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.
What is best?? iWeb or Dreamweaver??
- Thread starter SBT
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
For personal use, iWeb is really easy and makes some great looking sites. However, Dreamweaver is a professional application and MUCH more can be done with it.
If you are looking to make a personal site, go with iWeb. If you have never made a website before, go with iWeb. However if you are doing a site for a college class or for a business, I'm pretty sure you'd want to go with Dreamweaver.
If you are looking to make a personal site, go with iWeb. If you have never made a website before, go with iWeb. However if you are doing a site for a college class or for a business, I'm pretty sure you'd want to go with Dreamweaver.
yeah your question is almost equivalent to comparing a u-haul trailer to a full sized shipping crate.
Yes they both move things, but on much different scales.
But since your already using dreamweaver I have to ask, do you see web design/development being any kind of a career choice for you? Even if it's just the occasional freelance project?
Basically if you ever want/plan to make money from building websites I'd highly suggest sticking with dreamweaver and learning to code properly. If your just making personal sites for vacation photos and such iWeb may be a better choice.
Yes they both move things, but on much different scales.
But since your already using dreamweaver I have to ask, do you see web design/development being any kind of a career choice for you? Even if it's just the occasional freelance project?
Basically if you ever want/plan to make money from building websites I'd highly suggest sticking with dreamweaver and learning to code properly. If your just making personal sites for vacation photos and such iWeb may be a better choice.
As others have said, iWeb & DreamWeaver are in completely different categorys. iWeb is for "family vacation shots/etc" as DreamWeaver is a pro app. Can you give us more information as to what you want to make a site for and what you plan on doing with DreamWeaver?
I'd got for dreamweaver. I use it for a lot of school assignments. It's definatly a pro app. Theres a lot of books out there to help you out if you don't know how to use it.
And by the way radiantm3. I'm part of that 1% that can understand code. What types of code do you use? I'm assuming that you do know how to use some kind of code. I use a lot of php and html for assignments and other things. I wouldn't call myself and pro user but way ahead of beginners.
And by the way radiantm3. I'm part of that 1% that can understand code. What types of code do you use? I'm assuming that you do know how to use some kind of code. I use a lot of php and html for assignments and other things. I wouldn't call myself and pro user but way ahead of beginners.
Dreamweaver is a bit much for most people, especially just for home needs. I don't really think applications such as iWeb and Sandvox are all that useful unless you subscribe to Apple's notion of living in iLife.
Rapidweaver is one that fits between them and seems to be very powerful and usable but doesn't seem so restrictive. However, if you've already got iWeb, I'd think you'd want to continue with that until the point you can't get something done.
Rapidweaver is one that fits between them and seems to be very powerful and usable but doesn't seem so restrictive. However, if you've already got iWeb, I'd think you'd want to continue with that until the point you can't get something done.
I used dreamweaver for about 5-6 years ever since macromedia bought the app from another company. Let's just say I've moved on to a much more powerful editor (textmate) ever since I started the transition to css-based design. Dreamweaver is bloatware and most of the features aren't really necessary these days. Why use an editor that takes 10 seconds to start up, is full of toolbars and palettes, and costs $400+ when you can use something better, faster, cheaper, and more powerful (assuming you know how to hand code well). Here's a tiny example of what textmate can do:Jimmieboy said:
http://macromates.com/screencast/insert_html_tags.mov
Besides, the mac version of dreamweaver sucks compared to the windows version. The same pretty much goes for all the macromedia apps. Let's hope adobe can make them more mac-like with future releases.
Jimmieboy said:
not impossible, it just doesn't support shortcuts and the styles selector.
Hand coding seems to be a hell of a lot quicker and way cleaner to me. I can't stand having to go through and clean up after all of dreamweaver's generated code.
personally, I find dreamweaver to be pretty decent ftp client. But, that is about all I use it for. the price was justified by finding a free copy.
jessica. said:
There is a better app out there than MS Paint??!! OMG what rock have I been living under??!!
I wouldn't use iWeb to deploy a paid website project for a client. For posting personal homepage stuff it's great though. I also wouldn't touch Dreamweaver with a pole. Once you know how to code it won't take you long to realize that the code Dreamweaver produces is horrifyingly poor and you'll spend more time fixing its mistakes than building pages. If you want to generate solid, validating CSS and XHTML you should code by hand or use Rapidweaver. Don't laugh off Rapidweaver. It can be a powerful tool once you start tweaking your own themes and code.
Neither, really.
All you need is a good imagination, and Taco. You could use Text if you don't care about syntax highlighting.
Syntax? Huh? Yes, you need to learn it. AKA: code.
Basic html and css isn't difficult to learn.
Using a WYSIWYG editor is not how you want to start out. They all produce non-standard code, even the big names.
The best thing you could do is learn the language, and learn it right.
I know I sound negative, but the web is already plum full of crap sites that people think are "just super". It's nothing personal, not one bit. However, these so called "we had a website in under 10 minutes" type ads, combined with FrontPage and others, have contributed to a lot of junk and it just kinda gets under my skin.
What's really sad, are the "design firms" out there that produce the same results. Non-standardized code.
Your biggest problem will be learning how to tweak your standards compliant code and css for Internet Explorer. It isn't really that bad, and the "lovely" (read the sarcasm) dev's of IE have added in the ability for you to add conditional comments that only IE can read.
Standards? Huh? Yes, we're talking the W3C. Ask someone who happens to be blind if web standards make a difference. They do.
Once you get into learning it right, you'll find yourself wanting more.
If you only take one thing from this, remember:
Tables are for tabular data, not layout.
All you need is a good imagination, and Taco. You could use Text if you don't care about syntax highlighting.
Syntax? Huh? Yes, you need to learn it. AKA: code.
Basic html and css isn't difficult to learn.
Using a WYSIWYG editor is not how you want to start out. They all produce non-standard code, even the big names.
The best thing you could do is learn the language, and learn it right.
I know I sound negative, but the web is already plum full of crap sites that people think are "just super". It's nothing personal, not one bit. However, these so called "we had a website in under 10 minutes" type ads, combined with FrontPage and others, have contributed to a lot of junk and it just kinda gets under my skin.
What's really sad, are the "design firms" out there that produce the same results. Non-standardized code.
Your biggest problem will be learning how to tweak your standards compliant code and css for Internet Explorer. It isn't really that bad, and the "lovely" (read the sarcasm) dev's of IE have added in the ability for you to add conditional comments that only IE can read.
Standards? Huh? Yes, we're talking the W3C. Ask someone who happens to be blind if web standards make a difference. They do.
Once you get into learning it right, you'll find yourself wanting more.
If you only take one thing from this, remember:
Tables are for tabular data, not layout.
What do you consider "non-standard?" The past couple versions of Dreamweaver have always produced perfectly validated code in all doctypes. Dreamweaver also doesnt do anything different with CSS than what a person would do manually, Dreamweaver just makes it faster and easier to manage. You still have to know CSS to use Dreamweaver since its preset GUI functions are so limited.
I dont know why the hardcore coders always have something against Dreamweaver. If you took out the tabs that DW creates for easier code reading then theres no way to tell the difference between a DW page and a textpad page. Most good DW users still work almost exclusively from the code view mode, DW simply offers a number of tools to make the process faster.
stainlessliquid said:
I gotta agree with you. There are a lot of times that I need to knock out 20 to 30 page sites and I would hate to code it by hand. Call me lazy, but when I have clients that send over long ass word documents with tons of lists and tabular data, I'm grateful to have Dreamweaver. Sure, DW has a tendency to screw up the code, but it also save a bunch of time if you know the limitations. Sometimes, when I have Word documents with lots of lists, I just copy and paste the doc file in design view and Dreamweaver creates all of the tags. I then go into code view and spend maybe 5 minutes cleaning things up. In the long run, I saved a lot of time. What's wrong with that? Time is money and if the page validates, who cares what you made it with.
If any WYSIWYG editor needs bashing, it's Frontpage not Dreamweaver. There are also people who think they can build website from within MS Word. Yeah, just export to HTML and you have a website. Oh my god.. have you seen the code that generates?!
stainlessliquid said:
It tends to not validate against a DOCTYPE completely, at least more times than not.
I can't speak for the latest version out there right now, I decided against buying it. Well, not exactly it, the entrie Macromedia suite, and jut went for flash instead.
Now, that's not to say that it isn't a handy tool in the right hands. However, for most people that pick it up, it fastly turns into another FP deal. Although, DW is MUCH MUCH better with it.
Take out the tabs? Who doesn't code with tabs?
I've used DW for the source editor too. Some people prefer it. Cool. At the same time, I find it not really needed. Give me a blank page in Taco and I'm set. The only real thing I like in an editor is syntax highlighting, which taco does well enough with.
Oh my god.. have you seen the code that generates?
Yes, but I try not to remember it before breakfast, of shortly thereafter. LOL
It really is sad how many people think that. Which is why people like "That damn spider place" can exist. People just don't know any better. And those commercials where "we had our website up and running in 10 minutes" is really killing it. It's making the average "non-technical, unaware person" think that there isn't anything special to the process, and it should be $1 a page.
As most of us are aware, that obviously isn't the case. However, it's something that you'll find yourself having to deal with more and more.
DW has a true WYSIWYG feature where you draw divs/tables on a grid, I forget how to even use it but it can create some horrifying code. I think thats where DW code really comes out bloated.
Ive been using DW for a few years and havent come across a validation error in a really long time with the new version (if ever), whether I use DW's built in one or a third party one. I was skeptical of DW's new xhtml ability but it still managed to nail it even though its so much more strict. If I do get an error its usually my own code where I experiment rather than DW's generated code.
I think it just depends on whos using it. DW usually doesnt do anything you dont want it to do, if someone's code is bloated with abunch of crap they dont need then chances are they would have added those things by hand as well. Building a site using only the GUI isnt the smartest thing in the world, Macromedia definately concentrated more on the pro usage which involves making manual coding faster (the reason I use it).
Ive been using DW for a few years and havent come across a validation error in a really long time with the new version (if ever), whether I use DW's built in one or a third party one. I was skeptical of DW's new xhtml ability but it still managed to nail it even though its so much more strict. If I do get an error its usually my own code where I experiment rather than DW's generated code.
I think it just depends on whos using it. DW usually doesnt do anything you dont want it to do, if someone's code is bloated with abunch of crap they dont need then chances are they would have added those things by hand as well. Building a site using only the GUI isnt the smartest thing in the world, Macromedia definately concentrated more on the pro usage which involves making manual coding faster (the reason I use it).
stainlessliquid said:
I've used dreamweaver for about 5-6 years and I can honestly say that I am much faster and more efficient using Textmate. By the time you launch dreamweaver, I'm already done adding a doctype, head, and starting on the body.
Dreamweaver has always been primarily a visual editor. That's what sells it. Otherwise people would still be using homesite. Dreamweaver got it's huge following during the dark ages of table-based layouts. In those days, Dreamweaver was a godsend. And for traditional print designers, dreamweaver was a pretty easy stepping stone into the web design world.
With css-based design, dreamweaver offers very little to a professional web designer in comparison to some of the popular featured text editors like textmate and bbedit. It just seems like it has a lot more features as it has buttons and palettes for everything. It sure gives the illusion that it does so much more when in fact textmate and bbedit offer just as much or more, just not visually represented with a bunch of UI elements.
I'm not saying dreamweaver is horrible. It's just not worth the price of admission, it's very inferior on the mac, and for the professional web designers who hand-code, there are much better alternatives for fractions of the cost.
I used to code in Dreamweaver but I hated all the garbage that inserted in the HTML code. I learned how to hand-code everything and the files are smaller now. Also Dreamweaver does not work well with PHP, ASP, etc. The preview gets all messed up.
Never used iWeb before.
This is a good place to learn the tags, etc: http://www.w3schools.com/.
Never used iWeb before.
This is a good place to learn the tags, etc: http://www.w3schools.com/.