Dreamweaver MX 2004 or Dreamweaver 8?

[Robert_R]

Which of these versions is the lastest version?

Thanks! :)

[Brollachan]

Dreamweaver 8

Good old www.macromedia.com :)

[Compguy Pete]

I guess the MX series is done...

I guess they couldn't copy The Mircosoft naming system for ever or we would have
"Dreamweaver Bluffs" or my personal favorite "Dreamweaver sight" (as I can't stand the misspelling of web site by other web developers)

[kiwibrit]

So far I have not had a reason to upgrade to 8 - but I am intrigued with the alleged improved support of CSS. I'd be interested in opinions on 8 in that respect. I use a server on my laptop to check quickly that what I have done really looks as expected. But occasionally it is a hassle tracking down the cause of a problem.

If I go for DW8 - will it still integrate with my existing MX2004 versions of Fireworks and Flash? I really don't need to upgrade the whole suite.

[Compguy Pete]

I'm thinking of downloading the trial and checking it out... I just hate getting nipped for that cost every year!

[Compguy Pete]

OH I didnt touch on your question about the upgrade of the whole suite...

No you do not need to do the whole suite, thankfully it'll look for the default applicaiton to handle those tasks and go from there.

[dera]

hmm i was going to upgrade i'll see if its worth it, on windows MX seems to be buggy any body else having Dreamweaver crash on them?

[kiwibrit]

Compguy Pete - thanks for the info.

dera Yes, occasionally Dreamweaver does crash. I can see no pattern - and it's not all that frequent.

[ShrineDesigns]

macromedia studio 8 sucks, all they did was add a few things (more garbage) and changed a couple of things (made it wosre)

MX 2004 is better, even though it is older and lacks some of the newer stuff like updated refernces, css 2.1 support (dw), updated code hints for php 5 (dw), etc, the source formatting in dw 8 is worse than dw 6

[metalman3d]

I'm not a huge fan of Dreamweaver, but I've been using the new version at work for the last week and found it runs much more stable than MX 04 did on my machine. Also I find the code collapse feature invaluable as I do a lot of ASP coding. It also handles XML a little better than MX 04 did. If work is paying for it, it's not bad, but I proabably wouldn't buy it for myself.

[The-Omega]

I use Dreamweaver MX and it has always worked fine for me. I dont know about the ASP and XML and stuff like that because I havent tried learning that yet. MX has crashed on me maybe twice and I have had it since it came out. It sounds better than 8 but what do I know untill I try 8.

[kares25]

I've worked with both and they're about the same. Wouldn't waste your money?

[Brollachan]

The only handy improvement is in 'Code View'. In MX when you created a tag it would automatically add the closing tag for it straight afterwards eg. </table> , this was very irratating if you happenned to be trying to add a table into an existing page around some text. Now in version 8 when you create a tag nothing is added, however when you type in </ it automatically closes the last open tag. It's also a handy way to help your page to validate.

That's the only real improvement I've spotted so far.

[soccermatrix]

I think some of the good features in dreamwaver 8 are the "code collapse" and "Flash Video". Other than that, I think I would stay with MX if it wasn't the company paying for it. Also, I think this might be the last version of dreamweaver before we see it merged with Adobe streamline.

[Mouse77e]

my real bug with MX is every once in a while if i use PHP, DW looses the </body> and </html> tags from my code... especially if i use <?php include ("footer"); ?>... i end up adding <!--Grrrrr --> to the end of my code to keep it together. i'll trial 8 and see if that keeps up...

[Mouse77e]

Ok so <!-- Grrrr --> isn't really good code but MX takes the hint that i'm pissed and behaves itself....

[Sanim]

I'd go for Dreamweaver 8; I downloaded the trial version and it's very nice.