[Locked] Dreamweaver-What exactly am I buying

[Richard_Lefko]

Hi:

I am using Dreamweaver 6 and I am considering buying the latest CC version. Well, renting it I guess.

I don't own ANY subscription applications, because I don't agree with this model.

Now, having said that I am considering DW CC whatever......

What do I get for my $240 a year?

yeah, I see

• Includes: 100GB of cloud storage, Adobe Portfolio, Adobe Fonts, and Adobe Spark with premium features

Do I get to download an application or am I stuck using an online version?

Depending on the answer above, do I have to store my files in the cloud, or can I store my files locally?

What is Adobe Portfolio, Adobe Spark, and where can I learn about the fonts?

To be honest, not really an Adobe fan, because finding anything on your site always seems to be a nightmare.

Frankly, I don't even expect an answer to these questions......

Great way to start, eh?

Thank you

Rich

[pziecina]

Although this is a reply to your post Ben, it is to all you gentlemen, (and anyone else involved) in this disagreement.

Although the disagreement is in, and started in a public forum. This is not the place to continue it. Both yourself and ALsp are acp's, so maybe asking Preran​ to moderate a discussion via PM's between all concerned would be a better solution.

Personally I don't see the problem on both sides, and as all concerned probably live in different countries, then the law of each individuals country applies, (don't blame me for that, blame the US Supreme court, as that is what the decided years ago).

As for me, I'm going to enjoy a quite glass of wine, and forget all about this as it does not concern me, (except that it is in a discussion I am taking part in, and is not part of the discussion itself) or anyone else, so I probably like others could not care less.

[Nancy OShea]

Happy holidays everyone!

[ALsp]

Hi Paula,

Your voice of reason is soothing. However, any wrongdoing doing that can be attributed to me, is purely Kafkaesque in nature. Ben made a very clear allegation, and from the last post he made is clearly hanging on dearly to make some sort of point that is nonexistent. I would welcome a moderated private discussion as long as the goal is for Ben to either prove his allegations or agree to a public apology.

[VL Branko]

I really think that you are reading things into this that are not there.

[pziecina]

mbk28  wrote

... but not to see unnecessary advertisements

I don't think they can be considered as advertisments, but as Adobes official policy says that self promotion by ACP's is allowed, and ALsp is promoting his services, there can be no complaints.

I do not agree with the policy, and it was one of the reasons I left the ACP program.

[ALsp]

You came into the "community" with the UltraDev crowd? Or was it from the very beginning of Dreamweaver?

[pziecina]

ALsp  wrote

You came into the "community" with the UltraDev crowd? Or was it from the very beginning of Dreamweaver?

Actually I was contacted during the Dw 1 dev cycle, and asked if I wished to be a tester, I declined the offer as I was then a VS Pro tester and involved in .net, C# testing. I didn't want to get involved with too much program testing, as I think 1 or 2 products is the most anyone can do serious testing for, (unlike most of the Adobe programs).

My real involvment did not start until MX when css was first seriously part of Dw, and as I had been using css since 97/98, (testing in IE also) that was when I think Dw became a contender, (since lost that position).

[ALsp]

pziecina  wrote

ALsp   wrote

You came into the "community" with the UltraDev crowd? Or was it from the very beginning of Dreamweaver?

Actually I was contacted during the Dw 1 dev cycle, and asked if I wished to be a tester, I declined the offer as I was then a VS Pro tester and involved in .net, C# testing. I didn't want to get involved with too much program testing, as I think 1 or 2 products is the most anyone can do serious testing for, (unlike most of the Adobe programs).

My real involvment did not start until MX when css was first seriously part of Dw, and as I had been using css since 97/98, (testing in IE also) that was when I think Dw became a contender, (since lost that position).

DW1 was not only pre-Adobe, but also pre-Macromedia . Extensions became possible with DW2. So, you missed the fun years... and Dreamweaver's formative years ,when extensions were basically … EVERYTHING.

It was a good community.

[VL Branko]

I am the one who advertised the products. I did so as a satisfied customer recommending to others. If you have been on this forum for any length of time (I joined Dec 15, 2009) it is definitely not the first time I and other forum members have recommended P7 products.

[pziecina]

The discussion is now unlocked, the question is by whom?

[pziecina]

All I would like to add to this discussion, is that this discussion -

https://forums.adobe.com/thread/2401471

from 2 years ago, (even with a number of the posts removed, due to a forum mistake) appears to be still relevant.

We are going over and over the same themes in the forum, and the conclusions never change.

[VL Branko]

pziecina  wrote

All I would like to add to this discussion, is that this discussion -

css, 2 conflicting interests, and why I, You, and the Dw team get it wrong.

from 2 years ago, (even with a number of the posts removed, due to a forum mistake) appears to be still relevant.

We are going over and over the same themes in the forum, and the conclusions never change.

I found that earlier and read quite a bit of it. Interesting. I just wonder how long DW will last. GoLive was killed off, so was Muse recently. Who is next?

[Richard_Lefko]

I simply want to BUY a Dreamweaver application.

No subscriptions, I simply want to own it.

I am NOT a professional web developer, I am a simple hobbyist who could probably use other apps out there, but I preferred DW since that was what i used when Macromedia owned it.

I can't afford this subscription model. I don't make money on my site, except a couple of businesses I know, help me out with hosting, email costs, and stuff like that.

In my mind, this is really simple. Just sell me the damn thing.

[rayek.elfin]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Richard+Lefko  wrote

I simply want to BUY a Dreamweaver application.

No subscriptions, I simply want to own it.

I am NOT a professional web developer, I am a simple hobbyist who could probably use other apps out there, but I preferred DW since that was what i used when Macromedia owned it.

I can't afford this subscription model. I don't make money on my site, except a couple of businesses I know, help me out with hosting, email costs, and stuff like that.

In my mind, this is really simple. Just sell me the damn thing.

Dreamweaver is not sold anymore as a perpetual license - only renting it is possible at this point, unfortunately.

If renting is out of the question, I would suggest to have a look at the trial of Pinegrow, which I feel is the spiritual successor to Dreamweaver's visual editing of old. A full "purchase to own" license is available, and at less than half the cost of a year's worth of DW rent. Pinegrow does not have a built-in FTP option, so an external free FTP client like Filezilla must be used to upload and manage files on the server. Other than that, it might be what you are looking for. It's a fine visual web editor, with support for all the latest html/css standards, and various front-end frameworks, such as Bootstrap, Foundation, and Materialize.

[Nancy OShea]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Richard+Lefko   wrote

In my mind, this is really simple. Just sell me the damn thing.

It's impossible to sell something that no longer exists.  Adobe's Creative Cloud model has been wildly successful. There's no going back to the old Creative Suite model.  In fact, CS products are not legally available from any merchant, vendor or  re-seller in any country.   If you happen to find a copy of CS6 for sale somewhere, beware of non-genuine software that could potentially harm your computer or worse...

Adobe Genuine software

If the seller of pre-owned software isn't willing to officially transfer license  ownership to you, run away. 

Transfer an Adobe product license

rayek.elfin  wrote

If renting is out of the question, I would suggest to have a look at the trial of Pinegrow, which I feel is the spiritual successor to Dreamweaver's visual editing of old.

I 2nd the Pinegrow recommendation as an alternative editor.   It does many things very well like WordPress themeing.  But as you say, it lacks the site management capabilities of DW.  And since the OP  has already invested in PVII extensions which are built exclusively for DW, Richard is committed to using DW at least some of the time.  Which brings us all the way back to the  beginning of this long and often contentious discussion.  DW is only available by subscription now.   End of story. 

Creative Cloud pricing and membership plans | Adobe Creative Cloud

[pziecina]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/VL+Branko  wrote

I just wonder how long DW will last. GoLive was killed off, so was Muse recently. Who is next?

I don't think Dw will be axed, simply because the dev team is so small when compared to other Adobe products. Including 3rd part solutions/features, has helped to keep it alive as it has kept dev costs down. Even though I have no idea why people continue to use Dw, when other newer programs, (Wappler being a good example) offer much more for the cost.

All I can think of is that it is because it is part of the CC subscription, and/or users have invested a lot of money on various extensions over the years, that makes moving to any other program financially very expensive, which would be especially true for those who did not purchase as CS.x version, but only bought into Dw when it became a subscription only offering, (don't forget they then have no Dw if they cancel, so no access to any extensions).

As ALsp, and others will tell you I am not a fan of extensions, but agree that some users do require them for whatever reason, (I hold the same opinion about using bootstrap, though I am not comparing them).

[VL Branko]

pziecina  wrote

https://forums.adobe.com/people/VL+Branko   wrote

I just wonder how long DW will last. GoLive was killed off, so was Muse recently. Who is next?

I don't think Dw will be axed, simply because the dev team is so small when compared to other Adobe products. Including 3rd part solutions/features, has helped to keep it alive as it has kept dev costs down. Even though I have no idea why people continue to use Dw, when other newer programs, (Wappler being a good example) offer much more for the cost.

All I can think of is that it is because it is part of the CC subscription, and/or users have invested a lot of money on various extensions over the years, that makes moving to any other program financially very expensive, which would be especially true for those who did not purchase as CS.x version, but only bought into Dw when it became a subscription only offering, (don't forget they then have no Dw if they cancel, so no access to any extensions).

As ALsp, and others will tell you I am not a fan of extensions, but agree that some users do require them for whatever reason, (I hold the same opinion about using bootstrap, though I am not comparing them).

I was thinking something along these lines that if Adobe is selling a subscription it has to have something to sell. And if it keeps cutting things out that it is selling then it becomes less reason for a customer to keep that subscription. So it is in their interest to have as many toys as is possible in their offering to potential customers.

Of course just because something is in their best interest doesn't always mean that a person/company will do it. History has many examples of things being done against the self interest of the entity concerned. People/companies can have a self-destructive streak in them.

Regarding "extensions" I agree with you. If I were a full time web designer/developer I would master all the tools of my craft and not be dependent on any 3rd party. Just as a gourmet chef would turn up their nose at a bottle of "Raghu" pasta sauce on the store shelf. I make all my sauce from scratch and wonder "who actually eats that #$%^& ? Don't they know how to cook?" (I learned from my Nona - a professional Italian cook.)

But I am not a full time professional designer/developer. I just want to make and maintain my own site the best I can. I get a lot of compliments from visitors to my site. Any decent time saving 3rd party extension out there is a God send to me. I do not want to be spending all my time learning java script and PHP, it is enough that I am not afraid to get into html and CSS to customize my site so that it doesn't look like it came out of a bottle of Raghu pasta sauce (-: My personal site is important to me for my profession but it should not come in the way of performing my profession. That I spend so much time learning all the things a web professional would learn when I am not nor do I want to become a web professional. I just want a good looking site that I can maintain myself. If I had to pay someone to make my site the way I have it now it would have been astronomically expensive.

And, I should say that I have actually learned a lot about HTML but especially CSS by studying the extensions I got from P7 because I had to in order to customize them to the max to suit my aesthetic.  Now no one would think it came from P7 unless they looked under the hood.

For those who are culinarily challenged Raghu sauce in a bottle is as close as they are going to come to real Italian food. The same applies to me when it comes to DW extensions. I have neither the time, inclination and especially need to learn all that needs to be learned to be an actual web pro because I don't want to be a web pro. I am just doing this for myself so that I have a nice web presence. I do not make web sites for others.

[pziecina]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/VL+Branko  wrote

And, I should say that I have actually learned a lot about HTML but especially CSS by studying the extensions I got from P7 because I had to in order to customize them to the max to suit my aesthetic.  Now no one would think it came from P7 unless they looked under the hood.

Using extensions to learn is one of the reasons I think they are usefull to users. The problem I have though, is that I think what a lot of extensions do, should be part of Dw itself. I don't think leaving such features out of Dw as a stand alone program is what users should expect, and they should not expect to have to pay an extension developer extra.

I know that would put extension developers out of business, but that is another discussion.

Even the developers of Dw must use tools for layout, (talking about the programmers of Dw now) and debugging, and as much of Dw is developed using html, css and js, why does the Dw management think that Dw users doing the same would not require the tools they use?

(I'm returning to the subject that interested me originally in this discussion, support for coding).

Just as Visual Studio Pro, has visual tools for layout, and tools to help in debugging any code, so should Dw. The use of extensions should, (I would hope) remove the requirement of debugging for those who do not wish to get as deep into code as would otherwise be required.

[ALsp]

Using extensions to learn is one of the reasons I think they are usefull to users. The problem I have though, is that I think what a lot of extensions do, should be part of Dw itself. I don't think leaving such features out of Dw as a stand alone program is what users should expect, and they should not expect to have to pay an extension developer extra. I know that would put extension developers out of business, but that is another discussion.

I am a bit of an amateur chef and would never use jarred Italian sauce. As for extensions being part of Dreamweaver - some no doubt should. But it's obvious how difficult it has been for Adobe to figure out a page-layout feature, can you imagine if they were to follow your ideas and develop several menu tools, various and sundry widgets, in addition to what the core application must do? It is important to note that many of our customers come away knowing more about their craft after using our products because we do tend to take the "teach a man to fish" option with our support efforts. Many PVII customers have become experts in their own rights - and I know you know at least one of them pretty well.

We've been doing what we do for 22 years. Longer than anyone. And the gig is still enjoyable, mainly because we get to do what we like, we get to help folks, and we get to talk and interact with our customers every day, both online and via phone. Actually the only negative experiences we ever seem have happen here. Odd.

So, given your philosophy about extensions, should that also apply to home remodelers? The craftsman that makes better furniture than you can get at Ikea? Companies like Dinan, that provides tuning and performance for BMW cars? Dinan is an interesting thing, as it's a company I know a lot about - both because they are spiritually related to what I do and because I use their services. They provide in essence extensions for BMWs. While there are programmers and engineers who could surely make those modifications themselves, many cannot. So, if they want enhanced performance, they come to Dinan. BMW recognized this years ago and has built a relationship with Dinan, one that, among other things, ensures that Dinan-enhance cars are fully warranted.

In any event, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. And I am entitled to consider wrong. But having different opinions and choosing to use or not use extensions is pretty much a freedom that should be afforded to everyone - without bias.

[pziecina]

ALsp  wrote

In any event, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. And I am entitled to consider wrong. But having different opinions and choosing to use or not use extensions is pretty much a freedom that should be afforded to everyone - without bias.

I think we can both agree on that.

The one item I see wrong in your post, is that all of the professions you mention, do require an apprenticeship, (at least here in the U/K). So they all go through the experiance of getting it wrong, making a complete mess of it, but are then shown how to do it correctly by a craftsman, (or woman), and only after they are considered competant are they let loose try try their knowledge on the real thing.

Maybe if we consider extensions as the part in the apprentices training when the craftsman shows them how to do it correctly, (repeatedly).

[ALsp]

The one item I see wrong in your post, is that all of the professions you mention, do require an apprenticeship, (at least here in the U/K). So they all go through the experiance of getting it wrong, making a complete mess of it, but are then shown how to do it correctly by a craftsman, (or woman), and only after they are considered competant are they let loose try try their knowledge on the real thing.

Maybe that's the core of our "disagreement". In the professions I mentioned, I was drawing an equivalent to what PVII does. We went through our apprenticeship in the late 1990s, me focusing on markup and CSS, and my partner on ECMAScript. And we practiced. My goodness we practiced long and hard. For the non-coder, or casual coder, we could be considered to be the master craftsmen called in when the DIY job goes horribly wrong.

I could be wrong, but the assertion you make seems to be valid only if you are saying that we are not truly competent, and I don't think you would do that.

Anyway, I think it should be clear to both of us that disagreements online, in this type of medium, can be showcases for the worst aspects of human nature and interaction. So with that, I bid you a joyous holiday.

Pax.

[pziecina]

ALsp  wrote

I could be wrong, but the assertion you make seems to be valid only if you are saying that we are not truly competent, and I don't think you would do that.

I'm saying exactly the opposite, as I consider you and your extensions, (when those who use them want to learn by reading the code produced by them) to be the equivalent to the craftsman instructing the apprentice.

Shows how easily misunderstandings can happen .

[VL Branko]

pziecina  wrote

ALsp   wrote

I could be wrong, but the assertion you make seems to be valid only if you are saying that we are not truly competent, and I don't think you would do that.

I'm saying exactly the opposite, as I consider you and your extensions, (when those who use them want to learn by reading the code produced by them) to be the equivalent to the craftsman instructing the apprentice.

Shows how easily misunderstandings can happen .

I sometimes go to pages on P7 when I see something that I like, download the page, analyze it, then apply a version of it to my page. Imitation is the highest form of flattery

[ALsp]

Right

Actually, though, I was speaking more of the DIY bath remodeler trying to make a rainforest in the master suite thinking he can figure out the techniques from YouTube and online forums. An apprentice is only a apprentice if he want to master a craft. A lot of casual web designers or those trying to manage their onw sites because of budgetary reasons ( a master web designer does tend to cost an awful lot more than extensions ) might turn to extensions to make their sites look as "masterful" as possible.

Anyway, minor points. I'm thankful we still have a customer base of folks who value our tools.

Have a happy...

Gotta go buy some food...

[VL Branko]

pziecina  wrote

https://forums.adobe.com/people/VL+Branko   wrote

And, I should say that I have actually learned a lot about HTML but especially CSS by studying the extensions I got from P7 because I had to in order to customize them to the max to suit my aesthetic.  Now no one would think it came from P7 unless they looked under the hood.

Using extensions to learn is one of the reasons I think they are usefull to users. The problem I have though, is that I think what a lot of extensions do, should be part of Dw itself. I don't think leaving such features out of Dw as a stand alone program is what users should expect, and they should not expect to have to pay an extension developer extra.

I know that would put extension developers out of business, but that is another discussion.

Even the developers of Dw must use tools for layout, (talking about the programmers of Dw now) and debugging, and as much of Dw is developed using html, css and js, why does the Dw management think that Dw users doing the same would not require the tools they use?

(I'm returning to the subject that interested me originally in this discussion, support for coding).

Just as Visual Studio Pro, has visual tools for layout, and tools to help in debugging any code, so should Dw. The use of extensions should, (I would hope) remove the requirement of debugging for those who do not wish to get as deep into code as would otherwise be required.

Hmmmm. This sounds a bit like Microsoft's tactics in the 80s. Somebody had a popular 3rd party utility, and in the next iteration of PC DOS that utility would become part of the OS and the 3rd party company went kaput. They did the same to Word Perfect, offered MS Word for free and killed Word Perfect, and after it died they charged through the nose for MS Word. Did the same to Netscape.

Of course it would be great if Adobe DW could do a lot of things that currently are extensions. But I suspect that the people who make extensions would just make something else that DW doesn't do but that people want. However having said that it seems that DW is incapable of doing this (hence your complaint)  so extension makers do it instead. Then people get DW simply to have a platform to run the extensions. Or like I say "Salad is just an excuse to have salad dressing" If you saw the kind of salad dressing I make you would know what I mean (think lots of avocados, fresh dill, honey, mustard, yogurt, etc real thick and creamy ).

I also think that extensions arise because Adobe just can't get it right on several issues. For example DW tools for making a fluid grid layout in CS6 was a non-starter, but an extension did the job perfectly.

PhotoShop has a lot of extensions but I can't see Adobe building those extensions into the system it would be a colossal task that would bloat the system with things only a few people would use. I have the complete Topaz collection but only use 3 of them. And that is only one extension.

Another thing is that P7 extensions work on every known iteration of DW. How would that work if they were built into DW?

I don't think P7 and others are going to go out of business any time soon. Not unless Adobe makes them an offer they can't refuse.

So I understand that your real complaint is that Adobe should be such a complete system that extensions would be unnecessary. I can agree with that but,  it seems, that will never happen. So we are therefor thankful for P7 and other extension makers.

Exactly what do you refer to when you say "Visual Studio Pro?"