[:dragonflypro:]

Originally posted by Mediaman_12:
I don't understand the licensing of the Opera page rendering engine? Wouldn't it have been cheaper to use the (100% cross platform, fully standards compliant, with no weird bugs) open source gecko (sp?) engine form the Mozilla project?

I imagine incorporating an Open Source / GPL product in the rendering core of a hight dollar commercial app may be a messy prospect...

...may also be why they did not wait to use WebCore... again with the GPL...maybe

Opera is a commercial product and as such certain things can be done that can not with Open Source.

Then again... what do I know....

I'd have preferred a DW with a WebCore technology

Toby

[Mac Guru]

isnt this circular logic to say something is wrong with his code just because the new version of the software renders your code correctly?

Why's that? That's my natural assumption when something doesn't work right. Something's amiss with the code.

Obviously his statement about MX 04 rendering worse than MX was true for him but I was merely stating that it's rendering engine WAS improved at least from the standpoint of the code I used to prove my point.

MX 04 seems like a sweet improvement to me, it's in the mail on the way here as I type this.

Mac Guru

[mishap]

Originally posted by Mac Guru:

Obviously his statement about MX 04 rendering worse than MX was true for him but I was merely stating that it's rendering engine WAS improved at least from the standpoint of the code I used to prove my point.

right, saying this and concluding that something is wrong with his code is a bit circular.

Yeah... obviously it is better.

[workerbee]

Originally posted by Mac Guru:
MX 04 seems like a sweet improvement to me, it's in the mail on the way here as I type this.

MX 04 is a big improvement, and would be one incredible app... if it wasn't so mind-boggingly slow and unresponsive.

Try opening 12 or 20 pages in DW 04. Go for lunch or watch it sloooowly opening one window after the other, carefully updating the icons in each and every window one after the other. Or open a page with a long and complicated table in it, and try scrolling using the scrollbars... you'll be surprised to see how and where to the window content moves.

How they managed to code this is beyond me. Probably it's all done in JavaScript, or something. Watching Win XP in VPC 6 with all visual gizmos and fluff turned on is more exciting and interactive than this. Or maybe my TiBook 800 1GB RAM is just so way behind the curve, and only a quadruple 3GHz G5 will be able to do the incredible feast of wrestling some html and css code.

It's such a shame, really, it would have been such a wonderful upgrade. As a Dreamweaver user since version 1.3 (I think) as well as Director 3, Flash 1, Fireworks 2) I'm ever more disappointed in Macromedia and their lousy efforts on OS X.

[hellmachine]

what is macromedia but some lame virtual software company which bought together applications (freehand, flash, fireworks...) and now struggle for years with the simplest integration and further development.

i have to say the only traditionaly good app was freehand, but since it got bought every version got badder peaking in the actual version, which got crippled by macromedias third class interface guidelines. who needs an rgb picker in the toolbar for a traditionally printfocused app?" does it really need halfbaked flash integration? does anybody do flash in freehand? the answer could be:
"nobody, but it has to be there, because NOW we have guidelines".
yeah! btw. stolen from adobe.

all the early 90s software companys living from its stone old code like microsoft do.
don�t expect to see any modern os x technology to be used in these apps. first it would be very hard to add to the retro code and second, it has to be cross plattform. so windows sets the featurelimit, which is quite low.

anybody used keynote? well, it�s only a presentaton tool, but use the graphic tools and feel millenium software. its a proof of concept using new tech, 3d acceleration, vectors, unicode, quartz, full antialiasing etc...

my way out?
avoid apps, that only interfaces stuff, you can do by hand. i dtill don�t understand, why people use the ****in slow dreamweaver.

if you code directly, nicely supported by for example bbedit, you are not limited to the editor. at the end its the same code. and you don�t have to wait for a css widget to do css work. but i have to admit i�m a control freak ;-)
apps that i really need are fireworks for webgraphics and freehand for vectorgraphics.
photoshop far lesser than in the good old print times.
fireworks has a great concept but like all macromedia it is usability- and performance junk.

oh, i wish apple would make a web-layout app like fireworks. the technology is there, in the system. you just have to puzzle.
but then there are politics.
i just hope some cocoa-smart company will do this someday. we all will have a great ride
till then, see dual g5s run like an old performa while running macromedia products...

[mikemako]

just curious.. for someone (me) who knows very little about CCS or HTML but only uses the GUI of DW to build his site, is there another webpage making application that works better in OS X and is more responsive? Something easy to use like DW, or is Macromedia it?

[zkmusa]

I only use Dreamweaver because of its integration with FTP. It's so nice to have all of the files of your site listed. You can open a file, edit it, and upload it easily.

I know BBEdit has FTP integration, but does it have a file browser that can be open all the time to view files?

I've been looking for a text editor for a long time that did this. I guess I could just mount the FTP site and modify it like that.

[Mediaman_12]

Originally posted by hellmachine:
my way out?
avoid apps, that only interfaces stuff, you can do by hand. i dtill don�t understand, why people use the ****in slow dreamweaver.

if you code directly, nicely supported by for example bbedit, you are not limited to the editor. at the end its the same code. and you don�t have to wait for a css widget to do css work. but i have to admit i�m a control freak ;-)
apps that i really need are fireworks for webgraphics and freehand for vectorgraphics.
photoshop far lesser than in the good old print times.
fireworks has a great concept but like all macromedia it is usability- and performance junk.

In one paragraph you say you like to code by hand, in the other you want a app like Fireworks (which I really really loath, Ohh lets not make up a file format of out own, we can just subvert an existing standard i.e. png. It also produces appalling code, and don't get me started on the UI.)
But anyway, Dreamwever is good for 'legwork' (manually creating image-maps, or remembering the size/path of that image, anybody) being able to use templates is good for sit wide layout changes (I know you can use 'find and replace' in BBedit but doing it with huge lumps of code can always lead to mistakes), being able to preview the page in multiple browsers before saving is nice to

[adeeb]

Originally posted by aladdinsane:
The main feature I was interesting in, proper Unicode support, is awesome. For non-English users this is a big thing. They had support for a few languages in MX but the MX 2004 has solid Unicode support. That alone is enough for me to buy an upgrade.

And it is faster for sure (well how could it not be )

Proper Unicode support is one of the features that I am most interested in. Can you confirm if DW MX 2004 supports RTL languages such as Arabic or Hebrew? Note that proper support would necessitate the following two conditions:
1. Proper rendering of all Unicode type...i.e. readable Arabic or Hebrew text.
2. Proper formatting of the Right-to-left behaviour associated with the above two languages.

Please also indicate which OS X version you are using.

I had posted this question many times but never received a helpful response. Thanks.

[JudiS217]

Macromedia is aware that Macs users are complaining about the speed of DW MX 2004 and they want to hear from us.

http://www.macromedia.com/support/dr...ing_issues.htm

DW 2004 runs as I would expect on my G4/450. My dual G5 with 2 GB RAM is due to arrive tomorrow, and then we'll see if it's really slower. If DW MX 2004 is anything less than screaming fast, then I'll know the problem is in the code.

[philzilla]

Originally posted by zkmusa:
I only use Dreamweaver because of its integration with FTP. It's so nice to have all of the files of your site listed. You can open a file, edit it, and upload it easily.

I know BBEdit has FTP integration, but does it have a file browser that can be open all the time to view files?

I've been looking for a text editor for a long time that did this. I guess I could just mount the FTP site and modify it like that.

you have GOT to be kidding... right? right!?

Dreamweaver's FTP has sucked, since version 1. it's almost like they forget to pay any attention to it. lame.

try Interarchy.

[Adam Betts]

Originally posted by philzilla:
Dreamweaver's FTP has sucked, since version 1. it's almost like they forget to pay any attention to it. lame.

Agreed. It's an embarrassing POS. Dreamweaver's WebDAV doesn't work with Apple's .Mac while WebDAV.app from VersionTracker does it flawlessly.

There's absolutely no excuse for that.

[workerbee]

Originally posted by zkmusa:
I only use Dreamweaver because of its integration with FTP. It's so nice to have all of the files of your site listed. You can open a file, edit it, and upload it easily.

I know BBEdit has FTP integration, but does it have a file browser that can be open all the time to view files?

I've been looking for a text editor for a long time that did this. I guess I could just mount the FTP site and modify it like that.

Well, you could use Transmit or rBrowser as ftp file browser. Select a file on the server in Transmit, click on the "Edit in text editor" button, edit in BBedit, save to disk automatically gets saved to the ftp server... not quite as elegant as double-clicking in DW, but a bit more stable, maybe. DW 04 ftp does not seem quite as bad as before, BTW, but maybe I'm just starting to have hallucinations from waiting for the app to update some window or panel.

[cyberkid__s]

It's not *that* bad on my PowerBook G4-867 with 512MB RAM. Dreamweaver has never been zippy compared to other OS X apps anyway, but as far as relative comparison to MX (v.6.1) is concerned MX2004 hasn't gotten particularly worse on my machine.

Here are my own test results. Just as one reference.....

PowerBook G4 867 (DVI) with 512MB RAM. "Reduced Processor Speed" Energy setting:

- Launch of Dreamweaver MX 2004, from double click to finish loading the app (not including dismissing the demo splash screen): 16~25 seconds depending on the number of programs open prior to launching DWMX2004.

- Open a 5K file from the site window in Dreamweaver MX 2004: 4~5 seconds.

- Open a 23K file with complex HTML table with full of text: 5~7 seconds.

On the same hardware with the same settings,

- Launch of Dreamweaver MX (v 6.1), from double click to finish loading the app: 14~23 seconds depending on the number of programs open prior to launching DWMX2004.

- Open a 5K file from the site window in Dreamweaver MX 2004: 2~4 seconds.

- Open a 23K file with complex HTML table with full of text: 5~6 seconds.

I tested all the above several times using a stop watch. I also did launching after reboot to make sure I get "clean start" and I was able to get the same figures.

So it's gotten a tiny bit slower compared to the previous version but the difference is negligible at least on my machine. It is sluggish (Dreamweaver has never been zippy anyway) but it is usable, and I really don't see it changed for worse.

During the testing, the following applications were open before launching DWMX2004. When all of them were open the launch time was slower. When nothing was open it was far quicker (I guess that's expected).

DragThing 4.6
Microsoft Entourage
Microsoft Word v.X
Preview
Safari
PDF Viewer 1.2
iChat AV
World Clock Deluxe
Web Confidential 3
TextEdit
Adobe Photoshop 7.0.1

Overall, my subjective vote is "Sluggish but not *that* bad".... I still would like to mention that numerous other OS X apps are far zippier than DWMX, so why should DW be as well. Either way, I just hope Macromedia will address the issue promptly and more people will use their survey form to tell them about it.

[hellmachine]

Originally posted by Mediaman_12:
In one paragraph you say you like to code by hand, in the other you want a app like Fireworks (which I really really loath, Ohh lets not make up a file format of out own, we can just subvert an existing standard i.e. png. It also produces appalling code, and don't get me started on the UI.)

don�t misunderstand me. there is design and there is production. i have to do my layouts somewhere. the main options are photoshop and fireworks. fireworks concept is much more web focused. so over the years i used fw more and more. besides the bad gui the main critic is the performance getting slower and slower with every update. btw. this is not a mac problem. on the pc we have to quit fw all hour because its gets slower and slower when working with it.
but the objectoriented concept is really good.

on the other hand is production. i have to code the pages. you can do this with gui tools like dw or with source editors with supportive features, like bbedit.
i�m glad that i use an editor, because i don�t have to fight with dw.

But anyway, Dreamwever is good for 'legwork' (manually creating image-maps, or remembering the size/path of that image, anybody) being able to use templates is good for sit wide layout changes (I know you can use 'find and replace' in BBedit but doing it with huge lumps of code can always lead to mistakes), being able to preview the page in multiple browsers before saving is nice to

most of this you can do on the design side with fireworks, like image maps. other stuff like ftp works with bbedit too, but the best way for me is to have a dedicated ftp app which supports the "edit with bbedit" feature. this way something like fetch etc. will open the page online in bbedit. from here every time i save it will be saved via ftp until i close the page.
as you see, if i need a specific ftp function i �m independent from dw. btw. bbedit has a feature to recognize changed sizes of placed bitmaps...
ftp, html, css, all this is open stuff. why the independence to dw?

[hellmachine]

Originally posted by JudiS217:
Macromedia is aware that Macs users are complaining about the speed of DW MX 2004 and they want to hear from us.

http://www.macromedia.com/support/dr...ing_issues.htm

DW 2004 runs as I would expect on my G4/450. My dual G5 with 2 GB RAM is due to arrive tomorrow, and then we'll see if it's really slower. If DW MX 2004 is anything less than screaming fast, then I'll know the problem is in the code.

oh, please share your experience with the new machine. on the other hand photoshop runs quite good on my g4 / 733, so it is definitely the code in fireworks...

[hellmachine]

from the firewoks page:

"Complete projects more quickly thanks to significant performance enhancements. Manipulate large images and perform other processor-intensive tasks much faster � by as much as 85% in some cases."

[wookitus]

I tried Dreamweaver MX 2004 on my iMac 800mhz 256 megs of RAM. It is dog slow. It hurts to use the application. It hurts even more when it constantly loses an FTP connection and claims it has to "wait for the server" that is more than ready to work.

I also tried Dreamweaver MX 2004 on my 1.8ghz G5 with 512 megs of RAM. It wasn't anywhere near as slow as the iMac, but it was still unacceptable. Menus draw slowly, pages open slowly, etc. My G5 is the second fastest system Apple sells. A web page authoring app should not be slowing down this system.

[lance303]

Seems the PeeCee users are complaining about the speed too:

http://webforums.macromedia.com/fire...hreadid=693909

http://webforums.macromedia.com/fire...hreadid=676872

Granted they are complaining about Fireworks but I think it all boils down to the same thing: bloated and poorly coded application from a company that does seem to care anymore.

[workerbee]

Originally posted by JudiS217:
My dual G5 with 2 GB RAM is due to arrive tomorrow, and then we'll see if it's really slower. If DW MX 2004 is anything less than screaming fast, then I'll know the problem is in the code.

I wasn't blown away when I checked out DW MX 04 on a dual G5 at Apple Expo last week. It's certainly a lot faster than my TiBook, but opening a handful of relatively simple html pages on this machine (the G5) should be almost instant, not a leisurely blop-blop-blop. Switching between design, mixed and code view is (subjectively) faster on my TiBook with DW MX than MX 04 on the G5.

[geo kit]

First, there is definitely a serious problem with DW speed on Mac OS 9 or X. It manifests itself in taking a tremendously long time to save or open a file on my OS X dual 1.25Ghz G4. By tremendously long, I mean a really profoundly noticable lag compared to almost any other native application. So much so that it really interferes with my workflow. Why should it be any slower than BBedit at saving files? I get the feeling the DW MX is busy comparing something in the about-to-be-saved file with all 4000 files in my website, although I did not tell it to do so.

So, upon seeing all these reports of problems with DW MX2004, I am extremely wary of upgrading until they prove to me that they have fixed the speed problem. I appreciate that they improved Flash MX 2004's performance on OS X and I paid for the upgrade.

I see some people at Macromedia do want to get at the root of the problem. They keep saying you should file a report so that it gets visibility.

geo

[:dragonflypro:]

From the Macromedia feedback page:

These reports are not replicable by Technical Support, so we ask that users perform the following steps to make sure the issue is not system-specific....

Not replicable?

Come on.... The issue is so severe every Mac web developer that uses DW is bitter about this.

I do really like MX 04. I even like the UI (I'm weird that way). But the speed is a pain...not wholly unmanageable..but a pain all the same.

Who knows.... maybe this vulnerability will open the door for a better Mac developed HTML Suite...

[philzilla]

the Macromedia team are obviously all smoking opium, hence their belief that things are as fast as they are

someone send a brick of coke over there, so they all wake up and we can get some usable software

[hellmachine]

Originally posted by Mediaman_12:
being able to use templates is good for sit wide layout changes (I know you can use 'find and replace' in BBedit but doing it with huge lumps of code can always lead to mistakes), being able to preview the page in multiple browsers before saving is nice to

learn bbedit-includes. this technique kicks the **** out of dw. you can work with variables and placeholders inside code snippets. you can include an include... and you have the option to include all code-elements. in older dw it was impossible to make templates from code outside the <body> tag. btw. multiple browser views/reloads is cake with bbedit :-)

and finally do css only layouts. so you your complete layout centrally and the html files only contain the pure content...

[dz_macromedia]

Dreamweaver Users,

Here at Macromedia, we are gathering as much data as we can about any problems that our users experience. As a start, we have put together this survey, focused on performance:


http://surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=5358277649


With more information (especially sample files and steps to reproduce), we can file bugs that will help our engineers diagnose the problem that you see. At this point, the potential exists for an update to the product, but it is unclear when this might occur and what it might look like.


You can increase the likelihood of an update by filling out this survey.
You may complete it once for each platform. After you've completed the survey, you may also use the email below to submit specific, detailed reports regarding any other issues that you have with the new release. Thanks and we look forward to hearing from you,


_______ -dreamweaver quality assurance

redwood city, california
[email protected]

[rishio]

I'm waiting for ups to come today with macromedia suite 2004 and will refuse the package and get my refund. So many bad things I've heard.. i'll wait till they fix and update this problem before I purchase..

[Thor]

Originally posted by zkmusa:
I only use Dreamweaver because of its integration with FTP. It's so nice to have all of the files of your site listed. You can open a file, edit it, and upload it easily.

I know BBEdit has FTP integration, but does it have a file browser that can be open all the time to view files?

I've been looking for a text editor for a long time that did this. I guess I could just mount the FTP site and modify it like that.

Look no further.

In BBEdit:
For Local site:
File > New > Disk Browser

For Remote Site:
File > New > FTP Browser

You can also create "File Groups":
File > New > File Group

but the best way for me is to have a dedicated ftp app which supports the "edit with bbedit" feature. this way something like fetch etc. will open the page online in bbedit. from here every time i save it will be saved via ftp until i close the page.

This is built in to BBEdit... you don't need a separate FTP app. (See above.) With a BBEdit FTP browser, you can open files directly on the server, and when you save, they are saved directly to the server.

You can also set up CVS, so that you can rollback changes.
http://www.macworld.com/2003/09/secr...ersioncontrol/

[hellmachine]

Originally posted by Thor:


This is built in to BBEdit... you don't need a separate FTP app. (See above.) With a BBEdit FTP browser, you can open files directly on the server, and when you save, they are saved directly to the server.

its neat, but i like a dedicated ftp-client more. for instance folder uploads don�t work in bbedit. but that�s no problem. i never was a fan of total integration apps (like dw) which claim to do everything but with less deepness.
for some online editing the bbedit ftp-browser indeed is an option...

You can also set up CVS, so that you can rollback changes.
http://www.macworld.com/2003/09/secr...ersioncontrol/

definitely important addition!

[DesignByJack]

I find Dreamweaver MX 6.1 is pretty slow in my OSX Panther... wonder why? Do anyone know where can I download the Dreamweaver MX2004? I would like to try it. Dun mind pay some fees for trying.. I'm a student.

[workerbee]

Originally posted by DesignByJack:
I find Dreamweaver MX 6.1 is pretty slow in my OSX Panther... wonder why? Do anyone know where can I download the Dreamweaver MX2004? I would like to try it. Dun mind pay some fees for trying.. I'm a student.

Do yourself a favour and wait for the .1 patch for DW MX 04 to appear, which should be out Real Soon Now -- somehow the MM boys seem to have woken up from winter slumber in the last few days, and done some work on FH and FW. Let's hope the spark of energy lasts long enough for them to make DW usable after, what, only half a year or so.

[DesignByJack]

Oh My God!!! I ganna cry for that!!

I thought Dreamweaver MX is slow, now my Dreamweaver MX 2004 is even worst!! I getting more and more fastrated!!

[mishap]

Originally posted by DesignByJack:
I find Dreamweaver MX 6.1 is pretty slow in my OSX Panther... wonder why? Do anyone know where can I download the Dreamweaver MX2004? I would like to try it. Dun mind pay some fees for trying.. I'm a student.

Download the full installer right from Macromedia. You can use it for 30 days. Macromedia has been doing this forever.

[alex_kac]

I beta-tested the DW 2004 7.01 update for the past 4 months or so - and its MUCH faster.

Previously it was so slow even my G5 2.0 felt like an original iMac running Photoshop and my Powerbook - ah, it was unusable. But as the betas went on, it got faster and faster and the RC's were great. I never see any speed issues any longer.

[funkboy]

The 7.01 updater just came out - post your thoughts on it!

I'm installing as I type this.

[songoku912]

Installed, running much faster than before.

[xmacintosh]

Yes!! The 7.0.1 is much faster!!!!

[Love Calm Quiet]

How about the quality of its built-in FTP connection... stable? Maybe I'll finally upgrade from DWMX (2003)

[funkboy]

Looks like it's Snappier�

But I just opened a couple windows... I'm not in a production mood right now. Nor do I have time to do that right now. But I think it fixes some problems the other one had. Window switching is snappy now, anyhow, thank goodness. Switching from Design to Split to Code is also quicker. Hooray!

I find it very, *very* odd that an entire new feature, the Timelines window, was reintroduced in this version. Did they simply *forget* to include it in the last version I wonder?

"Whoops, that damn timelines menu item isn't there anymore."

Did the Windows version have that in?

I gotta get to class!

[workerbee]

Much much better indeed!

Here are some interesting insights.

Now let's hope DW MX 05 isn't just around the corner�

[lngtones]

It's still dog slow for me. Even popping up a dialog seems like it takes extraordinarily long.

Not really impressed...

[mishap]

Originally posted by lngtones:
It's still dog slow for me. Even popping up a dialog seems like it takes extraordinarily long.

Not really impressed...

odd. i've been working with it for half of the day and so far i'm very happy. nice work Macromedia. I feel like Dreamweaver should have a little coming of age party now.

[Mr Scruff]

Originally posted by workerbee:
Much much better indeed!

Here are some interesting insights.

Now let's hope DW MX 05 isn't just around the corner�

Very interesting reading. It gives a rare insight into the inner working of commercial software development, where the developers are always under pressure to add features, not to fix bugs or improve performance. I know exactly how they feel, sometimes you badly want to just call a feature freeze and only fix bugs and optimise for the next few months. But it's never that simple, you can't do that until you've completed the feature checklist, and by that time there's a new set of features to implement.

It's unfortunate, and the fact that the Mac versions of most cross platform software has a smaller team working on it than the Windows version means they have even less time for optimisation, which explains why a lot of Mac software is performs worse than it should.

Still, kudos for Macromedia for doing this (although to be honest they would have been driving people into the hands of Adobe Golive if they didn't), and let's hope it marks the beginning of a trend.

I for one would be far more interested in getting super-optimised versions of the software I'm currently running than any new features.

[funkboy]

Originally posted by Mr Scruff:
I for one would be far more interested in getting super-optimised versions of the software I'm currently running than any new features.

I totally agree. I want extremely well-running software first. Heck, after so many years you think they could have gotten around to optimizing enough, but apparently the feature push was just too heavy.

Is there any way to let Macromedia know my wishes? To only release software that runs really well first, and *then* add some new features if there's time in the dev schedule at the end?

[workerbee]

Originally posted by Mr Scruff:
I for one would be far more interested in getting super-optimised versions of the software I'm currently running than any new features.

I don't think this will happen soon. Marketing demands new features, frills, add-ons, not a better app. See spellchecker in Photoshop, image manipulation in Dreamweaver, etc.