Thanks Dan for the comprehensive answers.
Sorry but I’ve still a couple of queries. I’ve have checked out your YouTube videos which are very helpful indeed, well produced and informative, almost entertainment to watch.
I am about to click the purchase button on this but there’s just one doubt I still have over our businesses requirement for a large site and in particular the so called warehousing of images.
As mentioned our site is fairly hefty in RW/Stacks at just over 1GB. Presumably that’s bloated somewhat by the way I built it using stacks. So likely its size would come down if reproduced in Elements. In the actual project there are are only a dozen or so images taking space.
I’ve always used remote images. It has many advantages not least that I can just replace an image on the server (keeping the exact same file name) and it changes on the site without even opening RW. But most importantly whilst each image is very well optimised it’s a large image bank at over 1.5GB, and most are in day to day use on the site so it works well keeping it separate to the project file.
Most of the more recent Stacks image stacks from all the major developers allowed the simple use of warehoused images by simply adding the url in the stack image settings.
Now to Elements:
In my trial Elements site I’ve added some images to a page using; Resources - Add Remote Resource - Enter Remote Resource Name….
This adds a small thumb nail with its base file name listed under Resources. Great.
I assumed this was the resources for the particular page I was working on, but I can see that changing between the three pages (trial limitation) the list remains the same. So this Resource list is site wide.
Our site remote images folder has over 20k images. As I build the site and add remote images am I going to end up with thousands listed under Remote ?
I can see that there is the possibility of trying to do some organisation by folder so maybe with some imaginative ‘filing’, plus some housekeeping (which is probably overdue) I can get it just manageable but it still raises the question - Is Elements suitable for very large sites with myriad resources?
I was always surprised with RW that it could finally handle such a large site. In the early days users would even talk about splitting sites! Back around RW5 it started to take an age to load (literally minutes), and I thought I was pushing my luck but things improved on RW6 (64 bits maybe) and by RW8 (which I’m currently using even though I own Classic) it opens in seconds.
Is there a ‘top end’ at which Elements will struggle?
Thanks
Rick