|
|
| xxhelpme 2005-09-15, 4:16 am |
| Hi folks. I have dreamweaver version 4 and I have noticed that there is now
a version 8.
I guess I've been living in a cave. My question is if there is a big
difference between the 2 versions and if I should be looking at an upgrade.
Thanks
| |
|
| OMG, don't even think twice.
-Jeremy
"xxhelpme" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:dgaoad$84i$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> Hi folks. I have dreamweaver version 4 and I have noticed that there is
now
> a version 8.
>
> I guess I've been living in a cave. My question is if there is a big
> difference between the 2 versions and if I should be looking at an
upgrade.
> Thanks
>
| |
|
| suggest you make consider if your computer is up to running dw8.
http://www.macromedia.com/software/...nfo/systemreqs/
note that those are the minimums, i'd go heavier on RAM.
Back with dw4, there were two products. Dw4 was the design tool. UltraDev
was the same design tool with serverside scripting/database features added.
With the MX product, the two were combined into one product line.
The current Dw8 will have greatly improved CSS and all the php/asp/.NET/CF
stuff if you want to move into scripting.
It will also be a huge unwieldy beastie compared to dw4. It has many more
menus and panels. And needs a modern computer to run on. I remember people
running dw4 on machines with 32 megs of RAM. Now with modern os bloat a gig
of RAM is almost a given to run several apps concurrently.
So in order:
Dw3/UD1 version 3
Dw4/UD4 version 4
MX version 6 (there was no released version 5)
MX 2004 version 7
Dw8 version 8
> Hi folks. I have dreamweaver version 4 and I have noticed that there is now
> a version 8.
>
> I guess I've been living in a cave. My question is if there is a big
> difference between the 2 versions and if I should be looking at an upgrade.
> Thanks
>
| |
| artcoder 2005-09-15, 4:16 am |
| Most definitely upgrade. There is already a gigantic difference between DW4
and Dreamweaver MX 2004. And there is another big difference between MX 2004
and Dreamweaver 8.
See the links at http://webmarksonline.com/resources/dreamweaver.htm for the
new features, interactive tutorials, etc and see if your DW4 can do that. DW8
has zooming in design view and code collaps in code view. Much better XML and
CSS support.
-artcoder (at)
http://webmarksonline.com
| |
| xxhelpme 2005-09-15, 4:22 am |
| Thanks for the tips.
| |
| xxhelpme 2005-09-15, 4:22 am |
| Sorry I didnt see an edit button.
Anyway, I was just wondering if one of you guys could tell me the size of DW8.
I have lots of Ram and stuff, but my hard drive is getting a little full.
What is the size of it on the disk please and thanks
| |
| John Waller 2005-09-15, 4:22 am |
| 59.7MB
--
Regards
John Waller
| |
| Osgood 2005-09-15, 7:20 am |
| John Waller wrote:
> 59.7MB
>
Dreamweaver 4 (mac) was 45mb, so its not grown a lot whereas MX2004 was
a hefty 158mb. I have no idea how they got it to that size. I surely
must have a few high res images lurking in that folder.
| |
| Osgood 2005-09-15, 7:20 am |
| John Waller wrote:
> 59.7MB
>
actually thats the stuffed version. 8 is 189mb unstuffed.
| |
| John Waller 2005-09-15, 7:20 am |
| > actually thats the stuffed version. 8 is 189mb unstuffed.
Yes, 59.7MB compressed download.
My DW8 folder is 166MB (size on disk)
I'm on PC.
--
Regards
John Waller
| |
| Osgood 2005-09-15, 7:20 am |
| John Waller wrote:
>
>
> Yes, 59.7MB compressed download.
>
> My DW8 folder is 166MB (size on disk)
>
> I'm on PC.
>
Im running 8 on a virtual PC for evaluation purposes at the moment.
Seems to have added 20+ mb somehow.
| |
| John Waller 2005-09-15, 7:20 am |
| > Dreamweaver 4 (mac) was 45mb, so its not grown a lot whereas MX2004 was a
> hefty 158mb. I have no idea how they got it to that size. I surely must
> have a few high res images lurking in that folder.
The MX2004 (purchased online) zip file I have is 98.5MB compressed.
The unzipped MX 2004 folder (PC) contains:
- Installer 62.8MB
- API PDF 12.8MB
- Getting Started PDF 1.83MB
- Extending MX 2004 PDF 3.30MB
- Homesite+ 5.5 Installer 17.9MB
- Using MX 2004 PDF 9.13MB
The installed MX 2004 folder (under C:\Program Files) is 166MB.
--
Regards
John Waller
| |
| Osgood 2005-09-15, 7:20 am |
| John Waller wrote:
>
>
> The MX2004 (purchased online) zip file I have is 98.5MB compressed.
Yeah, the best part about the DW8 upgrade is they have managed to
compress the download file to the point where even those on dial up
should be able to download it in a few hours.
Im lucky this time it only took me just over 5mins to download the file
whereas last time, when I was on dial up, it took just over 8 hours :(
| |
| Osgood 2005-09-15, 7:20 am |
| Osgood wrote:
> Yeah, the best part about the DW8 upgrade is they have managed to
> compress the download file to the point where even those on dial up
> should be able to download it in a few hours.
oops not 'upgrade' but ya know what I mean....the new full version.
| |
| John Waller 2005-09-15, 7:20 am |
| > Yeah, the best part about the DW8 upgrade is they have managed to compress
> the download file to the point where even those on dial up should be able
> to download it in a few hours.
I have fond memories of downloading DW4/FW4 Studio overnight on a dialup and
getting up every half hour or so to check that the line had not disconnected
(before I knew about download managers, Getright etc)
:-)
--
Regards
John Waller
| |
| John Waller 2005-09-15, 7:20 am |
| Now running ADSL2+.
Took less than 10 mins from memory.
How times change :-)
--
Regards
John Waller
| |
| Osgood 2005-09-15, 7:20 am |
| John Waller wrote:
> I have fond memories of downloading DW4/FW4 Studio overnight on a dialup and
> getting up every half hour or so to check that the line had not disconnected
> (before I knew about download managers, Getright etc)
>
lol, yeah I've been there too. I was hoping and praying when it got down
to the last few minutes the connection wasn't dropped.
I've heard about download managers but not sure or not if they were/are
Mac compatible. Doesn't seem to mention anything on the MM download
page, not that I could see anyway, although I wasn't looking that hard.
I remember downloading MX from a retailers site which was through a
download manager. Obviously this was great beacuse you can resume the
download at the right point even if the connection is broken.
| |
| Acombman 2005-09-15, 7:28 am |
| WOW Now running ADSL2+.
Took less than 10 mins from memory
Here in Southern Ireland broadband is still only available in Dublin and a few
other cities, I have to contend with an ISDN line, most mates are still on dial
up - I think people here would sell their wives for broadband.
| |
| John Waller 2005-09-15, 7:28 am |
| > I remember downloading MX from a retailers site which was through a
> download manager. Obviously this was great beacuse you can resume the
> download at the right point even if the connection is broken.
Adobe have a Download Manager for their software which I find works well and
is easy to use.
--
Regards
John Waller
| |
| John Waller 2005-09-15, 7:28 am |
| Yes, I think my ISP is quite proud of themselves here Down Under:
http://www.internode.on.net/adsl2/
They are one of several ISPs here now offering the 2+ service.
ADSL2+ was only enabled on my local telephone exchange a couple of months
ago.
It *has* made quite a difference going from 512kbps (ADSL) to 12000kbps.
Cannot get the theoretical maximum of 24000kbps because I'm located about
2.5km from the exchange and there's apparently a huge drop off in speed over
the first 2km. Over 4km, the benefit of ADSL2+ is negligible.
--
Regards
John Waller
| |
| .: Nadia :. *TMM* 2005-09-15, 7:28 am |
| There were quite a few issues ie: corrupt files - with people using
download managers when downloading DW2004 (and earlier versions probably)
.... so it was advised not to use them.......
--
Nadia
Team MM Volunteer for Dreamweaver
--------------------------------------------
http://www.csstemplates.com.au
Templates | CSS Templates |
http://www.DreamweaverResources.com
Dropdown Menu Templates | SEO Articles |Tutorials
---------------------------------------------
MM Dreamweaver Tutorials
http://macromedia.com/devnet/mx/dreamweaver/
---------------------------------------------
"Osgood" <notavailable@atthisaddress.com> wrote in message
news:dgbcu6$5q9$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> John Waller wrote:
>
>
> lol, yeah I've been there too. I was hoping and praying when it got down
> to the last few minutes the connection wasn't dropped.
>
> I've heard about download managers but not sure or not if they were/are
> Mac compatible. Doesn't seem to mention anything on the MM download page,
> not that I could see anyway, although I wasn't looking that hard.
>
> I remember downloading MX from a retailers site which was through a
> download manager. Obviously this was great beacuse you can resume the
> download at the right point even if the connection is broken.
>
| |
| Acombman 2005-09-15, 7:28 am |
| I am SO jealous,
:frown;
| |
| John Waller 2005-09-15, 7:28 am |
| Thought of emigrating? ;-)
--
Regards
John Waller
| |
| Osgood 2005-09-15, 7:28 am |
| John Waller wrote:
> It *has* made quite a difference going from 512kbps (ADSL) to 12000kbps.
>
> Cannot get the theoretical maximum of 24000kbps because I'm located about
> 2.5km from the exchange and there's apparently a huge drop off in speed over
> the first 2km. Over 4km, the benefit of ADSL2+ is negligible.
Yeah I have only been broadbanded up for a few weeks and already it has
made a real difference. I hope I don't lose sight of the fact that a lot
of people are still on dial-up.
Is the speed at which you can upload stuff the same as that at which you
can download stuff?
My upload speed leaves something to be desired. Whilst its lightning
fast compared to dial up its like a slug in compared to the download speed.
I thought both should be the same?
| |
| John Waller 2005-09-15, 7:28 am |
| > Is the speed at which you can upload stuff the same as that at which you
> can download stuff?
>
> My upload speed leaves something to be desired. Whilst its lightning fast
> compared to dial up its like a slug in compared to the download speed.
>
> I thought both should be the same?
There are various flavours of broadband, including:
ADSL = Assymetric Digital Subscriber Line (faster download than upload). My
service is 24000 (down)/1500(up)
SDSL = Symmetric Digital Subscriber Line (equal speeds either way). Costs
more. Available here too. Only worthwhile if you upload a lot e.g.
multimedia.
--
Regards
John Waller
| |
| Osgood 2005-09-15, 7:17 pm |
| John Waller wrote:
> There are various flavours of broadband, including:
>
> ADSL = Assymetric Digital Subscriber Line (faster download than upload). My
> service is 24000 (down)/1500(up)
>
> SDSL = Symmetric Digital Subscriber Line (equal speeds either way). Costs
> more. Available here too. Only worthwhile if you upload a lot e.g.
> multimedia.
Right. Might have to look into that at some stage. I transfer some
largish files at times.
| |
| James Shook 2005-09-15, 7:19 pm |
| Osgood wrote:
> I thought both should be the same?
No, most ISPs put a clamp on upload speed, so it would take much longer
to upload than to download the same file.
--
James M. Shook
http://www.jshook.com
| |
| John Waller 2005-09-15, 7:19 pm |
| > No, most ISPs put a clamp on upload speed
It depends on the service you subscribe to.
Both ADSL and SDSL are usually available but SDSL costs more.
--
Regards
John Waller
|
|
|
|
| Copyright 2003 - 2008 forum4designers.com Software forum Computer Hardware reviews |