Server-Side Scripting: ----------------------------- Supports only ASP.NET.
Standards Compliance: -------------------------------- Supports only HTML 4.01 (all DTDs), XHTML 1.0 (all DTDS), XHTML 1.1. Supports only CSS 1.0, CSS 2.0, CSS 2.1, CSS IE6.
Design View: ------------------ It does not use IE to render (unless they lied and use IE7; though, I do not have it installed; so, they might have he rendering dll bundled), because in my test case, IE6 actually renders the page properly while MEWD did not. It renders much better than Dreamweaver's designer, a lot better. The problem with that particular page is that the designer does not support "body { margin: 0 auto }". However, it works on DIVs. I'm sure it's a bug. Other than that. I need more complicated pages to test it with. I really like the visual aids.
Editor: HTML and CSS support is TopStyle-like. It knows shorthand CSS in the panels, unlike Dreamweaver. It has IntelliSense. It has JavaScript IntelliSense. Though, it has some problems with code written by you. The CSS panels are great.
MEWD: It's very fast. Uses about 40MiB of RAM. It does not feel bloated. However, it's a 250MiB download because it is built on top of Office 2007. So, it has some baggage. Parts of it are similar to StyleMaster and Word. Such as the "Common Toolbar". However, when you use it, it inserts a new CSS rule. The default colour scheme for the code view could have been better. Though, they used the same colours since Visual Studio 6.0, if not earlier. It does not have Dreamweaver's baggage. It comes with an FTP client. It has statistics, site reports, site manager.
The xhtml 1.1 template adds the Content-Type meta tag, which is totally useless to XML processors.
How could I forget about validation. It has On-The-Fly (as you type) schema validation for XHTML and CSS. There is no need to visit the w3c validators.
It polutes your "site" with _vti_cnf hidden folders where it stores some rubbish.