On top of these extremely valid points, I've just been told that you
really need Windows 2000 or Windows XP to run Dreamweaver MX. This isn't
something that seems to be listed on any System Requirements listings I've
see, but I have the word from two Team Macromedia volunteers:
[I asked a question about Dreamweaver MX affecting a prior Dreamweaver 4
installation]
"Installing various versions of DWMX never did any harm to any previous
versions on my W2000 & WinXP machines. I don't have a W98 box to work
with. Just on that note, W98 isn't the ideal operating system for running
this type of software. An upgrade to W2000 or WinXP is well worth it if
you value stability.
--
Colm Gallagher
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver"
and
"I doubt that the installation of MX had anything to do with
this. Actually the two applications are remarkably independent in terms
of installed files.
As Colm says, upgrading to W2KPro, or WXPPro will eliminate any of these
curious potentially OS related behaviors.
--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver"
Kat
________________________________________
Dr Kat Street
Web Developer - Research
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/~ulzkls/
Room B105, Cripps North
University of Nottingham
University Park, NG7 2RD
Tel: 0115 9513222
Fax: 0115 9513353
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
_______________________________________
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Kenny Hermansen wrote:
| For the individual developer I think MX is a welcome upgrade – at last
| support for XHTML and also PHP. The addition of a validation tool is
| also useful. Very pleased that MX seems more stable, at least in the
| short time I've used it – it isn't unusual for DW4 to fall over every
| once in a while (particularly when you've just finished a more demanding
| bit of coding and are just about to save...).
|
| As the supported authoring tool within an institution I'm not so sure. I
| know this institution is not unusual in having a distributed/devolved
| system of content contribution and in using DW as the supported tool. I
| also know that lots of institutions have a, shall we say, very diverse
| range of capabilities amongst the desktops – there's still plenty out
| there with relatively ancient processors and very modest amounts of RAM
| and disk space. Whereas DW4 required a minimum of Pentium 166, 32 MB of
| available RAM and 110 MB of available disk space, DW MX has shot up to
| require a minimum of Pentium II 300, 96 MB of available RAM (128 MB
| recommended) and 275 MB available disk space. We all know it's not
| unusual for app upgrades to become increasingly resource hungry but I
| still think this is going to present problems for some institutions.
|
| So what to do? Upgrade to MX and insist contributors upgrade their
| machines, if need be? Stay with DW4 and loose out on new developments?
| Offer both, depending on user capabilities, and thus significantly
| complicate documentation, training and user support?
|
| I'll be implementing a site revision fairly soon and it has really
| forced the DW4 vs DW MX issue and whether or not to base contributor
| templates on XHTML or HTML 4. While I could just offer both versions –
| XHTML for those who have MX and HTML for those who have DW4 (or who just
| feel too nervous about the validation requirements for XHTML docs) I
| would be virtually doubling the needs for documentation and training –
| not to mention risking confusion amongst contributors.
|
| In some ways I suppose it also prompts the discussion of whether or not
| DW is appropriate as a supported authoring tool. It offers so many
| features that the average user just will not ever need and as a
| consequence an interface (even more so for MX) that is anything but
| simple for the beginner to get to grips with. Nonetheless, users expect
| to get the de facto industry standard tool and therefore expect it to be
| Dreamweaver...
|
| Kenny
|
|
| * * *
| Web Development Officer
| London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
| Room 40, Keppel St, London WC1E 7HT
| Direct 020 7927 2808 - Fax 020 7580 7593
|
|
