Dreamweaver vs. GoLive ::

badtz

Couple questions:::



How exactly does photoshop & golive "integrate"?



Could I still roughly get that integration using photoshop & dreamweaver?



how exactly does dreamweaver & fireworks "integrate"?



also, any opinions about the benefits/disadvantages between dreamweaver & golive?



[this is all assuming the latest os-x compatible versions]



thanks !!!

trevorm

I wont say much about GoLive but I do feel that Dreamwearver is a far better product in comp to Golive. I used Dreamweaver together with Photoshop and Fireworks, IMHO Fireworks is great for cutting up my images that i have produced in Photoshop....

trevorm

[ 06-21-2002: Message edited by: trevorM ]</p>

arbernaut

GoLive allows better interaction with Photoshop, but dreamweaver isn't that far behind. I'm a GoLive user, but not a Dreanweaver hater: it's just personal preference. In their current incarnations, both apps will allow you to create professional websites with the minimum of fuss. It's really a case of which interface and methodology you prefer, Macromedia's or Adobe's.

leonis

Dreamweaver wins. No doubt

stroszek

I used to use GoLive, but I probably haven't used it since version 4 (I think). I bought Dreamweaver because it was on sale, and once I got the hang of it, I think that it is much easier to use. I downloaded the MX trial, and I love it.



I don't think Photoshop integration is any sort of problem with Dreamweaver, I use it for all image editing and slicing. I've been told that Fireworks is better for the slicing, but I'm comfortable using Photoshop for that. I have found, however that Fireworks does a much better job at image compression than Photoshop. Granted, I use Photoshop 5, and the Save for the Web option wasn't introduced until 5.5.



[ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: Stroszek ]</p>

matvei

I've just started building pages and have used a great method to choose the program I ended with.I used the free 30 day tryouts available. This way I can REALLY know which i prefer.



I tried Golive6, DreamweaverMX and Freeway.



All have their fine points, but, to me, GoLive6 is the best product for the way I work.



The #1 feature I love is drag-and-drop of PDF files that are automatically turned into graphic files, easily optimisable right there.



I really feel that I am more in control of the site, pages and their respective objects with it. Mouseovers are a synch...



Try them, that's the way to choose.



After a few days, i ordered the Adobe Web Collection.



I love it!

dr. zoidberg

uh yeah, but did you ever take a look at the pages of butt-ugly and severely bloated scripts that golive generates?



this is STILL true now we´re at version 6.... the only difference is that the crapola is being loaded as external script (probably so that one doesn´t die of agnostic shame when he glances at the html-source code).



that said, i use golive for layouting/site managment, but i don´t touch anything in there which could turn my proper html into an ugly mess of csscriptdict-and-yeahwhatever-shyte.

blizaine

I've been using GoLive since before Adobe owned it (GoLive CyberStudio 3). I've used all versions since, up to version 6. I am not very happy with the code GoLive generates (like dr. zoidberg said).



Is there a very high learning curve for DreaveWeaver MX?



I've never used it but I'm thinking of downloading the trial and to try it out.

stroszek

I moved to Dreamweaver MX directly from 4, so I can't really answer the learning curve question about MX, but when I moved to DW3 from GoLive, I went through the tutorials in the manual, and I didn't really think it was that difficult to pickup. I don't know if you can download a manual with the free demo or not though. the MX interface is better than previous versions, IMO, and it should be easier to pick up. (I can actually have everything I need on (drum roll, please...) ONE monitor. Kickin'

badtz

how about integration between ..........



photoshop/golive



fireworks/dreamweaver



photoshop/dreamweaver



???

peve

i started off with golive cyberstudio (back in the days) but after i discovered that there is some like "html-code" i switched to dreamweaver.



i like the code of dreamweaver, but would like to have all those gimmicks of golive.



well, ya can't have it all...



[quote]Originally posted by Badtz:

<strong>how about integration between ..........



photoshop/golive



fireworks/dreamweaver



photoshop/dreamweaver



???</strong><hr></blockquote>



well you can work well with all of the combinations above, but when you use two products from the same house you get them little gimmicks that make life more fun.



but i wouldn't overrate that.

badtz

...........like?

jessebc

I've been using freeway 3.1 for about a year now and absolutely love it. Now mind you... you can't really get into the code to muck with it too much but I've never really found that I've had too. I wouldn't know if it makes good code or not but you can check out some sites I've made with it and see what you think.



<a href="http://www.31threedesign.com/demo"; target="_blank">Demolition Site</a>

<a href="http://www.lakemount.ca/home.html"; target="_blank">Lakemount Worship Centre</a>



I know it's not for everyone... but I think it's a really overlooked program.

matvei

Really nice sites there, looks very professional (church and demolition). I liked the "idea" of Freeway but could not for the life of me figure it out intuitively. Apparently, users of Quark seem to pick it up better.



I understand the idea behind having squeeky clean javascripts but does it matter that much?



When I upload my sites, I have GoLive flatten the scritps, remove the Golive specific elements and spaces. I look at the code and it seems fine by me (granted I am new at this...).



What kind of problem can it generate? Is it only a purist problem?



I have no problem checking out the code as it is. It looks self-evident and I know where it starts and ends, but most importantly, it works...



isn't that the true measure?

leonis

[quote]Originally posted by Matvei:

<strong>

I understand the idea behind having squeeky clean javascripts but does it matter that much?

</strong><hr></blockquote>



At least those code junkies care



Here's the point. The more code, the longer time that the browser will take to "read"...translate to "slower" site.



A rollover script that GoLive generates is like over 90 lines! :eek:

stroszek

For those of you that are curious about the code in your site:



Validate it!



<a href="http://validator.w3.org/"; target="_blank">HTML Validation</a>

<a href="http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/"; target="_blank">CSS Validation</a>



I only looked at the demolition site, but it doesn't validate. Why does it matter, as long as it looks ok in the browsers? Because slowly, browsers are starting to actually render HTML correctly (gasp!) If your HTML is valid, then you will have no problems in the future. That's the way I see it.



As for WYSIWYG editors, they don't always write valid code, I know that DW4 didn't, but MX does.



Some Interesting Reading:

<a href="http://www.alistapart.com/stories/netscape/"; target="_blank">Why Don't You Code for Netscape?</a>

<a href="http://www.alistapart.com/stories/tohell/"; target="_blank">To Hell With Bad Browsers</a>

badtz

strozek [sp], are there any mac os x progs. that you'd recommend that does html validating?



like cse html validator on windows...

stroszek

[quote]Originally posted by Badtz:

<strong>strozek [sp], are there any mac os x progs. that you'd recommend that does html validating?



like cse html validator on windows...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Those validators are web based, you just give it your URL, and it validates it. They are run by the W3C. If you don't want to do it this way, I noticed yeaterday that Dreaweaver MX will validate it also. Still, I think I trust the W3C to tell that Dreamweaver is writting correct code more than I trust Dreamweaver to do it

kingofsomewherehot

Someone asked about manuals with the trial versions ... with my trial of DW MX ... there's no manual (PDF or otherwise), but all the information is there in the "Help" system.

It doesn't print out well like a pdf manual would (and its hard to learn stuff trying to flip through pages on-screen) .... but then this is a "free trial".



In any case, I liked Dreamweaver and my real copy (with a big paper manual) should arrive in the morning... $350 kinda hurts, but it beats manually coding all the html !

amorph

BBEdit will cheerfully validate code, and it will also clean up Dreamweaver code.



It is the HTML editor (note: HTML editor, not web design tool) and site maintenance tool of the gods.