[MW Forums]

Dreamweaver CS3 offers new features in three key areas: integration with other Adobe products; new features for creating, managing, and fixing Cascading Style Sheets; and a new set of Javascript-driven tools for building pop-up navigation menus, advanced form validation, and displaying data in an interactive table. David Sawyer McFarland has the details. more

[dansterpower]

Well, this sounds very promising for small sites, which is what Dreamweaver is best at anyway.
I realize a lot of folks hate dreamweaver -- you hear of mangled HTML and Javascript, etc, but in my experience version 8 is pretty decent -- the key is using DW for the right kinds of sites, generally smaller, semi-dynamic and very custom. A CMS or Object Based system is the better choice for Dynamic Database driven sites for sure.
On type of small, usually custom site that I build in DW are children's sites: these sites will benefit greatly from the Photoshop direct import -- this will be a real timesaver for sure.
I have heard SPRY violates some web standards but am not certain of this. Sure sounds promising.
Can't wait for my Master Suite upgrade in July.
Time for a new Mac Pro, I think.

[NeoX]

Has there been any news of GoLive CS3? I really like GoLive, especially the code editor and PhotoShop integration. I thought they were going to come out with a new version? If they are not they should at least allow GoLive users to upgrade to Dreamweaver. Right now to get the upgrade price of DW you have to own a previous version of DW.

[TerryWhite]

GoLive 9 is still on track for a Spring release:
http://www.adobe.com...live/index.html

[iron_chef]

i hope dreamweaver fixed a bunch of CSS rendering problems that seem to plague version 8.
Some how CSS driven pages look like pure chaos on dreamweaver's normal editing mode.

[leicaman]

GoLive is in maintenance mode. It's not longer going to be Adobe's main Web deveoopment tool. They will maintain it for a while, but just like LiveMotion, they'll kill it off soon enough. I was a big fan of GoLive - and smart objects is not in DW CS3! I sure hope that add it in a minor update soon. That was the BEST thing about GoLive for me. That and other integration with Photoshop.
But I took Lynda.com's Dreamweaver 8 class and I've decided I'm happy my upgrade to CS3 is going to include Dreamweaver rather than GoLive. Too bad. I really liked GoLive. But let's face it, DW CS3 is the future. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[aeolius]

I'm somewhat torn between waiting for GoLive 9, or biting the bullet and getting the CS3 Web Collection with Dreamweaver. I know I'm swimming against the current, here, but I never want to touch one line of source code... if I can use Dreamweaver in a 100% graphic interface, I'd be willing to give it another chance (tried it once, couldn't stand the non-intuitive interface... but then again, for me, Bryce is intuitive /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif ) .

[alansky]

Adobe's GoLive page (adobe.com/products/golive) states the following:
"The future of Adobe GoLive
In November, 2006, Adobe announced that Adobe Dreamweaver, the industry leader in web design and development, would be integrated into Adobe Creative Suite 3, and that the next version of Adobe GoLive would be available as a standalone product. We expect to make this new version, Adobe GoLive 9, available in late Spring 2007 in English, French, German, and Japanese. Until then, we will continue to sell and support GoLive CS2."
A few months ago, Bruce Chizen (in response to a question about the future of GoLive) said that Adobe would develop GoLive as a web authoring tool for graphic designers while concentrating on Dreamweaver as the flagship program for professional web developers.
Dreamweaver's new Photoshop integration and CSS templates are most welcome additions, but it remains a fundamentally designer-unfriendly working environment. It is immediately evident to any experienced designer who sits in front of a Dreamweaver document window that Macromedia has never understood the way designers work, thus never saw a need to broaden the program's horizons beyond the impossibly restrictive definitions imposed by HTML. For graphic designers, working in Dreamweaver is always a compromise and finding viable workarounds in the default Dreamweaver universe simply takes more time than it's worth in most cases.
Adobe, on the other hand, understands exactly how designers think and work; so I'm hopeful that they will apply some of that understanding to the next version of GoLive.

[Grapho]

Quote:

---

Dreamweaver's new Photoshop integration and CSS templates are most welcome additions, but it remains a fundamentally designer-unfriendly working environment. It is immediately evident to any experienced designer who sits in front of a Dreamweaver document window that Macromedia has never understood the way designers work, thus never saw a need to broaden the program's horizons beyond the impossibly restrictive definitions imposed by HTML. For graphic designers, working in Dreamweaver is always a compromise and finding viable workarounds in the default Dreamweaver universe simply takes more time than it's worth in most cases.

---

Then I guess I am not your typical designer then because Fireworks/Flash/Dreamveaver integration worked pretty well for me. You know "Smart Objects" was hardly Adobes creation, because Macromedia had a pretty similar feature at the time Adobe came out with their version. It pretty much did the same thing that Smart Objects did. Fireworks is way more powerful then ImageReady ever was. Imagine working on the navigation portion of your web site and only having to create one button, saving this as a Symbol then only copping it and changing the text inside for the deferent other buttons. Your client dose not like the color of the button or style, you only change the symbol and it get updated through out your entire navigation. Now that is sweet. Also you create one master template for your web site assign the variable areas and you truly have the same thing as master pages for your web site, totally making any changes a breeze. Adobe solutions never came close to this kind of flexible design workflow, so how is it hard for designers? All that I stated dose not involve one bit of code by the way.

[lucentio]

Quote:

---

Then I guess I am not your typical designer then because Fireworks/Flash/Dreamveaver integration worked pretty well for me. You know "Smart Objects" was hardly Adobes creation, because Macromedia had a pretty similar feature at the time Adobe came out with their version. It pretty much did the same thing that Smart Objects did. Fireworks is way more powerful then ImageReady ever was. Imagine working on the navigation portion of your web site and only having to create one button, saving this as a Symbol then only copping it and changing the text inside for the deferent other buttons. Your client dose not like the color of the button or style, you only change the symbol and it get updated through out your entire navigation. Now that is sweet. Also you create one master template for your web site assign the variable areas and you truly have the same thing as master pages for your web site, totally making any changes a breeze. Adobe solutions never came close to this kind of flexible design workflow, so how is it hard for designers? All that I stated dose not involve one bit of code by the way.

---

I never used Macromedia products - I can't stand the poor interface - so I have no basis for comparison. But with Smart Objects placed in Components and then using templates, I was able to do all you're talking about and more. Colors are stored, so you can define a color and then change it and it will affect the entire site (except for PS files. I do wish PS had a way to pick and change a color across multiple layers). You can assign variables to any text area on a photoshop file, and then have every page have its own definition for the variable. And with the Javascript and CSS libraries, it makes it very easy to define a style or effect and have it change globally. Plus it was great for very easy CSS-based layouts and cross-platform compatibility (though the pages had a LOT of code in them). You could even change definitions in PDF and SWF files.
The biggest weakness, to my mind, was dynamic HTML integration. They brought it into 6.0, then dropped it with CS1, which was a pain for a few of my sites. They never did bring it back in any decent way - the best you could do was using "snippets" of code. I hope DreamWeaver has real ColdFusion integration - that's the greatest strength it has, in my mind. I hate hand-coding - it's like writing your own PostScript to make an Illustrator file!

[spaceace]

they could use some of that, because adobe.com breaks in safari
[image]http://rdj.bgnet.bg/...obe-safari.png+

[haim]

Adobe bought http://www.interaktonline.com/ last year.
How is their product integrated?

[tomtom]

I was in the process of ordering my upgrade from the Apple On-line store in the UK but then a question.
A question?
Why is there such a difference in Adobe Upgrade Prices in the US versus the UK?
See the Apple US and UK Buying Guides for CS 3 variants.
The US Upgrade Price for Upgrade to Adobe Creative Suite 3 Web Premium is $499.95
The UK Upgrade Price for Upgrade to Adobe Creative Suite 3 Web Premium is 539.00 ($1060)
The same pricing conditions apply for all versions of CS3.
We do have a 17.5% rate of VAT in the UK but even so, the differential is not only excessive but against all business logic since it will greatly antagonize Adobe customers, particularly those migrating from Macromedia products.
Are these prices correct?
If the prices are correct, I shall write to Adobe UK in no uncertain terms and ask if my UK Serial Numbers will work on Upgrades purchased in the USA. In this event, I will then purchase the upgrade when in the USA or through relatives there and pay my VAT at customs.
If the serial numbers will not work, I have cause for complaint to our consumer affairs regulator.
If the prices on the Apple US and UK sites are correct: Adobe - very bad form!
---------------
This Edit added
I checked the two levels of price with Adobe and yes they are correct.
I listened to the supporting arguments - small print, two separate companies and all that trash not worth the time listening to.
The UK license keys for existing products will not work on US software.
Very bad form Adobe - I have consistently upgraded through pre-order but Adobe hase lost me on this one I use the software for personal use only,
I can also stick with my existing G5 hardware until another compelling reason to upgrade comes along.

[tomtom]

Sold my stock as well while the going is good - Adobe is a US company - will never be global.