Adobe Golive VS. Dreamweaver

[JGIRL]

Ok, I found two programs I really like. However, I found out that adobe golive has more advatages for larger sites that dreamweaver can not handle.

I would like your opionions on the two programs and what your like and dislikes are on them, what you think are the differences, and other important facts on both programs.

Thanks

[xtendscott]

JGIRL

I have used Dream Weaver since DW 2 and am not sure what it can't do with very large sites? I don't have a 1000 pages on my sites though. But it can work with ASP, PHP, CFM for data driven sites to dynamically build the pages.

I tried to use GO LIVE a couple years ago but the thought process of how to the program worked was not as intuitive to me like DW. I think DW is simple to use and able to do complex sites, and if needed it is easy to edit the HTML directly in DW or another Text Editor.

I use DW to work out the basic structure of a site and tweek the code by hand where I choose to without it changing the code to suit its need. FrontPage (use to be atleast) was natorius to changing code, not sure where GO Live is with that.

I don't think you can go wrong with DW. IMO.

[rockynate]

I use Adobe GoLive.

The initial reason for my decision was for the simple reason that I use all Adobe products for everything else... so why not?

I've used DreamWeaver as well. It is much easier to learn.

But if you get past the learning curve for GoLive, there are some really awesome features to take advantage of; especially when it comes to site management. I don't know if DW has some of these things: but I can take a page and move it to a different folder on the site, and GoLive will update the links in all the other pages that refer to it automatically.

It also has "smart" elements- for example, instead of placing a graphic on a page, I place a reference to the .psd file that is the graphic - a "smart photoshop element". I can adjust the graphic on the fly, and it will automatically re-export an optimized .jpg and link it into the page for me. Same goes for LiveMotion elements (flash movies and graphics), and Illustrator files (vector graphics).

The learning curve is quite a bit steeper, but there are some real goodies for site management and design automation. If you're serious about being a full-time designer, my opinion is obvious. But I would plan on a larger up-front investment and take some classes - it's taken me a very long time to learn it on my own.

[xtendscott]

I love PhotoShop, that is why I tried GO LIVE. But if you call it learning curve, I will call it not as intuitive(IMO).

DW will automatically change links to pages if you move or rename them in DW. If you have more than one developer, they can "Check Out" pages they are updating so that other developers can't modify them until they are "Checked In". There are also many forums to get help and Extensions (free ones too) that help automate more difficult task ie. dropdown menus, check users screen resolution, no right click, ect. I tend to stear away from much of the automation which usually creates unessesary scripting and HTML code.

I prefer to work in Photshop for graphics and to control what size and quality of pic are put into my sites. I don't use the automated rollovers from Fireworks to DW, it is easy but I don't use it. DW also allows you to make little FLASH buttons to navigate but as we know text links are best for SEO.

A good Text Editor is my choice for getting dirty with code but for ease of site design and modifications. I choose DW.

[rockynate]

All true.

In fact, 90% of the time, I recommend DW to people that ask.

I also use FrontPage to manage a few clients' sites (because they came to me that way). This is a program that I suggest everyone stay away from. It operates a lot like other M$ products, so a beginner can have a rudimentary site up in 5 minutes flat. But beyond that, the functioning of the program is counter-intuitive. The advanced functions are vastly more difficult to understand... i.e. the functions of the program are completely illogical. I've seen several beginners try to tackle FrontPage and end up completely frustrated. So I send them to DW and they call me up a week later thanking me profusely.

Unless you are deeply in love with the whole suite of Adobe products, go with DreamWeaver.

[Blue]

JGIRL,

I would like to hear what you've found out re: the larger sites and GoLive v DW.

Have you had the chance to work with both programs?

It's my experience (and belief) that the quality of the resulting work depends not upon the program one uses, but rather on the skills of the designer and the level of their knowledge in HTML and other coding languages as well as server/OS setups.

What I'm intending to say is, that it's key, IMO, to have a fundamental knowledge of HTML to make good use of any of these WYSIWYG tools, and produce a professional level product. And they are just that - tools.

Their strengths lie in streamlining the process by which one produces the product, whether it be through their visual interface in conjunction with their code editors, their ability to be customized to a particular users work habits (and beyond in DW's case), their ability to make repetitive coding a one click process, how they work in conjunction with other design tools such as graphics editors, etc.

So, basically, I'm saying that the only real way to know which product is better for any single particular individual (or multiple entity) is through testing each product out in a working environment.

I do realize that you're looking for others opinions however, so I'll just cast my vote for DW/FW. My reasoning for this is threefold:

First, I pretty much share the same views as xtendscott, and can also say that DW has all the "smart" features that rockynate mentioned. As a matter of fact, There have been many instances where I designed sites completely in Dreamweaver/Fireworks without ever having to use any third party software (and I do have PhotoShop).

Second, I can't speak for GoLive on this subject as it's been a few years since I used their product, but DW has a VERY large community of very helpful and knowledgeable users to draw upon.

Last, DW is a mature program, with a solid background in it's intended arena. It's interface and the underlying code is simple and intuitive, and as I mentioned above, one can delve into it on a near programming level to make it work just the way one wants.

:cheers:

[JGIRL]

Thank you all so much,

I would like to know how the difference is with the statistics? Or does it matter from the programs.

I taught myself html over time and I feel I have a good grasp of what to do.

I have tried the trials of both programs and I like each one. However, the adobe has and is alot more involved from what some of you have said. I would have to take classes to fully learn that program.
I am just trying to find out what would work out best for my web site. I am not looking for flash graphics, just simple easy ones.

I have been thinking about classes though so I can learn more. So that is no problem.

The reason that I am bringing this up is I had an email from a web designer that told me this which is the main difference between the two.



[QUOTE] For the bigg sites esp. with graphics, dw can not handle these type of large web sites, and that the adobe does a better job with the graphics. Also, the adobe takes longer to learn, but it has the better choices and alot more options than DW does. the adobe is for the more advanced web developers as well.


SO I didn't know if that was true or not one reason why I wanted to ask.

As for personal use: I downloaded the trials. I do not like to put out money for something that I will not like. So I downloaded both.

The trials are not letting me see and do the whole program, but just a few pages, but I did get a good taste of both of them. I just can't decide which one to use. I feel I can come to love and learn either one. Right now I do not have a bias on them, I feel the same for both of them.
I know in a few years my site will become larger esp. after I get this going on the search engines. I need expansion for growth esp. on the online store or pages.
I have 10 people and other clients that I am adding for the fall. So I will add more clients on top of that. 10 pix per client x 10 + the 10 clients x their 10 pix. I have now. I will be having someone do the graphics for me.

Frontpage to what I am doing now. I am not happy to the choices that it gives me and I want so much more detail and professional things added, Frontpage will not do it. It has taught me the basics though.


:D I hope that helps! Thanks!

[Futura]

I love GoLive. I love it so much I built a website just for GoLive tutorials and tips and tricks.
http://www.futurastudios.com/golive911/
The learning curve is not so bad. Just keep things simple. Site management is what really rocks.

Eric

[JGIRL]

Thanks Eric,

KISS is the best thing that I learned ltely that I have to actually practice :-))



OK, I don't think I made sence in that last post. I apologize. It has been a hard day. urrgghh.

But anyway I guess thats what I would like to know as well or I was trying to find out:

Site management. If I can get it out of my talk. haaaa


What are the differences there now?

[Futura]

Can't speak for Dreamweaver, but as far as GoLive goes it always gives me a blissful feeling. It feels right. It is a pro tool. And all my clients are happy. My projects are on budget and on time. That is really the bottom line.

Look for comparison charts. There is a good one here:
http://www.realworldgolive.com/six/DWvsGL.html

[JGIRL]

Thank you, I will check it out.

[JGIRL]

Thank you to all who helped in saying what you all believe in the best web program. :-))

I have decided to go with dreamweaver, just cause it seems like I can do what I need it to do and I really don't need anything fancy.

If I was going with more graphical and needed more flash things, I think I would decide on the GoLive from Adobe. I do like adobe and have used the programs and I even got to use the trial downloads. I have found that I am picking up the dreamweaver alot faster then golive, that has ticked me off on more than one occassion. I feel maybe in the future after I have totally gone experienced with the web site designing I might and will go with the golive, but for now I totally am done with frontpage.

I will have the dreamweaver next month. I will be having fun playing with it and its templates.

Thank you again all for your opionions!!! As soon as I get my "new" site up I will let you all know.

I have made extra changes to the site now. But my main focus will be on the Dreamweaver.

[WebSavvy]

I agree with Blue's assessments. The editor you choose has no bearing on things, but rather it is the skills of the user.

I have just recently downloaded DW to play with. I haven't had much time to try it out yet though.

I've been designing sites for 5 years now, and everything I have done has been made using just EditPad, PaintShop Pro, Xara3D and Swish.

EditPad does not do ANY of the code for you. You have to know it all, and write it all ... yourself. I have one script that I've written in Perl that's 3000 pieces long and took me nearly two years to write. The directory I've just about completed now, has taken me close to 8 months to do ... all by hand ... one line of code at a time.

Maybe DW would have cut that amount of time in half, I'm not sure ... that's something I'll check out later. I have FP but have never used it. I also have Word, but don't like it. I really prefer EditPad.

OK ... now ya'll can die laughing :D

[JGIRL]

One Line at a time???!!! My Lord woman, If I did that I would grow old in a rocking chair with grey hair LOL

[Webmaster T]

I would concur with Blue and Savvy if you don't know html it is seldom the tool that is the problem, the problem is really with the "tool" in front of the computer. Learn HTML and it doesn't matter what editor you use so long as you have access to the raw HTML. All of them are crappy if you don't know how to fix what they screw up.

[JGIRL]

I agree with all of you on that. :-))
I am very comfortable with html, and that doesn't seem to bother me at all.

What does is the proper placement of it like the tags, and proper usage. That seems to be the problem now. Once I figure all of that out, I think it would be a wonderful program.

I think I like overloading my html. I have to learn how not to do that.

[DLSWeb]

Savvy1,
Ya just got to try Homesite.

Clean code that is not a wysiwyg editor.
It just places the code as you tell it to. For instance, to bold a word, highlight it and click a button instead of 7 keystrocks to do.

It is now owned by macromedia but they just bought it after it matured into a great pure html editor.

[Blue]

Originally posted by Webmaster T
I would concur with Blue and Savvy if you don't know html it is seldom the tool that is the problem, the problem is really with the "tool" in front of the computer. Learn HTML and it doesn't matter what editor you use so long as you have access to the raw HTML. All of them are crappy if you don't know how to fix what they screw up. LOL .... Is that what the "T" in Webmaster T stands for?

And I couldn't agree more with your assesment .... you've certainly hit the nail on the head.

Sorry, couldn't resist that pun... :rolleyes:

[WebSavvy]

Originally posted by DLSWeb
Savvy1,
Ya just got to try Homesite.

Clean code that is not a wysiwyg editor.
It just places the code as you tell it to. For instance, to bold a word, highlight it and click a button instead of 7 keystrocks to do.

It is now owned by macromedia but they just bought it after it matured into a great pure html editor.

Hey thanks! I'll have to look into that one. Sounds interesting. :)

[scottiecl]

Homesite is great! :thumb:

[WebSavvy]

Scottie, is it easier to learn than DW?

[scottiecl]

I believe DW is a WYSIWYG editor; I've never used it.

Homesite is a text editor with some nice features to fill in some of the code for you. It's definitely still hand-coding .

There is a "design view" that does some wysiwyg stuff but I don't use that- it is sometimes helpful for troubleshooting table issues. My version is a little out of date, but I like the validation tools built in and the CSS integration.

[WebSavvy]

Thanks Scottie.

I have DW but haven't used it yet. What I do is design everything with EditPad (plain text editor) and then when I want to see it, I load the page into my windows explorer and it shows me everything just fine.

That's the way I have been doing things ever since I started designing 5 years ago. I've never used a WYSIWYG editor and I'm not sure I'd really even like it.

But homesite sounds pretty good. :)

[DLSWeb]

RE Easier to learn
Since you know html it will be a breeze to learn because you know how to code.
All homesite does is to place the code on the page for you.

Tons easier than DW which I have been promising myself I was going to learn for the past 4 years.

Homesite also does not change your coding.
You can work in it for cgi etc. because it is a text editor.
Lots of tools and like scottie said the html validation and css integration with topstyle is great.
The author of topstyle css editor is the original author of homesite.

Also has a preview mode built in.

[WebSavvy]

Oh OK great! Yes, I already have topstyle. It's excellent!

:)

[DLSWeb]

Remembered his name - Nick Bradbury
He's the guy who wrote homesite and topstyle.

[WebSavvy]

Another editor I like to use is PICO. The UNIX text editor - you can alter text in your files right on the server through telnet/SSH. When I have just one or two lines to change, rather than make the changes to the files on my HD and then FTP them to the server, it's easier and simpler to just use PICO.

[WebSavvy]

Two really cool programs I found tonight:

HTML Kit - very easy to use editor with lots of advanced features. You can open a file as text right on your own server and edit it, then save it in real time. It's absolutely awesome! It's a free program.

SLUGS Color Picker - shows color combinations based around your theme choices for visual color selection in web design. This is a very neat little program. (also free)

I found them both at download.com

:)

[JGIRL]

omg all these programs to choose from and Making decisions.
Ok, so now lets see we have front page, DW, adobe go live and this homesite to which it will be eaiser LOL
My poor brain LOL

:circle:

[WebSavvy]

LOL Julie! After downloading and installing HTML Kit last night, I'm absolutely loving this program now! It still requires hand code - like my EditPad, but ... it's doing it live on the server and making the new files I need for SSI calls on the spot. So this is a BIG time saver!

I also have Homesite (bought it yesterday), TextPad, Word, GoLive, DW, TextWiz, and FP. I can't say that I've tried all of them - but I use EditPad and TextWiz the most. Now that I have (and like) HTML Kit, I'll be using it most often. It's even better than PICO. :)

[Blue]

I would just like to point out that the two main WYSIWYG editors discussed in this thread can do EVERYthing that the other editors also mentioned can do ..... and a lot more, all within a single program.

This is one of the great advantages of having a full featured html editor like DW or GL, and why they're such great tools and timesavers.

I can completely manage sites from within a single program (DW in my case).

[WebSavvy]

Yeah but John, doesn't DW place it's own "code" in there? I've read a few replies in various threads that state that DW messes with the code. :confused:

I know when using Word I had problems with the ^M that is placed in front of every carriage return <reeks havoc with PERL scripts :rolleyes:> and the main reason I quit using it long ago.

I know quite a few others here are die hard DW fans too. :) I just use whatever doesn't alter my code - I hate having to go back and repair things that's due to no fault of my own. :D

[xtendscott]

Savvy1, DW adds very little if any code to your html.

<!-- #BeginEditable "Header" --> and <!-- #EndEditable --> are about the only DW specific code it put into the HTML and these are just to "Lock Out" or "Allow Editing" to pages based on templates.

Of course if you insert a mouseover function it will insert Java Script to make the mouseover happen. DW scripts may be a bit in leanth but are extremely well tested for browser compatability.

Word as a HTML editor is even more scary than FP(which is getting better I admit), but with DW you have a built in "Homesite" to edit your code by hand. Also it has build in CSS capabilities similar to TopStyle and a great deal of other management abilities.

Feel free to visit http://www.noblepanels.com and look at the code. It was done with DW and its templates, Photoshop and a older version of CF Studio(for quick tweaks of hand coding, basically homesite+).

[WebSavvy]

OK thanks! Yeah, I'll look into that too. :)

Right now what I'm doing is making a directory - it has 4000 pages in it :rolleyes:

I've made most of it easy on myself by doing nested SSI calls through .htacess - inside of a typical .htaccess file you can set it to parse .txt, .htm, .html, .shtml which allows you to do this:

Make a template file like I have here (withsubs.txt):

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">

<html>
<head>
<title><!--#include file="./title.txt"--></title>
<meta name="description" content="<!--#include virtual="./title.txt"-->">
<meta name="keywords" content="<!--#include virtual="./title.txt"-->">
<meta name="robots" content="INDEX, FOLLOW">
<meta name="revisit-after" content="7 days">
<meta name="content-language" content="english">
<meta name="MSSmartTagsPreventParsing" content="TRUE">
<META HTTP-EQUIV="imagetoolbar" CONTENT="no">
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
<base target="_top">
<!--#include virtual="/html/styles.txt"-->
</head>

<body class="body">
<script language="javascript" src="/js/log.js"></script>

<DIV ID="LOGO"><!--#include virtual="./logo.txt"--></DIV>

<DIV ID="SEARCHBOX"><!--#include virtual="/html/searchbox.txt"--></DIV>

<DIV ID="NAV"><!--#include virtual="./nav.txt"--></DIV>

<DIV ID="SUBCATS"><!--#include virtual="./subcats.txt"--></DIV>

<DIV ID="TDlist"><!--#include virtual="./listing.txt"--></DIV>

<DIV ID="CGI"><!--#exec cgi="./index.cgi"--></DIV>

<DIV ID="FOOTER"><!--#include virtual="/html/footer.txt"--></DIV>

</body>
</html>


Now, notice how the SSI is done - in the folder itself, there's a file called index.html with an SSI call in it to call the template file I've listed above (withsubs.txt):

<!--#include virtual="./withsubs.txt"-->

Inside the folder there is withsubs.txt, index.html, title.txt, subcats.txt, listing.txt, nav.txt, index.cgi, logo.txt

Outside of the folder in a folder called html I have the files: searchbox.txt, footer.txt, styles.txt

This makes it a snap to edit. I know it looks like a lot - but it really isn't.

Right now I'm editing the title.txt and the nav.txt files in every one of the 2000+ folders. Using HTML Kit is faster because I can do it very quickly ... and it's done live.

I have probably a day and a half more left in front of me and it'll all be completed.

:)

[xtendscott]

Savvy1,

I am courious where your "page content" is within your Template?

I know that DW isn't the endall to everything web, that is why I still prefer Windows Commander for FTP and code tweaking with CF Studio.

I have also downloaded the HTML Kit and will be trying it out soon. Though I do prefer to have a local updated copy of my sites for the "Just in Case" of ISP's crashing just after uploading new pages.

DW is just a tool as is your other programs. Figureing how to use them all efficiently is the hard part.

[WebSavvy]

You can call me Deb BTW :)

The content area is inside index.cgi

It's my remote updates script and where all listings will be placed. We plan to let other small directories use our data as back fill on their own DB and using it through the remote updates makes it possible.

There is a lot of heavy duty backend stuff to this and I have been working on it for 8 months now. I will be dancing in the street when I'm finished! :D :D :D

[chrishirst]

DW can and will mess with your code if you let it, but one check box will stop that.
I've been using UltraDev (MX4) (and Drumbeat before that) for some time and have never had a problem with it changing code. I do actually edit the UD files to get the code how I want it (set the DTD and meta tags etc that I want in a new document). I use external CSS for layout, so I rarely venture into design view as DW doesnt get the layout looking anything like the browsers rendering and 80% of my work is in asp so it's of no use there, but for syntax highlighting the code view is invaluable.

The biggest problem is where you work in design view and allow the WYSIWYG bit to design your code for you, Here you are relying on the programmer(s) to have made the templates to produce good clean code, which is near impossible as the code creation 'wizard' can only work on the current bit, it cannot parse the whole document to see what the results will be, This is where all those redundant formatting tags appear from in M$ FP (a program designed by a committee!) FP also screws your code up if you switch from code view to design view, creates pages that only look right in IE and don't even think about writing ASP or Javascript.
Why is it that M$ programmers think they know what I want to do? I personally do not consider FP a useful design tool. </FPrant>. Phew!


Chris.

[WebSavvy]

LOL Chris! :)

I'll spend some time playing with my Homesite and DW once I'm done with the project I'm doing now. I just don't want to waste too much time right now - because I just really want to get this finished.

I like the HTML Kit feature that lets you view it in browser live from your server after you've edited it, and the best part is - it doesn't change my codes! WahHoo! I'll be home free in about a day and a half - then my partner will say in his ever so elegant way "Hey, where's the directory?" heh heh He's such a hoot. :)

[WebSavvy]

Originally posted by xtendscott
I have also downloaded the HTML Kit and will be trying it out soon. Though I do prefer to have a local updated copy of my sites for the "Just in Case" of ISP's crashing just after uploading new pages.

I also wanted to let you know that HTML Kit supports CSS, VBScript, JS, PERL, and a number of other programming languages too. It has a spellcheck feature, validation for CSS and HTML, and loads of other features. I really, really like this program a lot.

There's no advertising it in at all, and it's completely free. I think the guy that wrote it should charge at least something for his work because it truly is top notch.

After I do the live edits on my server I'll just pull a copy of the whole thing down to my HD - like I always do, just in case. I like to have copies too. :) Ya just never know! ;)