[software] Macromedia updates Dreamweaver MX

2004-03-12

Macromedia has updated Dreamweaver MX. Crucially, speed and stability have been improved greatly. According to Macromedia, the application is now up to 50 per cent faster on Windows systems, while Mac OS X users should notice performance improvements of up to 70 per cent. Dreamweaver MX users can download it free on the Macromedia website. www.macromedia.com/go/updates/

JohnnyD · 2004-03-12 #2

Just in time!!!
I can't handle all those bugs anymore (Framesets and CSS formating crashes), so hope that was solved!

toulouse2k · 2004-03-12 #3

No kidding...I had "shelved" the MX2004 in favor of the MX...just too many quirks.

mongillo · 2004-03-12 #4

they are saying up to 70% increase in performance. This isn't an update, its a whole new product for that amount of upgrade! That is terrible. They should avoid cycle released and instead focus on putting out the product when they are ready to go out.

toulouse2k · 2004-03-12 #5

Alas...sad but true, mongillo. At least they are putting out updates in a relatively timely fashion and not just denying everything and waiting until a new release. There does seem to be a tendency lately to get everything out with an MX2004 on it and make it look "up to date" even if the changes aren't revolutionary. There seem to be no paradigms in the latest releases. I feel I could still use the MX versions and not be out a whole lot for my needs.

Dinkle · 2004-03-13 #6

Yeah, they did the same thing with Coldfusion...pissed off a lot of developers, some of their partners even pulled it off their servers. They fixed it, but the damage was pretty much already done.

flajunkie · 2004-03-14 #7

I do not notice any difference after installing the updater.

nrg · 2004-03-14 #8

I'm wondering based on what criteria these 'much faster percentages' are calculated. I installed the upgrade, and didn't notice any difference either. I did have some sort of screen refresh issue before (when resizing panels), and at first glance I think I got rid of it.

nrg · 2004-03-14 #9

BTW, next to bug fixes, the Dreamweaver Development Team should definately take a look at our Dreamweaver Wishlist Topic.

cisnky · 2004-03-14 #10

I'm going to try and start using DW a lot more. I guess I'm too hard core and prefer the control I get from Notepad.

Anybody got any tips for reducing the start up time for DW?

almog · 2004-03-14 #11

*Alas...sad but true, mongillo. At least they are putting out updates in a relatively timely fashion and not just denying everything and waiting until a new release. *ahm* microsoft *ahm*
i didn't really noticed any changes in the update of dreamweaver (i'm using the demo right now), but i don't really thinks that MM taking there updates so slow.
suddenly, i think about MM as i think about microsoft, bugs, critical erors, slowing down systems, eronouns etc.

DanSolo · 2004-03-14 #12

Hmm, well it's nice to know they are still putting time towards making it faster. Unfortunately, I've all but moved my HTML dev work over to GoLiveCS (on OSX). DW was just too slow!

I don't take kindly to apps which run slow on my G5... when photoshop (and loads of other apps) run perfectly fine.

DanSolo · 2004-03-14 #13

Ok, just tested it out. They deserve some props... the UI is much faster on this G5 (dual 1.8 w/ Panther). It also looks like they fixed some windowing bugs with exposé as well.

mongillo · 2004-03-14 #14

i never had any expose problems with my G5 10.3, but then again i rerouted some of the keys so I could work in flash.

am-tm-work · 2004-03-15 #15

HOLY [radio edit]!!! This isn't a DWMX UPDATE! It's a DWMX2004 UPDATE! *Darts off to update, breaking sound barrier multiple times on the way*

flajunkie · 2004-03-15 #16

Relax Aaron, the update is not that great from what I can tell...

I don't get it... Why would this update boast this great speed enhancement when there obviously is not one after the update?

I mean don't get me wrong I love Dreamweaver and I think 2004 is a nice upgrade.

I wonder what makes it run so damn slow, maybe the new paneling structure?

am-tm-work · 2004-03-15 #17

Alas, it is true.

The update doesn't increase any performance. In fact my average startup time is between 40-55 seconds on a 1.5Ghz/384MB PC.

I love Dreamweaver too, but if this kinda quality keeps up, I'm gonna take a dive and look elsewhere. It'll hurt to do it; I don't want to part with DW, but 2004 took a SERIOUS performance hit, 7.0.1 included.

We can probably assume that no additional updates will be made for DWMX, since all other MX 2004 projects are at 7.0.1 at the latest, and I'm sure there's still some outstanding issues people have with the software.

Macromedia! Listen up guys! Don't pull a Microsoft on your community! Quality Assurance IS worth the time, effort and money! I'd be pissed if I saw DWMX 2005. Lets hope a DWMX 2006 is a decent improvement.

flajunkie · 2004-03-15 #18

And I quote:

We've invested deeply across the board in some areas you will notice right away, and in some that you will never notice. We're particularly proud of these "invisible" improvements—the features you should never need to notice. If they are fast and do what you expect, then we've done our job and done it well.

Great... We are most proud of the bug fixes that you will never notice? Well that warms my heart, what about the things that I do notice?

Also this:

"What we need is three months to just fix bugs." That's what Terry Stone, QA engineer for Dreamweaver, told me, and I agreed with him.

Do we put out websites to our clients Macromedia and tell them what we need is 3 f-n months to fix bugs?

The article is here for those who haven't had the chance to read it....

Article

am-tm-work · 2004-03-15 #19

I think comparing website production to software bug squishing is a bit of a far stretch.

Suffice it to say that it's relatively impossible to truly ascertain the level of quality that software runs at if you plan on getting it as soon as it is released to the public. There's so much unfounded propaganda and company oriented "seal of approval" that you can't get a valid ideal of the program's stability until you've broken it in for a decent amount of time.

Pre MX, I was happy with Macromedia.
MX, I was very happy with Macromedai.
MX2004 was my first disappointment, seeing Macromedia behave more like Microsoft than their normal Quality Assurant selves.

I hope they pull back into their previous habits. It would be a heavy hit to lose software reliability of the MX line of products.

flajunkie · 2004-03-15 #20

Aaron I was not comparing "software bug squishing" to website production.

I was comparing the level of satisfaction my clients would have if I told them, "Well now that we got the site launced and you've paid me your money, I need three months to work out the bugs."

The correlation would be my customers feeling of being wrongefully sold an incomplete product with the ability to say little or nothing about, and my personal feelings with the same letdowns.

Nonetheless I love Dreamweaver and Coldfusion so I guess this thread goes nowhere as we will all deal with what MM gives us and live with it because what else is out there? Go-Live? A good product in it's own right, but not for me.

am-tm-work · 2004-03-16 #21

My bad flajunkie. Didn't see it that way; that does make sense. I've come to learn to accept that the showmanship a software developer gives out at time of the product release is nothing more than hype, and it's only at times like this (ie, when after the product was patched and to no avail), do I cut my losses and consider the software "final" build to be bloated.

adrial79 · 2004-03-18 #22

are these "speed issues" at topic here withDMMX2004 also related to a problem I've been having with my FlashMX2004? Every time I do something like double click on a button or an mc to get into its timeline (among other things, but this is the most common thing), I have to wait at least 20 seconds each time while Flash refreshes. My Flash MX never did this. Is there a fix to this? Sorry if I'm steering this thread off-course, it just sounded like this might be a related problem. Any ideas on how to solve this prob?

Markosef · 2004-03-21 #23

I switched back to MX after going crayze with mx 2004 trail...

adrial79 · 2004-03-21 #24

//sidenote:
Just in case anyone else is having my similar problem that I mentioned above, well, i figured out why FlashMX2004 was running so slowly ... it's because I had so many dang fonts without using any font manager software. At least that's what it seems since I took out all the fonts I don't use much and it runs perfectly fine!

flajunkie · 2004-03-22 #25

From what I see the biggest slow downs are when working in dynamic environments.

Working with dynamic images, recordsets, etc.

killercuts · 2004-05-30 #26

Never realised any speed increases, the 70% increase feels like a joke. I welcome the bug fixes though, there were a few very annoying ones. At the amount this product costs really they should be at a minimum.

maya0831 · 2004-06-01 #27

Wow!

Estacado · 2004-06-04 #28

Never even reached my harddisk i think is't time to combine al their pro'g into one and leave the sorting of progs/drv's to us.
(i didn't like what my laptop did with it and went richt back to prev. Ghost) did like to see more bug fixes though.......

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode


	Ultrashock Forums > Community Essentials > News • [software] Macromedia updates Dreamweaver MX


		You are currently viewing our website as a guest which gives you limited access to forums, files and other resources. Click here to join now for free, and start interacting with our members, download files and much more! Click here if you are looking for our Flash files and other professional assets.

	JohnnyD	2004-03-12 #2
	Just in time!!! I can't handle all those bugs anymore (Framesets and CSS formating crashes), so hope that was solved!

	toulouse2k	2004-03-12 #3
	No kidding...I had "shelved" the MX2004 in favor of the MX...just too many quirks.

	mongillo	2004-03-12 #4
	they are saying up to 70% increase in performance. This isn't an update, its a whole new product for that amount of upgrade! That is terrible. They should avoid cycle released and instead focus on putting out the product when they are ready to go out.

	toulouse2k	2004-03-12 #5
	Alas...sad but true, mongillo. At least they are putting out updates in a relatively timely fashion and not just denying everything and waiting until a new release. There does seem to be a tendency lately to get everything out with an MX2004 on it and make it look "up to date" even if the changes aren't revolutionary. There seem to be no paradigms in the latest releases. I feel I could still use the MX versions and not be out a whole lot for my needs.

	Dinkle	2004-03-13 #6
	Yeah, they did the same thing with Coldfusion...pissed off a lot of developers, some of their partners even pulled it off their servers. They fixed it, but the damage was pretty much already done.

	flajunkie	2004-03-14 #7
	Faster? I do not notice any difference after installing the updater.

	nrg 11 Creative Assets	2004-03-14 #8
	I'm wondering based on what criteria these 'much faster percentages' are calculated. I installed the upgrade, and didn't notice any difference either. I did have some sort of screen refresh issue before (when resizing panels), and at first glance I think I got rid of it.

	nrg 11 Creative Assets	2004-03-14 #9
	BTW, next to bug fixes, the Dreamweaver Development Team should definately take a look at our Dreamweaver Wishlist Topic.

	maya0831	2004-06-01 #27
	Wow!

	cisnky	2004-03-14 #10
	I'm going to try and start using DW a lot more. I guess I'm too hard core and prefer the control I get from Notepad. Anybody got any tips for reducing the start up time for DW?

	almog	2004-03-14 #11
	Alas...sad but true, mongillo. At least they are putting out updates in a relatively timely fashion and not just denying everything and waiting until a new release. ahm* microsoft ahm i didn't really noticed any changes in the update of dreamweaver (i'm using the demo right now), but i don't really thinks that MM taking there updates so slow. suddenly, i think about MM as i think about microsoft, bugs, critical erors, slowing down systems, eronouns etc.

	DanSolo	2004-03-14 #12
	Hmm, well it's nice to know they are still putting time towards making it faster. Unfortunately, I've all but moved my HTML dev work over to GoLiveCS (on OSX). DW was just too slow! I don't take kindly to apps which run slow on my G5... when photoshop (and loads of other apps) run perfectly fine.

	DanSolo	2004-03-14 #13
	Ok, just tested it out. They deserve some props... the UI is much faster on this G5 (dual 1.8 w/ Panther). It also looks like they fixed some windowing bugs with exposé as well.

	mongillo	2004-03-14 #14
	i never had any expose problems with my G5 10.3, but then again i rerouted some of the keys so I could work in flash.

	am-tm-work	2004-03-15 #15
	HOLY [radio edit]!!! This isn't a DWMX UPDATE! It's a DWMX2004 UPDATE! Darts off to update, breaking sound barrier multiple times on the way

	flajunkie	2004-03-15 #16
	Relax Aaron, the update is not that great from what I can tell... I don't get it... Why would this update boast this great speed enhancement when there obviously is not one after the update? I mean don't get me wrong I love Dreamweaver and I think 2004 is a nice upgrade. I wonder what makes it run so damn slow, maybe the new paneling structure?

	am-tm-work	2004-03-15 #17
	Alas, it is true. The update doesn't increase any performance. In fact my average startup time is between 40-55 seconds on a 1.5Ghz/384MB PC. I love Dreamweaver too, but if this kinda quality keeps up, I'm gonna take a dive and look elsewhere. It'll hurt to do it; I don't want to part with DW, but 2004 took a SERIOUS performance hit, 7.0.1 included. We can probably assume that no additional updates will be made for DWMX, since all other MX 2004 projects are at 7.0.1 at the latest, and I'm sure there's still some outstanding issues people have with the software. Macromedia! Listen up guys! Don't pull a Microsoft on your community! Quality Assurance IS worth the time, effort and money! I'd be pissed if I saw DWMX 2005. Lets hope a DWMX 2006 is a decent improvement.

	flajunkie	2004-03-15 #18
	And I quote: We've invested deeply across the board in some areas you will notice right away, and in some that you will never notice. We're particularly proud of these "invisible" improvements—the features you should never need to notice. If they are fast and do what you expect, then we've done our job and done it well. Great... We are most proud of the bug fixes that you will never notice? Well that warms my heart, what about the things that I do notice? Also this: "What we need is three months to just fix bugs." That's what Terry Stone, QA engineer for Dreamweaver, told me, and I agreed with him. Do we put out websites to our clients Macromedia and tell them what we need is 3 f-n months to fix bugs? The article is here for those who haven't had the chance to read it.... Article

	am-tm-work	2004-03-15 #19
	I think comparing website production to software bug squishing is a bit of a far stretch. Suffice it to say that it's relatively impossible to truly ascertain the level of quality that software runs at if you plan on getting it as soon as it is released to the public. There's so much unfounded propaganda and company oriented "seal of approval" that you can't get a valid ideal of the program's stability until you've broken it in for a decent amount of time. Pre MX, I was happy with Macromedia. MX, I was very happy with Macromedai. MX2004 was my first disappointment, seeing Macromedia behave more like Microsoft than their normal Quality Assurant selves. I hope they pull back into their previous habits. It would be a heavy hit to lose software reliability of the MX line of products.

	flajunkie	2004-03-15 #20
	Aaron I was not comparing "software bug squishing" to website production. I was comparing the level of satisfaction my clients would have if I told them, "Well now that we got the site launced and you've paid me your money, I need three months to work out the bugs." The correlation would be my customers feeling of being wrongefully sold an incomplete product with the ability to say little or nothing about, and my personal feelings with the same letdowns. Nonetheless I love Dreamweaver and Coldfusion so I guess this thread goes nowhere as we will all deal with what MM gives us and live with it because what else is out there? Go-Live? A good product in it's own right, but not for me.

	am-tm-work	2004-03-16 #21
	My bad flajunkie. Didn't see it that way; that does make sense. I've come to learn to accept that the showmanship a software developer gives out at time of the product release is nothing more than hype, and it's only at times like this (ie, when after the product was patched and to no avail), do I cut my losses and consider the software "final" build to be bloated.

	adrial79	2004-03-18 #22
	are these "speed issues" at topic here withDMMX2004 also related to a problem I've been having with my FlashMX2004? Every time I do something like double click on a button or an mc to get into its timeline (among other things, but this is the most common thing), I have to wait at least 20 seconds each time while Flash refreshes. My Flash MX never did this. Is there a fix to this? Sorry if I'm steering this thread off-course, it just sounded like this might be a related problem. Any ideas on how to solve this prob?

	Markosef	2004-03-21 #23
	I switched back to MX after going crayze with mx 2004 trail...

	adrial79	2004-03-21 #24
	//sidenote: Just in case anyone else is having my similar problem that I mentioned above, well, i figured out why FlashMX2004 was running so slowly ... it's because I had so many dang fonts without using any font manager software. At least that's what it seems since I took out all the fonts I don't use much and it runs perfectly fine!

	flajunkie	2004-03-22 #25
	From what I see the biggest slow downs are when working in dynamic environments. Working with dynamic images, recordsets, etc.

	killercuts	2004-05-30 #26
	Never realised any speed increases, the 70% increase feels like a joke. I welcome the bug fixes though, there were a few very annoying ones. At the amount this product costs really they should be at a minimum.

	Estacado	2004-06-04 #28
	maybe later... Never even reached my harddisk i think is't time to combine al their pro'g into one and leave the sorting of progs/drv's to us. (i didn't like what my laptop did with it and went richt back to prev. Ghost) did like to see more bug fixes though.......