed in there, but when you open them up, *they work*. The same applies for GoLive. When you hit that upload button, and you pull the pages up *they work*.


But cause i'm a big freaking geek, just working isn't good enough.