I'm a recovering Windows user (ie: victim) and new to the Apple/Mac environment (just purchased a Macbook Pro) and I'd like to know if "iWeb" provides the same level of sophistication as "FrontPage" or "DreamWeaver" for developing and deploying websites. If not, can anyone recommend other Apple/Mac-based applications for this purpose. Please note I do not want to write my own html code.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Is "iWeb" similar to "FrontPage" or "DreamWeaver" ?
- Thread starter billpaine
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
iWeb is so much better and easier to use than Frontpage. I have not used Dreamweaver much but iWeb seems easier to use imo. Apple has some great tutorial videos as well. http://www.apple.com/findouthow/web/ . I too am new to the whole Mac/OSX world and have found just about all of the native apps very easy to use.
superior to frontpage in all ways, excluding no html input....
MUCH easier than DreamWeaver, but as i said, NO HTML INPUT.
it's a nice product, here's a site I made for a home-builder's company:
http://comehomekc.com
MUCH easier than DreamWeaver, but as i said, NO HTML INPUT.
it's a nice product, here's a site I made for a home-builder's company:
http://comehomekc.com
iWeb is very simple compared to FrontPage and DreamWeaver, but not in a good way. You have very little control. If you use to use FP or DW then you'll want to pass on iWeb and go for DW for Mac or possibly to others like RapidWeaver, Komposer, etc. Check the stickies for more ideas.
Wow sophistication and FrontPage in one sentence. I never thought I would see that.
In my opinion FrontPage has always been gargabe. iWeb is a great tool if you don't plan to write any code. Dreamweaver is great if you are the type that wants to write code.
short answer is yes, they are both WYSIWYG editors, but chances are if you are coming from Dw on the PC then you will feel crippled on iWeb, its really a builder for the point and click only crowd.
Hint though: if you use DW or are used to that, your DW licence from you're PeeSee would be valid on the mac as well
JC7
Hint though: if you use DW or are used to that, your DW licence from you're PeeSee would be valid on the mac as well
JC7
my 2¢...for what it's worth
I'll ignore your reference to Frontpage.
iWeb:
Toy application for building nice looking personal websites.
It's chief virtue is that it is included with every Mac.
It's useless for commercial work, though.
DreamweaverCS3:
This is an excellent WYSIWYG for advanced commercial work.
Easy to use AJAX components are included(!)
Adobe GoLive:
Similar to Dreamweaver with regard to sophistication and quality.
In some respects, I like it better than Dreamweaver.
Adobe FlashCS3:
Very powerful application for building dynamic interactive applications and websites.
Steep learning curve, but well worth the effort.
Flash content can also be used within GoLive and Dreamweaver, such as for slideshows or navigation interfaces.
This is the most rewarding application I have learned in the past five years.
Fetch:
FTP application; you need this, or something like it.
Includes several components for building Automator workflows, and a Dashboard upload utility.
I'll ignore your reference to Frontpage.
iWeb:
Toy application for building nice looking personal websites.
It's chief virtue is that it is included with every Mac.
It's useless for commercial work, though.
DreamweaverCS3:
This is an excellent WYSIWYG for advanced commercial work.
Easy to use AJAX components are included(!)
Adobe GoLive:
Similar to Dreamweaver with regard to sophistication and quality.
In some respects, I like it better than Dreamweaver.
Adobe FlashCS3:
Very powerful application for building dynamic interactive applications and websites.
Steep learning curve, but well worth the effort.
Flash content can also be used within GoLive and Dreamweaver, such as for slideshows or navigation interfaces.
This is the most rewarding application I have learned in the past five years.
Fetch:
FTP application; you need this, or something like it.
Includes several components for building Automator workflows, and a Dashboard upload utility.
If you want middle ground between iWeb (designed for the absolute novice) and Dreamweaver (designed for the absolute professional), you might demo Panic's Coda. It integrates the FTP synchronization, direct or WYSIWYG HTML editing, CSS editing and so forth in one application, and it's way cheaper than DW or even FrontPage. I haven't done anything extensive with it, but it seemed pretty cool.
If you want to take a step to one more level of sophistication, you might check out Softpress' Freeway products. I haven't used recent versions, but it's a venerable product that provides a lot of support where you need it.
If you want to take a step to one more level of sophistication, you might check out Softpress' Freeway products. I haven't used recent versions, but it's a venerable product that provides a lot of support where you need it.
GoLive? really? Are you stuck in 2002 ?
GoLive use to be Adobe's 'professional' html tool until Adobe and Macromedia merged. Then GoLive was discontinued in favor of Dreamweaver.
Flash? Not sure why you gave an explanation for what Flash is. The OP spoke about WYSIWYG HTML programs and a desire to NOT have to write code. And you bring up a program, with its own language that is for building
, as you put it 'dynamic interactive applications'..
I guess. the point of my post is.. All things web related can be confusing, best to just stick to answering the questions being asked.
Just thought id throw my 2cents into the mix to clarify.
I may be wrong... but if memory serves correct Coda does *not* allow direct WYSIWYG editing. It does allow for previewing what your page will look like from within the application, but i thought that all the editing was done in the code view.
And before i made this post i did jump onto Panic's product page for Coda, but didnt see any reference to WYSIWYG editing.
That said.. Coda is a fantastic all in one webDeveloper tool.
GoLive 9 is still available from Adobe.
http://www.adobe.com/products/golive/
I've been using it since 1998; I prefer it to Dreamweaver, and I have both.
Curiously, the GoLive 9 UI is actually more like other CS3 apps than Dreamweaver's.
Go Figure.
Flash is an excellent WYSIWYG web development platform.
OP does not want to hand-code pages in HTML.
No knowledge of HTML is required for Flash, although it can be used.
The actionscript necessary to implement a website is simple and can be copy/pasted from tutorials in a few minutes.
It's mainly graphics and animation work, unless you want to include more advanced functions using AS.
http://www.adobe.com/products/golive/
I've been using it since 1998; I prefer it to Dreamweaver, and I have both.
Curiously, the GoLive 9 UI is actually more like other CS3 apps than Dreamweaver's.
Go Figure.
Flash is an excellent WYSIWYG web development platform.
OP does not want to hand-code pages in HTML.
No knowledge of HTML is required for Flash, although it can be used.
The actionscript necessary to implement a website is simple and can be copy/pasted from tutorials in a few minutes.
It's mainly graphics and animation work, unless you want to include more advanced functions using AS.
On second thought, I think you're probably right. Sorry for the misinformation. I did try it fairly briefly. I confess I'm more of a TextMate sort of guy overall.
Frontpage was utterly beneath contempt..
I think both iWeb and Dreamweaver are great for their respective audiences: THe average working guy back from a family vacay in Hawaii who wants to share his photos with relatives isn't going to go spend a few hundred dollars for Dreamweaver - iWeb is geared specifically for people who want a nice-looking site after an hour or so. You just plain don't get this in Dreamweaver, which is a developer's environment.
It would be impossible to compare the two, really. They are both made for completely different types of people.
The iWeb set doesn't want or need HTML/CSS coding ability, it's as simple as that.