|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MACROMEDIA Dreamweaver
Do you use macromedia dreamweaver for creating web sites.
Another one 
Yes i do. Mx. Havent tried the newest version yet. I only ever use the code section though, never the design!
Yes i do. Mx. Havent tried the newest version yet. I only ever use the code section though, never the design!
The only reason I do not use Dreamweaver is the cost, otherwise I would love to have it.
i use MX professional.. my cousin bought it..
| mathiaus wrote: |
| Another one
Yes i do. Mx. Havent tried the newest version yet. I only ever use the code section though, never the design! |
Hi ! This is Rahul. It seems that u r brillient in coding but you should try mx 2004 it suppour css to much extent. Good for creating layout(s).
You should give it a try.
Sorry if i made any mistake in my english.
I tend not to use Dreamweaver if I can, though I will use it to upload sometimes. It's fine, but not my favorite, because I prefer Homesite or goold ol' Notepad much more than Dreamweaver when it comes to design. I like typing in all the html in my sites.
ok i'm guessing i'm guessing I'm going to be loked down upon, laughed at, and mocked if I admit I use FrontPage?
i think u should try dreamweaver,
it works as easy as frontpage, BUT
it supports php (which frontpage doesnt),
the colors in the code tab makes it easier to discover errors,
u can have an "live" connection to your host,
that means you can edit your files without having them on your harddisk, and you can upload them easly,
it has standard scripts as rollovers en playing sounds, so you can install them with a few mouse clicks..
did i forgot something??
it works as easy as frontpage, BUT
it supports php (which frontpage doesnt),
the colors in the code tab makes it easier to discover errors,
u can have an "live" connection to your host,
that means you can edit your files without having them on your harddisk, and you can upload them easly,
it has standard scripts as rollovers en playing sounds, so you can install them with a few mouse clicks..
did i forgot something??
I usually use notepad ... but Dreamweaver is a very very good tool to make websites. 
Amazing.
Amazing.
dreamweaver mx 2004 is,i usually use in coding for my site its fast ,u can made ur layout too that i do,fast to change background of what color for ur site,php support,Rich CSS Support
(Create sophisticated, standards-based sites with Cascading Style Sheets)
,Secure FTP(Fully encrypt file transfers and prevent unauthorized access to data and files),Cross-Browser Validation
(Automatically check tags and CSS rules for compatibility across leading browsers)
(Create sophisticated, standards-based sites with Cascading Style Sheets)
,Secure FTP(Fully encrypt file transfers and prevent unauthorized access to data and files),Cross-Browser Validation
(Automatically check tags and CSS rules for compatibility across leading browsers)
dream weaver is quite an essential for me as i have quite gotten used to the workflow and it lso happens to be a standard. spotting justifying and borders problem is quite a breeze with it.
yes i use it
but i prefer the coding mode to make my site
but i prefer the coding mode to make my site
ok... i'll try to get my hands on the new dreamweaver... the problem is that I doubt it'll run in my comp because I'm using Win98.... it may take some time before I'm allowed an upgrade, and so, till then I'll have to use FP 2002...
By the way, can someone gimme a link for a tutorial on php...? thanks.
By the way, can someone gimme a link for a tutorial on php...? thanks.
Dreamweaver 2.0, I got to rep the old school dreamweaver (the best ones).
I got MX 2004 from the school for free, same with a few other macromedia products. All we did was find out the key for the schools network and unlock the trial using the key!
yes yes . i use it. but the price is insane.
I don't use the Design part of it though. I would suggest getting it
I don't use the Design part of it though. I would suggest getting it
Yes, I use Dreamweaver MX. I think it's better than 2004, even having experienced both versions. MX is a little more organised in terms of its appearance, for some reason. Both are great tools for webmasters.
The one element which I really like from 2004 Fireworks (if I can digress a little) is Radial Blur, which is something not existing in the MX version. On the other hand, add-ins and other programs can be used for the same effect.
The one element which I really like from 2004 Fireworks (if I can digress a little) is Radial Blur, which is something not existing in the MX version. On the other hand, add-ins and other programs can be used for the same effect.
IMHO, dreamweaver is an awesome tool...perfect for beginners as well as experts and offers one of the best UI's i've seen
me no like dreamweaver. They packed too many features that i don't need and annoy me. It takes days to load when you want to just do a quick edit (compared to notpad of course)
i prefer frontpage 2003 much much much more because it has a very simple and straightforward interface. But i don't use this much either, i'm usually just coding my stuff in notepad nowadays.
i prefer frontpage 2003 much much much more because it has a very simple and straightforward interface. But i don't use this much either, i'm usually just coding my stuff in notepad nowadays.
I tried the tryout version for dreamweaver and it was great until it expired 
. Well yea it's great.
. Well yea it's great.I do not like Dreamweaver because it lumps my code into one line and I find it hard to modify it with Notepad later on. I choose Frontpage.
i like dreamweaver... i find it quite nice... i have dreamweaver mx, maybe ill up to 2004, but ill probably wait for the next distribution before i upgrade... anyways, i like its features, it makes setting up the general layout and such easy with the wysiwyg part, but then you can just hop into the code and tweak it how you want... some of my friends have like no clue bout html but can make ok pages with dreamweaver... however, if you know html, you can make quite spiffy sites by being able to tweak stuff alot easlier through the actually coding
and i dont think that the load is too long... just takes a second... or maybe thats just me with 2 gigs of ram? (i do a lot of gaming)
and i dont think that the load is too long... just takes a second... or maybe thats just me with 2 gigs of ram?
(i do a lot of gaming)i don't use it because i rarely do any design, and when i do it's mostly with css and i don't like using dreamweaver to do make css.
most of the stuff i do i use a programming text-editor
most of the stuff i do i use a programming text-editor
yes i use it only for the coding its realyl great and how come you people dont download it lol instead of paying for it?
I use Macromedia stuff ,currently I am using some Flash 5.mmx but since i am overloaded with my own scholing I make design with Maya,Photoshop rarely Fireworks and the rest with Dreamveawer.Cleaning code services are available on the net anyway( thats for non programers )
If it would be for free, it would use Dreamweaver, but why should you pay if there are other programs on the net that are for free and are as good as dreamweaver.
At the moment I'm using PHP Designer. It's a pretty tool, but not a WYSIWYG-tool. It's a scripting-program with a very good library for php, css, html. I like it, so why should I pay to get Dreamweaver?
At the moment I'm using PHP Designer. It's a pretty tool, but not a WYSIWYG-tool. It's a scripting-program with a very good library for php, css, html. I like it, so why should I pay to get Dreamweaver?
I use Dreamweaver, i used to use frontpage but i got sick of having to clean up the code in notepad so i started to use notepad then i moved on to dreamweaver.
I would recomend that ppl download the trial first to see if they like it
I would recomend that ppl download the trial first to see if they like it
| tidrug wrote: |
| ok i'm guessing i'm guessing I'm going to be loked down upon, laughed at, and mocked if I admit I use FrontPage? |
I also use frontpage to move my layers back and forth. It's easier to click and drag than to put in the exact pixels eh?
But to make it XHTML-verified, you have to... clean it up a lot... but other than that, it's rather... simple. I've never actually tried dreamweaver... lol, that's why I get php codes from other websites.
dreamwaver is a good software
it help s me a lot!!!
it help s me a lot!!!
i don't have the money to get one, too costly for me. i would if someone is willing to give one 
500 €... it's a littlebit expensive, don't you think...
And, moreover, Dreamweaver is for windows...
So, I use non WYSIWYG editor, only text interfaces, with no help.
But I've tried Dreamweaver, and it's really pleasant to use. I recommand it for those who have money:D
And, moreover, Dreamweaver is for windows...
So, I use non WYSIWYG editor, only text interfaces, with no help.
But I've tried Dreamweaver, and it's really pleasant to use. I recommand it for those who have money:D
well perfect tool, because if you know alot about it and you have used it alot, you can use all the coding it gives you.
i love using dreamweaver because it has a lot of features specially the manage site i can connect to cold fusion heheheh;b
dream weaver can be downloaded...to try...
dream weaver can be downloaded...to try...
I use MX 04, from a nice trial version and crack key. easy to get off of Limewire. BUT that isn't the point.
Does Frihost support Dreamweaver? Like, can I upload already made pages onto the host server thingy?
Does Frihost support Dreamweaver? Like, can I upload already made pages onto the host server thingy?
ow, be careful when speaking about craking...
Since dreamweaver uses ftp then yes. I use dreamweaver just because I like the default highlighting, the insert code feature (for headache days) and the ftp intergration. I got a spare licence from my dad's work.
what's that? i'm using HTML
Has anyone ever used HTML KIT or Topstyle css editor?
These tools are free and very strong. I know that most of the time when free is mentioned most folks cringe. But these two programs are top notch. And HTML KIT can be setup the way you work. Real nice software and the price is right.
These tools are free and very strong. I know that most of the time when free is mentioned most folks cringe. But these two programs are top notch. And HTML KIT can be setup the way you work. Real nice software and the price is right.
| yjwong wrote: |
| I do not like Dreamweaver because it lumps my code into one line and I find it hard to modify it with Notepad later on. I choose Frontpage. |
Hey ! I use Mx 2004.I don't find any thing like u said.
Instead i helps me automatically formate the content.
I use Mx 2004 it is very easy to create good websites
i learned to use it at school, but i think its quite bad program. or maybe thats bacause i cant really use it.
but i think html is poor too. it got no options to make the pages the way i want.
and im very critical artist.
but i think html is poor too. it got no options to make the pages the way i want.
and im very critical artist.
So do you get to use it? I am not sure if the FTP post was the answer, but if you can use it, then I already have a head start on the site...
Anywho, I didn't crack it....
>>
<<
I uh...got it from school...yeah thats it...
I really did!! I learned how to use it there...it was very nice.
Anywho, I didn't crack it....
>>
<<
I uh...got it from school...yeah thats it...
I really did!! I learned how to use it there...it was very nice.
I used Dreamweaver for awhile, but it wasn't simplistic enough and wasn't standards compliant. I recently switched to GoLive, but I only use it when designing. For coding I use Crimson Editor, which is a simple editor with syntax highlighting. I use Photoshop to design the site, then export it to CSS. Then I just edit it cold turkey in GoLive and get it to my liking. It is much easier than Dreamweaver since you can use the WYSIWYG without having to worry about it messing up your code, so you can get the positioning how you like it w/o just doing Guess-and-Check. It also has a code Validator, so I can validate my sites without going to w3.org.
 |