Dreamweaver MX slow on Mac OS X

[mdnky]

Solrac said: Finally, my comments about Adobe vs. Macromedia are not vast generalizations. They are hardcore truths.

No, those are generalizations. Truths (aka. facts) require proof other than just a complaint. Macromedia's products work fine for me and quite alot of other people. I've had more problems with Adobe products (9) than Macromedia products (0 problems)...9 to NONE is a helluva difference. If you're that happy with Adobe's products Solrac, then use them. You might want to double check the whole Flash having no competition, because it does. It's called Adobe LiveMotion.

MX is a new program, and there is no requirement that companies have to make their new programs work on older machines. If you're unhappy with the speed of MX on a machine that has a 500mhz G4 or less (at least 2 years old or more) than upgrade the processor or buy a new machine. It's downright silly to expect a 2-3 year old 500mhz G4 (or older machine) to run MX as well as a DP867 or 1ghz that's new.

In a perfect world any program would run great on older machines as well as new. But the fact is this isn't a perfect world. MX was designed for business use, and most business users on average get a new machine at most every 2-3 years. PC users generally get one sooner.

I'd be more apt to say the problems you're having are more related to OS X than just MX's coding. OS X is slow on the older macs (esp. pre quicksilver). If you are running under 10.2, then that's probably the problem. The whole Quartz Extreme thing may be the issue at hand for the slow down. Why don't you try running MX under OS9...by that I do not mean classic, actually reboot into 9...I'll bet it'll run quite a bit faster.

 

[solrac]

Originally posted by mdnky
Solrac said: Finally, my comments about Adobe vs. Macromedia are not vast generalizations. They are hardcore truths.

No, those are generalizations. Truths (aka. facts) require proof other than just a complaint.

My proof is my user experience. (Just like your proof is your supposed 9 Adobe problems.) My proof is that with Adobe Photoshop / Imageready I have 1 problem per every 2 months (if that). With Dreamweaver MX and Fireworks, I have maybe 35 problems between 3 professional web developers. I wish I was skilled at GoLive as well so I could bash Macromedia even more because I'm sure GoLive runs circles around Dreamweaver (since it's by Adobe.) Adobe just plain makes better software. They are the #3 software company in the world, behind Microsoft and Oracle. Macromedia just bought other companies who actually developed their software. Hell I even saw a C++ error message in Dreamweaver one time. Ridiculous! *Guffaw*

If you're that happy with Adobe's products Solrac, then use them.

I use Photoshop, Dreamweaver, and Flash as my main web design tools. The only thing keeping me away from GoLive is the annoyance of getting used to it. So yes I use both Macromedia and Adobe software. AHH YES!! JUST REMEBERED THE OTHER COMPARISON!!!

Freehand versus Illustrator!!!! Geeeezzz.... c'mon people. No comment. Hahaha.

You might want to double check the whole Flash having no competition, because it does. It's called Adobe LiveMotion.

1. LiveMotion has been discontinued
2. Even if it wasn't, it is not a competitor to Flash. It is a "Flash-helper" at best. And to further prove my point, LiveMotion's interface to make animations is about 200x more intuitive than Flash's interface. You can do stuff in a few clicks that would take hours in Flash, in terms of tweening (animations). But in the end, LiveMotion outputs SWF files, which are a proprietary macromedia format, the only format that the flash player reads. So LiveMotion is basically a Macromedia product creator. And finally, Macromedia holds the copyright to Actionscripting, so LiveMotion can not do actionscripting (except for a few simple commands). So LiveMotion is not even a viable tool to do anything in Flash other than animations and some buttons.

That's not what I call competition to Flash. The only close thing to Flash competition is SVG, by Adobe, which is WAY more advanced than Flash. However Macromedia has the monopoly on the browser plugin and thus flash rules the world for as long as I can see into the future.

(And of course, flash is crap on Mac and works great on PC, more proof Macromedia has trouble programming for mac.)

It's downright silly to expect a 2-3 year old 500mhz G4 (or older machine) to run MX as well as a DP867 or 1ghz that's new.

No... it's downright silly for a program to take 3 - 4 seconds to click on a text field. No program on my 2 - 3 year old mac does this. Not Adobe (when clicking on a transparency input box for instance), or Internet Explorer (when typing my name in a web form), or even Maya for OS X. All those text fields light up with my cursor the INSTANT my mouse clicks there. Only macromedia can make software so shabby that it takes 3 seconds at best to activate the cursor inside a text box.

Why don't you try running MX under OS9...by that I do not mean classic, actually reboot into 9...I'll bet it'll run quite a bit faster.

ugh.....
rm -rf '/System Folder'

 

[dlloyd]

Solrac:
basically what you have said so far is this: "Macromedia sucks, Adobe rules, Macromedia sucks at Mac, Adobe rules on Macs, Macromedia works on PCs, Adobe rules." Then you go on to say something to the effect of: "I use Dreamweaver because I am too lazy to learn GoLive, even though I hate Macromedia. Therefore I am going to pick a big argument with loyal Macromedia users, which will probably take almost as long to settle as it would take me to learn GoLive." Honestly, if you can't wait for a first generation product to mature, then go to GoLive, or get out of Mac and use Dreamweaver on the PC (which I assume you like, since you keep taking comparisons from it.) The Macromedia MX line is a new set of products, they need some time to 'settle in', just like OS X did. We just need to wait for the Macromedia MY line, or whatever comes next. By then, hopefully things will have changed.

*Rant over*

 

[MacLuv]

I have found Macromedia product on the Mac side to be slow. What does one expect? PC users have the upper hand. More customers to make happy.

Here are some bugs that have not been addressed in Dreamweaver MX 6.1 update. There may be some added later.

1. Clicking on a Dreamweaver window hidden by another app brings Dreamweaver to the front, but not the window itself. User must use "hide others" command.

2. CSS Panel does not display H-scroll, so user must resize window to see all CSS attributes. Resize button is placed in front of trash icon. PC version works fine.

3. Panel redraw is SLOW. Takes a moment for windows to refresh.

4. Text sometimes dissapears from window. Is still available, but does not redraw.

--------

These are just a few annoying things. Obviously Macromedia hacks together Mac version from the PC side without much consideration to what's happening... they need better support on the Mac side. Obvsiously it doesn't make them enough $$ to dedicate the funds to give us priority.

Situations like these are partly the fault of Apple. Apple needs to offer $$ incentives for companies to push development and support for Macintosh software--especially industry standard apps.

 

[dlloyd]

Well, shall we start a petition sort of thing, and then send it off to Macromedia?

 

[solrac]

Originally posted by dlloyd
Solrac:
basically what you have said so far is this: "Macromedia sucks, Adobe rules, Macromedia sucks at Mac, Adobe rules on Macs, Macromedia works on PCs, Adobe rules." Then you go on to say something to the effect of: "I use Dreamweaver because I am too lazy to learn GoLive, even though I hate Macromedia. Therefore I am going to pick a big argument with loyal Macromedia users, which will probably take almost as long to settle as it would take me to learn GoLive." Honestly, if you can't wait for a first generation product to mature, then go to GoLive, or get out of Mac and use Dreamweaver on the PC (which I assume you like, since you keep taking comparisons from it.) The Macromedia MX line is a new set of products, they need some time to 'settle in', just like OS X did. We just need to wait for the Macromedia MY line, or whatever comes next. By then, hopefully things will have changed.

*Rant over*

Yes, basically I am saying Macromedia sucks. They do suck, very much so.

But I am a mac user. I bought a 1.8 Ghz Celeron PC JUST so I can watch flash movies and flash web sites, because you need a PC to see a flash web site. That's how bad macromedia sucks on mac.

I have Photoshop, Dreamweaver, and Flash on the PC.

They run 100000x faster and better on the PC. But I still use them on my mac. Why? Because Mac OS X is so much better.

That is why I complain about Macromedia, even though I have a PC with all their software RIGHT NEXT TO ME.

Also, Dreamweaver is not a 1st generation product. YOU ARE SO WRONG.

Dreamweaver MX is a VERSION 6!!!!

There is no difference in MX than the OS 9 version of UltraDev. It's just carbonized.

Macromedia just plain sucks at mac. They are pretty decent on PCs, but then, even on PCs they still suck compared to Adobe, in terms of bug freedom. On the mac it's buggy AND horrible interface.

And this argument takes a LOT quicker than getting used to GoLive, TRUST ME....

And Flash is a macromedia monopoly so I must use Macromedia software. If I had a choice, I'd never use their software.

I give them credit for being very creative though, and Flash Comm MX is a great app which can make me a lot of money pretty soon.

Macromedia makes me money, but their softwrae still sucks.

 

[dlloyd]

Would you stop putting words in my mouth!
Yeah, and OS X was version 10. OS 10.0 was the same deal, it wasn't good. Now we have 10.2, and most of the bugs have been fixed. Wait until at least Dreamweaver 6.2, and then start your complaining. The way you put it, they are almost as bad as Microsoft, if you feel that way, then go and use it on XP, and stop whining! Otherwise, write down all your complaints, post them here, let others add their own, and then send it to Macromedia, who knows, maybe they will fix it!
Oh, and one more thing, show me proof that Dreamweaver MX is just a Carbonized version of UltraDev. No company in it's right mind would release the same thing twice, not even Micro$oft.

 

[solrac]

The core dreamweaver mx code is the same core as ultradev.

The same way mac os 9 is the same as mac os 8. Just with extra features and enhancements and new things added.

Dreamweaver MX is just Dreamweaver UltraDev, one version higher, with a few new features, and the LEAST of everything (but another feature nonetheless) carbonization.

Flash MX is not a version 1. It's a version 5. It's the same as Flash 4, but with the new features of Flash MX added. (And carbonized.)

Mac os X IS A VERSION 1. It's a complete overhaul and complete rewrite and completely new core.

There is no comparison between OS X and Dreamwaver MX in terms of software versioning.

I have already written down my complaints about Macromedia: Horrible interface bugs. I have not really been affected by any other kinds of bugs by macromedia (but other developers I work with have, and they are on PCs, and they complain too.)

 

[mdnky]

Originally posted by solrac

1. LiveMotion has been discontinued

Didn't hear about that. They're still advertising on their website as nothing has happened.

(And of course, flash is crap on Mac and works great on PC, more proof Macromedia has trouble programming for mac.)

I've never seen a big difference in between Wintel and Macs, and I'd have to say IE would be a bigger contributing factor than Macromedia for any slowness in flash on the Mac.

No... it's downright silly for a program to take 3 - 4 seconds to click on a text field. No program on my 2 - 3 year old mac does this. Not Adobe (when clicking on a transparency input box for instance), or Internet Explorer (when typing my name in a web form), or even Maya for OS X. All those text fields light up with my cursor the INSTANT my mouse clicks there. Only macromedia can make software so shabby that it takes 3 seconds at best to activate the cursor inside a text box.

Well, that leads me to think you have something wrong with your computer or more likely a software installation problem...I'm on a 6 year old G3 300 under X and Dreamweaver's "text fields" work fine and mightly quick for me.

 

[solrac]

Originally posted by mdnky
Didn't hear about that. They're still advertising on their website as nothing has happened.

they are still selling LiveMotion 2, but the livemotion team has been assigned to other projects and no further development is in the works.

I've never seen a big difference in between Wintel and Macs, and I'd have to say IE would be a bigger contributing factor than Macromedia for any slowness in flash on the Mac.

HAHAHHAHAHAHHAH
BWAHHHH AHAHAHAH *wipes a tear from my eye*
HAHAHAH *sniff*
oh lord, hahhahhaahhahahahahaha

Well, that leads me to think you have something wrong with your computer or more likely a software installation problem...I'm on a 6 year old G3 300 under X and Dreamweaver's "text fields" work fine and mightly quick for me.

well then it's really a sad day.
Maybe it's just a problem dreamweaver and flash have with the 7400 g4. Other people with my laptop and G4 cube have reported the same problems. Maybe ANY COMPUTER other than a 7400 g4 works fine with the text fields. Sigh.......

 

[mdnky]

Originally posted by solrac
But I am a mac user. I bought a 1.8 Ghz Celeron PC JUST so I can watch flash movies and flash web sites, because you need a PC to see a flash web site. That's how bad macromedia sucks on mac.

I have Photoshop, Dreamweaver, and Flash on the PC.

They run 100000x faster and better on the PC. But I still use them on my mac. Why? Because Mac OS X is so much better.

That is why I complain about Macromedia, even though I have a PC with all their software RIGHT NEXT TO ME.

Comparing my 300mhz mac - home, 1.3ghx PIII (2kPro) - work......there is not a "huge" speed difference for Dreamweaver MX. Now my brother's new P4 3ghz does run it faster, but I'd kinda expect that...common sense dictates it.

Also, Dreamweaver is not a 1st generation product. YOU ARE SO WRONG.

Dreamweaver MX is a VERSION 6!!!!

There is no difference in MX than the OS 9 version of UltraDev. It's just carbonized.

There's a reason Macromedia didn't just use another "number" but chose MX instead. While there are similarities with UltraDev, it is in no way just a duplicate version carbonized. On the Mac platform, it is a 1st generation application....the 1st generation after a major recode with many new features, and first generation of X compatability.

 

[solrac]

The MX name is nothing more than a marketing gimmick.

Dreamweaver MX is simply another version beyond Ultradev, nothing more. Carbonizing for Mac OS X alone wouldn't even count for a version number. Kids who write shareware programs in their garage can carbonize an OS 9 app in a few hours.

 

[Sirtovin]

what is all this???? a flame war over OSX vs Dreamweaver?

 

[mdnky]

Originally posted by solrac
HAHAHHAHAHAHHAH
BWAHHHH AHAHAHAH *wipes a tear from my eye*
HAHAHAH *sniff*
oh lord, hahhahhaahhahahahahaha

There's not a big enough difference. Then when you factor in crashes of the OS on the PC it really turns the tide. Might be a bit slower on the Mac, but at least it's consistent and stable, and works gets done which = $$$$. (Turtoise vs. hare...)

well then it's really a sad day.
Maybe it's just a problem dreamweaver and flash have with the 7400 g4. Other people with my laptop and G4 cube have reported the same problems. Maybe ANY COMPUTER other than a 7400 g4 works fine with the text fields. Sigh.......

Yea, but do you think maybe other people have figured out that maybe, just maybe, it might be time to get a newer computer (or upgrade the current one) if you're lively hood depends on this? I'll be the first to say that while everything works ok for me, I would love it to be a bit faster. Then I realize I'm using an outdated machine and I can't expect to get the same performance that someone on a 6 month or 1 year old machine gets with the same program.

 

[dlloyd]

Originally posted by mdnky
There's a reason Macromedia didn't just use another "number" but chose MX instead. While there are similarities with UltraDev, it is in no way just a duplicate version carbonized. On the Mac platform, it is a 1st generation application....the 1st generation after a major recode with many new features, and first generation of X compatability.

-Thank you! My point exactly.

Originally posted by solrac
Horrible interface bugs. I have not really been affected by any other kinds of bugs by Macromedia

So, all this about interface bugs!

To All: Is it just me, or do solrac's posts in general tend to be sort of negative?

 

[mdnky]

Originally posted by dlloyd
So, all this about interface bugs!

Is it just me, or do solrac's posts in general tend to be sort of negative?

Regarding the first line, Yup. The second line, I guess that's a matter of personal views...but IMHO, yup. If he's having the problems he says he is, then I can't blame him for being upset. But I also can't support or agree with his statements in trashing Macromedia when I'm using a computer much slower and older and not experiencing those problems daily for critical business work...I would expect to see these if they were there.

 

[dlloyd]

Well, is the MX line AltiVec enhanced? I haven't heard anything to suggest they are. If they aren't, then his Powerbook G4 isn't going to see that much difference in performance from your G3.
To solrac, I believe that if you want to get top performance from Dreamweaver MX, then you need to upgrade your system. The Powerbook G4 400MHz model was really not much more than a Pismo with a G4 in it, at least as far as non-AltiVec applications were concerned.

 

[solrac]

Sorry but I have no money to upgrade my comptuer. (I did have money for a PC though, which is a billion times faster than my mac, but I still use my mac because OS X rules)

I just can't afford a new mac, sorry to say.

And I trash macromedia only after much proof that they suck. Seriously they do. I have so much proof, please don't think I'm just badmouthing them with no real reason.

And my Flash on mac vs. pc, where I said "hahahhaha *wipe tear from my eye*" that was only directed to flash web sites. (Flash player on mac vs flash player on PC)

The Flash authoring environment is macromedia's best software and almost as good on mac as PC, but still has that STUPID text field problems.

If it took you 4 seconds to CLICK ON A TEXT BOX you'd be upset too, trust me. And it has NOTHING to do with my 400 mhz processor.

And once again, MX is a version SIX not a version ONE!! ARGH!!! *ahem*

 

[dlloyd]

Wow, this is getting hot, isn't it?
Anyway, I don't think you will see my view, and I sure as h*** don't see yours, so I declare this a 'dead thread', at least as far as I am concerned.

 

[solrac]

well, my view is invincible. No one can argue that:

Any computer, even a PRE G3 mac should not have slow down when clicking on a TEXT FIELD

Macromedia is the only software company I know with such text fields

Dreamweaver MX is a version 6 product, not a complete overhaul and thus a version 1

However I do admit that I should upgrade my computer and I would in a heartbeat if I had the money.

But if the ONLY reason to upgrade was just to fix macromedias text fields I'd laugh and become a PC user and throw my apple into the ocean.