Visual CSS compared with similar products

Note: The following comments of other products does not mean that the author of the product negative, on the contrary, the author not only know for certain that the quality of products, but also in the development of Visual CSS also, intentionally or unintentionally, when a draw on these products.

I, and DreamWeaver (hereinafter referred to as DW) compared with the

• Dw too large, and Visual CSS less than 3MB, perhaps, when you write CSS will use DW, after all, you have become accustomed to her, but when you only want to glance at your CSS file, you would like to open a close procedures 100M to see it?
• Dw preview of the lack of CSS, you do not know your code will show what effects, such as color, background map in the application that you refresh the page before the CSS, you have your CSS code will know nothing about, and Visual CSS At a time when you write code that let you write what you are.

Second, with Rapid CSS and Top Style (hereinafter referred to as the RS and TS) 

• RS / TS not W3C Validator remote, despite its built-in CSS validation, but you can guarantee he is up to date? Unless you regularly spend money to update his software.
• RS / TS inconvenient preview of the CSS you know what is causing the effect of the code, and only the title of a selector.

Third, with the Free CSS Toolbox (referred to as FCT) compared with the

• FCT can only edit a CSS document
• FCT formatting code too slow
• FCT remote authentication function of the W3C too bad, return the results page is actually the form of open, can not be combined with the Editor
• Code completion feature is not very timely