Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 33381	2003-05-14 23:33:00	Dreamweaver MX - Is it worth the investment?	honeylaser (814)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
144220	2003-05-14 23:33:00	I'd like some opinions on Macromedia Dreamweaver MX. I only downloaded the 30 day trial a couple of days ago, and have been gradually teaching myself to use it, and so far it seems user friendly enough, but I'm not sure that I can make an educated decision at this stage whether it is worth the $650 investment? We would be using it for business purposes, and it seems to make the management of our site a whole lot easier (especially with regards to stylesheets and the automatic updating of links when reorganising the files, plus the broken/orphaned link checker). Basically, I need to justify persuading the business to purchase it. If any of you have had experience using it (for your business), could you let me know? I would be interested to hear how it is working for you.	honeylaser (814)
144221	2003-05-15 00:27:00	Dreamweaver MX is an excellent HTML Editor, in WYSIWYG as well as hard coding. It is ideal. Can I ask you what you used previously or have tried? FrontPage XP is (imo) more for starting out, it is good in that it can do what web designers want but it's not as user friendly as Dreamweaver, I would recommend free HTML Editors that are similar/better than FrontPage. As for Dreamweaver, it is excellent. Dreamweaver has a lot of features that are good for beginners and advanced designers. I highly recommend it. Although I am one who likes writing the code straight into a text editor and then testing it on different browsers to see what works and what doesn't. I build sites up in parts and don't complete the full site till I have it working with most major Browsers (IE, Netscape, Mozilla, Opera). Once all the parts are done I then put it to the main page.	Kame (312)
144222	2003-05-15 02:47:00	> Can I > ask you what you used previously or have tried? I have been using Frontpage 2002 until now. It seemed to do everything I wanted, but I had issues with organising the file structure. I mucked around for 3 hours trying to rearrange the files, and stuffed the whole thing up (broken links galore!). I do know how to code raw HTML, but it's too time consuming for me. > Although I am one who likes writing the code straight > into a text editor and then testing it on different > browsers to see what works and what doesn't. I think it might be quite advantageous to be able to run the browser checks through Dreamweaver. I did a test and it told me that it pity the fool who uses Netscape to look at our site. Lots of changes can be made!	honeylaser (814)
144223	2003-05-15 03:55:00	If you found that Dreamweaver made you more productive it would probably be worth it. It also produces better code than FrontPage does.	-=JM=- (16)
144224	2003-05-15 05:07:00	> If you found that Dreamweaver made you more > productive it would probably be worth it. It also > produces better code than FrontPage does. That's what I was thinking. I guess I won't really know whether it suits until I have used it to maintain the website for a while. Still have another couple of weeks with the trial, so hopefully that will tell us what we need to know. Cheers.	honeylaser (814)
144225	2003-05-15 05:26:00	I use Dreamweaver 4 here at work and MX at home. To be honest there aren't really too many differences between the two, except that MX is much better organised with the toolbar/property menus. There are also heaps of neat features in DW like templates, site mapping, etc. I would definately recommend Dreamweaver over anything :)	Mary H (769)
144226	2003-05-15 10:39:00	When it comes to a toss up between DW and MS Frontpage DW wins hands down. You get far better code from it and you can also verify your code against other browsers within it. As I don't use IE the sites I have most trouble with are those by FP that do not comform to the W3C standard.	mikebartnz (21)
1