Apple's own web authoring program?

Posted:
in Mac Software edited January 2014
Has anyone heard if Apple is making their own web authoring program? I heard a rumor about this awhile ago but wasn't sure. I think this would be great considering DWMX 2004 is pretty much worthless.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 17
    zozo Posts: 3,115member
    Here



    Love the program...
  • Reply 2 of 17
    bigbluebigblue Posts: 341member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ZO

    Here



    Love the program...




    Hehe. I think he meant an a little more up-to-date app ...

    Claris ... those were the days.
  • Reply 3 of 17
    hobbeshobbes Posts: 1,252member
    It's not consumer-level, but as a fellow disappointed Dreamweaver user, I'm finding GoLive CS a really excellent piece of software.



    But it makes the most sense financially if you're a designer, and/or you spring for the whole CS suite.



    There's also Freeway...
  • Reply 4 of 17
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    WebObjects?
  • Reply 5 of 17
    celcocelco Posts: 211member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pocket

    [ DWMX 2004 is pretty much worthless. [/B]



    Huh? Dreamweaver 2004 from Macromedia worthless. PUT AWAY THE CRACK PIPE NOW SONNY IT WILL ONLY END IN TEARS.... WHAT RU SMOKING?



    1. DWMX supports full CSS very well.

    2. Its server based solution extensions are unmatched.

    3. Its support of XML is brilliant

    4. Its interface and GUI is one of the best.

    5. MM have done amazing job of flash and dreamweaver compatibility

    6. Its faster.

    7. Its cross platform compatible works. UNLIKE ADOBE





    God next thing we will want to spin off allaire as a separate company again...

    Apple should BUY Macromedia if they ever had the money.



    Oh and by the way welcome to AI.

  • Reply 6 of 17
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    I dunno. I think this is a little outside of Apple's media-app scope right now but I certainly wouldn't mind it if Apple were to create a powerful, stable and standards-integrated WYSIWYG app. It would have to be a direct competitor to GoLive and DWMX though, otherwise I wouldn't even bother. The world doesn't need another failed "consumer web design app".



    FrontPage

    Fusion

    PageMill

    Claris

    etc

    etc



    Those things are just worthless. Might've been cute back in 96 when everyone wanted to make their own web page but now they would do nothing but take shelf space away from more useful apps IMO. Even Freeway lacks truly powerful tools as far as CSS and the like are concerned. It's just "Quark for the web" IMO, which is not a good thing since Quark sucks.



  • Reply 7 of 17
    madmax559madmax559 Posts: 596member
    vi
  • Reply 8 of 17
    burningwheelburningwheel Posts: 1,827member
    i've heard lots of people complain of Studio MX 2004 being bad. i've had some problems but overall i love it. it starts up quickly, finally! and files open quickly as well



    i'm selling an extra copy i have. check my signature for the link



  • Reply 9 of 17
    gizzmonicgizzmonic Posts: 511member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by burningwheel

    i've heard lots of people complain of Studio MX 2004 being bad. i've had some problems but overall i love it. it starts up quickly, finally! and files open quickly as well







    Must be pretty good if you're hocking it on eBay!



    I have the original MX suite...and it's okay, but the interface is worse than it should be. And FlashMX is alpha-quality software. I don't think Macromedia has QA anymore...they've outsourced everything to India as well.
  • Reply 10 of 17
    sunreinsunrein Posts: 138member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pocket

    considering DWMX 2004 is pretty much worthless.



    Care to elaborate?
  • Reply 11 of 17
    burningwheelburningwheel Posts: 1,827member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gizzmonic

    Must be pretty good if you're hocking it on eBay!



    I have the original MX suite...and it's okay, but the interface is worse than it should be. And FlashMX is alpha-quality software. I don't think Macromedia has QA anymore...they've outsourced everything to India as well.




    as i said in my orignal post, this is an extra NEW copy
  • Reply 12 of 17
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    I think the time for an Apple web page editor has passed.



    If you look at HTML now - just W3C standard HTML - there is a potent enough combination of capabilities and limitations to make any drag-and-drop design tool very difficult. That goes double if you're trying to use XHTML and CSS in meaningful ways. It was much simpler back in the days of Claris HomePage, when there wasn't all that much to HTML, or to web design generally.



    Then, of course, there's the minefield of browser compatibility, which has gotten much harder to navigate since the early days.



    Basically, for the above reasons, and also because the original design goals of the web have been completely forsaken, web design is the province of pros. Given that, the only dead simple way to do consumer web pages that don't suck is to use professionally designed templates, which is the approach Apple's already taken with .Mac.



    Until a lot more progress has been made with web standards in general, and support for web standards in particular, it'll never be easy enough for an iApp to do.
  • Reply 13 of 17
    bah, you kids and your fancy WYSIWYG editors. apple already ships a web authoring app w/ every copy of os x



    just pop urself in the terminal and type:

    Code:


    David-Legatts-Computer:~ dave$ cd sites

    David-Legatts-Computer:~/sites dave$ emacs index.php









  • Reply 14 of 17
    bigbluebigblue Posts: 341member
    ... and also as a non-WYSIWYG app, don't forget TextEdit ! Rock solid !
  • Reply 15 of 17
    placeboplacebo Posts: 5,767member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by madmax559

    vi



    Well, aren't you 1337.
  • Reply 16 of 17
    staphbabystaphbaby Posts: 353member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Placebo

    Well, aren't you 1337.



    Not so much 1337 as enlightened...



    Hey, since there's an emacs comment two posts up, we could turn this into an emacs vs. vi flame war!!! YAAY!!!



    Actually, I rather like SubEthaEdit. So useful, such a clean design.
  • Reply 17 of 17
    yeah, vi is better...i think...that's what i hear, i can use emacs, don't know vi, oh well. that's my retarded opinion
Sign In or Register to comment.