7 Replies Latest reply: Oct 29, 2014 9:00 AM by Jon Fritz II

I find that the older version of Dreamweaver (CS3) works best for me.

Dreelancer Oct 28, 2014 8:07 AM

I have used all new updated versions of Adobe Dreamweaver. Usually an update would make things easier for me but in this case it is the complete opposite. Don't get me wrong, Dreamweaver is still my primary choice for developing a website. I just find that for instance, Dreamweaver CS3 is more user friendly than CS5 & CS6 for example. Currently I'm working on a new website called [link removed]. It is where [link removed] , web store owners and unemployed individuals can try to find success to their needs. It is basically a one-stop spot to complete multiple tasks online and start generating a profit. It is like combining Etsy, Elance and SimplyHired into one. I created it all using Adobe Dreamweaver CS3 because I found it easier. That's just my opinion guys. What do you think?

1. Re: I find that the older version of Dreamweaver (CS3) works best for me.

WolfShade Oct 28, 2014 8:24 AM (in response to Dreelancer)

I think I mostly agree. I think DW CS6 is okay, at best. CS4 is easier to use. I use CS3 at home and am quite happy with it.

And after all the complaints that I've seen (in this forum, and other forums) regarding DreamWeaver CC (esp 2014.1), I'll be perfectly fine with the "older" versions.

^_^
Like Show 1 Like (1)

Actions
2. Re: I find that the older version of Dreamweaver (CS3) works best for me.

Rob Hecker2 Oct 28, 2014 8:57 AM (in response to WolfShade)

The more recent versions have better support for PHP and HTML5/CSS3. Not that you can't use HTML5 with older versions--simply better support in the newer.

This isn't about SPRY, is it? Don't use that junk.
Like Show 0 Likes (0)

Actions
3. Re: I find that the older version of Dreamweaver (CS3) works best for me.

WolfShade Oct 28, 2014 9:13 AM (in response to Rob Hecker2)

Tried to learn Spry when it first was introduced.

When jQuery and Mootools appeared, I forgot that Spry even existed.

And I'm avoiding most of the HTML5 stuff, for now. Has HTML5 even been standardized, yet? I stopped paying attention a while ago.

UPDATE: HTML5 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nope.. it still has not been standardized. MAYBE by the end of 2014.
Like Show 0 Likes (0)

Actions
4. Re: I find that the older version of Dreamweaver (CS3) works best for me.

Nancy O. Oct 28, 2014 11:32 AM (in response to WolfShade)

Unlike XHTML and HTML4 before it, HTML5 is an ongoing work in progress and probably always will be. I see no reason NOT to use HTML5. Every one of my new projects is using it because it is well supported by all modern browsers & web devices. The code is infinitely better in terms of logic and semantic structure. Oh, and you can't beat HTML5 forms. They're terrific! Try it. You'll never want to go back to the old HTML syntax.

Nancy O.
Like Show 0 Likes (0)

Actions
5. Re: I find that the older version of Dreamweaver (CS3) works best for me.

WolfShade Oct 29, 2014 8:38 AM (in response to Nancy O.)

Without standardization, there is less of a probability that different browsers will parse or process the code the same way.

Especially a certain browser that I dislike. Said browser is also extremely SLOW in implementing things that other browsers are quite quick to integrate.

No, thanks.
Like Show 0 Likes (0)

Actions
6. Re: I find that the older version of Dreamweaver (CS3) works best for me.

MurraySummers Oct 29, 2014 8:55 AM (in response to WolfShade)

You'd be surprised how well all current and even some legacy browsers support HTML5. As Rob has said, I see no reason not to use it. There are numerous benefits to jumping in.
Like Show 0 Likes (0)

Actions
7. Re: I find that the older version of Dreamweaver (CS3) works best for me.

Jon Fritz II Oct 29, 2014 9:00 AM (in response to WolfShade)

IE has been HTML5 compliant since IE9. There are still old goofy hold overs (like the automatic border on linked images) that you have to deal with, but its ability to render HTML5 elements is solid. CSS3 is a bit of a different story, IE9 was pretty bad, 10 was much better and 11 is pretty much a "modern browser" for its ability to render everything correctly, finally (thankfully and mercifully).

All of the other major browsers (Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Android, Mobile Safari and Opera,) have been largely HTML5 compliant for years with just a few oddities left in obscure CSS3 attributes.

With the HTML5 shiv/modernizers available for IE7 and 8 added to the code to help them with the "new" semantic tags like <header>, <aside>, <article>, etc, I agree with Nancy, there's no reason to not use HTML5 going forward.
Like Show 0 Likes (0)

Actions