Why I Will Keep My $200

posted on october 3, 2003, tag: software

I've been a Dreamweaver user since the release of Dreamweaver MX. I used UltraDev occasionally before then when I worked at a company who refused to let its coders use anything else, but for the most part, up until the release of MX, DW stunk.

Version 3 and version 4 were full of poor interface design issues, they were clunky and slow, and worst of all—they wrote terrible code. When DW MX came out, I was expecting to see a slightly less clunky version of Dreamweaver, but was surprised to find that Macromedia had actually done something right with the program. Better interface, faster, and it actually wrote decent code. Granted, I still only let DW write a very little amount of code for me anyway, but that little bit was actually usable without a lot of changes.

Since then, I've used a combination of Dreamweaver MX and EditPlus on my PC, and Dreamweaver MX and BBEdit on my Mac. Over time, I've generally phased out BBEdit due to it's extremely limited syntax-highlighting and lack of features. And, since I do just about 100% of my development on my PowerBook now, it's basically been DW MX for the last year.

It's comfortable (a bit slow) and it works. Now here comes Dreamweaver MX 2004, all raring to go, promising to make my life even easier. Well, it hasn't. In fact, I'm far more comfortable with good ol' MX. I'll tell you why.

The Good

First, let my start off by saying there are improvements. The user interface, for example, now at least somewhat matches OS X. Before, it was still very much a Windows look, which wasn't necessarily bad. The new look is better, though (see figure 1.1 below, click for larger image). Almost every icon and button has been redesigned to look more, well, 32-bit. Nice change.

Figure 1.1—MX's buttons (left) and MX 2004's buttons (right)

There is also a new section of the 'Insert' toolbar (shown above) called 'Favorites,' allowing you to add whichever buttons you use most frequently to one section of the toolbar (complete with separators). This is a great little addition, since I tend to use the same buttons each time I use DW. Definitely coming in handy.

CSS support is about the same, even though the website makes it seem as though MX 2004 has been completely overhauled. I don't really see anything different, and perhaps I just don't know where to look—but that's an issue in and of itself. If I don't know where to look to find these new features, and I used DW daily, then they aren't in the right place. I did notice that in code mode, styles will appear as a DW tooltip for quick insertion, which is nice (see figure 1.2 below). But as you can see below, like a lot of things in 2004, it has visual bugs (see the screwy dashed lines on the right side).

Figure 1.2—CSS Tooltips and visual bugs

This is definitely a usable addition, even with its visual problems. CSS is also handled better in design mode, which is nice since I tend to do most sites in all CSS now. Previously, Dreamweaver would have some trouble with complicated CSS layouts, but 2004 is definitely a step in the right direction.

The Bad

Jesus is this program slow. Much slower than Dreamweaver MX on my 867MHz G4 PowerBook. Apparently I'm not the only one having a problem, either. From the Dreamweaver MX 2004 emerging issues page:

Issue
Some users are reporting that Dreamweaver MX 2004 performs typical operations slowly on Macintosh OS X.

Reason
These reports are not replicable by Technical Support, so we ask that users perform the following steps to make sure the issue is not system-specific. [continues...]

Not 'replicable'? I suggest Technical Support install this program on an Apple computer. I know I'm just a customer and such, but it's completely ridiculous for a company as large as Macromedia to answer a support issue by saying, basically, "we don't see the problem, so it must be you." Something tells me that if it was a big enough problem for them to list it on this page, it is not just me. Their steps to make sure the issue is not 'system-specific' include verifying your system meets the requirements (mine does and far beyond), checking for Apple software updates (got them all, thanks) and closing other programs and checking speed then (first all, we call them "applications" in Apple-world, and second—even if this solves the problem (which it doesn't), am I supposed to run MX 2004 as the only app every time I need to do work?). Nonsense.

Also, the new Site functionality is absolute garbage. For anyone who does lots of work in Dreamweaver, the new version of the Site manager (at least on OS X) will completely render the app unusable. It's slower than death and disconnects all the time. For instance—if you run the Site window in remote only, the files are listed alphabetically, descending (Z»A), with no way to change it. In fact, the only way to change it is to switch into dual view (both local and remote), and this disconnects you from your server. You then have to reconnect, and sort the files. Try switching back to just remote again, now that you have the files sorted, and it disconnects you again. When you reconnect, you'll be greeted with the files back in reverse sort-order. And since you'll be disconnected over and over and have to continually reconnect, you'll get to see a nice visual bug all the fucking time (see figure 1.3 below).

Figure 1.3—Annoying Backward Site and Visual Bug

You'll note in that image that the files are reverse-ordered (except folders which get properly ordered and moved to the top... fucking weird shit going on). That visual bug goes away once all the files are listed and refreshed, but in the mean time it's really annoying. Get used to it if you're a Site user (although it's now called "Files" under "Assets").

The Verdict

All in all, the update is not worth my $200 until the speed and Site issues are resolved. I seriously hope that Macromedia addresses these concerns, but in the mean time, I'll be using Dreamweaver MX, thank you very much. It might have outdated icons, and might lack some CSS functionality, but it works. And it's not nearly as slow. I will keep this entry updated with other issues I find, and possibly with work-arounds as well.

Comments

There are 5 comments, comments are closed