GoLive CS vs. Dreamweaver MX?

[jonzal]

Thoughts?
(I have both; been using DWMX for a while, but I just got the whole CS package, and GoLive CS looks rather nice.)

[wwb_99]

Can't say yet, I have both. Previously I was using Golive 6, which actually was better for what I was using it for than CS. I am really loving the MS office import features in DW, as well as prefer the interface. Adobe stuff is awesome when you have a second monitor to put the toolboxes on, but really can be a pain in the **** when you are stuck with one.

WWB

[jamesxv7]

I will never change DWMX04. Maybe for the next version.

[Geof Harries]

I downloaded a copy of GoLive CS for Mac OS X and love it so far. It runs faster than Dreamweaver MX (on my system at least), renders CSS & XHTML layouts exceptionally well, and is overall a tighter package. It's also much cheaper to upgrade from GoLive 6 than going from MX to MX 2004, especially if you buy the entire Adobe CS suite.

I am going to order a copy for ourselves tomorrow.

geof

[csharpe77]

I've just started using GoLive CS and it's a nice change of pace from Dreamweaver. They both have their pros and cons, but for me, the CS interface is MUCH nicer than the Macromedia interface. Also, Adobe has really made some significant improvements over the last version.

I don't want to get into the whole Dreamweaver vs. GoLive debate, because I would still consider Dreamweaver superior in a lot of ways. But I think Adobe is closing the gap. And they're clearly using the strategy they used with InDesign -- sneak it in as part of a package. A lot of people will buy the Creative Suite for Photoshop, etc. and end up with a copy of GoLive. If Adobe can keep improving it, they might have something.

[zakruvalcaba]

There are a ton of differences that come to mind when comparing the two products, the most obvious that come to mind is the fact that Dreamweaver seamlessly integrates ASP.NET and ColdFusion which GoLive doesn't support. I began developing for the Web in 1993...I used Notepad, then moved onto Pagemill in 1995, which was Adobe's first product. In late 1995 I got a hold of Dreamweaver 1.0 beta and was amazed at how far beyond Pagemill and Frontpage it was. Once Macromedia came out with Dreamweaver 2.0, Adobe introduced GoLive but it was obvious that the features that GoLive incorporated where at par with Dreamweaver 1.0. For every new version of Dreamweaver that came out, Adobe came out with a new version that modeled the functionality that a previous version of Dreamweaver contained. It almost seemed like Adobe Project Managers got ahold of a copy of Dreamweaver and started modeling their next release around Dreamweaver's current interface and functionality.

We're at a point now where functionality has reached a limit...there simply isn't anymore that can be added. It's no wonder that Adobe has finally caught up to the functionality level that Dreamweaver has had for years. It was only a matter of time. Personally, I've always found Dreamweaver superior in many aspects to GoLive. GoLive just seems like a cheap ripoff like LiveMotion was to Flash.

By the way, if you decide to use Dreamweaver, please give my book a try: Dreamweaver MX Unleashed on Sams Publishing by Zak Ruvalcaba.

[benji]

not biased at all then ?

[zakruvalcaba]

not biased at all then ?

Maybe just a little!

[vgarcia]

We're at a point now where functionality has reached a limit...there simply isn't anymore that can be added. It's no wonder that Adobe has finally caught up to the functionality level that Dreamweaver has had for years. It was only a matter of time. Personally, I've always found Dreamweaver superior in many aspects to GoLive. GoLive just seems like a cheap ripoff like LiveMotion was to Flash.

DW can still clean up some of its bloated Javascript code .


Sidenote: what would you prefer for ASP.NET, Visual Studio or Dreamweaver MX 2004?

[zakruvalcaba]

DW can still clean up some of its bloated Javascript code .


Sidenote: what would you prefer for ASP.NET, Visual Studio or Dreamweaver MX 2004?

Funny thing is, I always, let me stress always, have both Visual Studio and DMX open at the same time. Visual Studio is horendous for WYSIWYG editing whereas DMX lacks in the intellisense and code-behind department. I simply Alt+Tab between the two.

Visually, most people think GoLive and DMX match up because they have the same basic functionality ie. drag and drop behaviors, quick table editing, roundtrip graphics editing, etc. Shoot, FrontPage can do all of that. What people don't realize is that Macromedia devotes hundreds if not thousands of man hours to improve on its support for server-side application development. ASP (VBScript / JScript), ASP.NET (C# / VB.NET), PHP, and ColdFusion are all supported, and supported well. BTW, Have you seen the CSS integration? It's absoultely unreal what they've done in DMX 2004. I'm sure GoLive will follow suit in their next release....they always seem to find a way to.

[vgarcia]

BTW, Have you seen the CSS integration? It's absoultely unreal what they've done in DMX 2004. I'm sure GoLive will follow suit in their next release....they always seem to find a way to.

Yeah, I think DMX is the first WYSIWYG editor that actually lets you use CSS for layout and does it properly. Hopefully GoLive and Visual Studio Whidbey follow suit .

[pissant]

DW can still clean up some of its bloated Javascript code .

but in a contest between golive and DW javascript...
??
well there is no contest I would never reccomend anyone use GL javascripts!! they are hideous (whereas DW is just a little painful (bloaty?))

[vgarcia]

but in a contest between golive and DW javascript...
??
well there is no contest I would never reccomend anyone use GL javascripts!! they are hideous (whereas DW is just a little painful (bloaty?))

True . The one saving grace for Macromedia's JS functions is that they work in nearly any browser created. I guess I don't really need it (most of my JS work is DOM-based since I rarely support very old browsers on the JS front) but it's useful if you do.

[pissant]

True . The one saving grace for Macromedia's JS functions is that they work in nearly any browser created. I guess I don't really need it (most of my JS work is DOM-based since I rarely support very old browsers on the JS front) but it's useful if you do.

Which is particularly good for prototyping and proof of concept work, where you want to get a prototype into user testing as soon as possible before you necessarily have time to code 100% properly. This is when the wysiwyg editor in DW comes into its own... you can whip up a quick site to test with and then build it properly in the code view later

[samsm]

From what I'm reading here, am I to understand that there is an appreciable difference between Dreamweaver MX and MX2004, particularly in CSS?

Is CSS rendering in the 2004 version 99% accurate for modern browsers? I'm asking because I'm toying with an older MX version and PROBLEMS GALORE.

[pissant]

css rendering in design view in mx2004 is a huge improvement over earlier versions... having said that it isn't yet perfect, if you have a very complicated layout then you will still have issues.
but you can build a pretty decent crossbrowser css site just in design view...
Of course if anyone looks at the code they might scream and claw their eyes out... well maybe not quite that bad.

The real gains for me is in the code view, you can now set you target browsers up and DW will highlight when you put in code not understood by a target browser, plus the code hints are much better too...

Basically this tool is doing very well in my opinion