Thank you for your review
Email me when discounted: 
Joomla! is a powerful Open Source Content Management System for building professional Web sites easily. It is often the system of choice for small business or home users who want a professional looking site that's simple to deploy and use. It can deliver a robust enterprise-level Web site as well, empowered by endless extensibility for your bespoke publishing needs. Joomla! is different from the normal models for content management software. For a start, it's not complicated. Joomla! has been developed for everybody, and anybody can develop it further. Similarly to the Firefox browser, the core system can be extended via more...

What's New

Version 3.3.0:
  • Introduces new features into the CMS such as improved password hashing and microdata and optimizes the code with performance improvements to the routing system and the continued conversion of MooTools based JavaScript to jQuery.
  • Thanks to the hard work of over 40 different volunteer contributors, over 115 bugs have also been resolved with the 3.3 release of the Joomla! CMS. more...


  • OS X 10.4 or later
  • Apache recommended
  • Any server that supports PHP and MySQL
  • Works very well with MAMP running on your Mac, locally

Similar Software

Open Comparison
Suggest Other Similar Software
Leave a Review

Joomla! User Discussion

Nobody has reviewed or commented on this app yet. Add your own comment and get a discussion going!
Sort by: Time | Smiles
Steveza Member IconReview+6

I've been using Joomla to build beautiful dynamic sites, and give clients the ability to update their own content without much fuss. There is a learning curve from the admin side, but that gives you a huge amount of power and capability. You can compartmentalize access to specific areas for different users, and it allows you to just use templates or easily jump into the underlying code. If you are building a set of static pages, it is overkill, but for any kind of dynamic content it rocks! The crew that builds it pays attention to security, too, so less worries on that end. Spanks Wordpress, and much easier than Drupal to get started. Most hosting plans have it available as a one-click install. Check it out!

Reply0 replies
Version 3.3.0
Stevie24 Member IconComment+20

ScreenShot still shows version 1.5!!

Reply0 replies
Version 3.2.3
Annie-Walker Member IconComment+37

Just wanted to see how this has a ✭✭✭✭✭ rating, when no one visible gave it one.

Reply1 reply
Version 3.1.0

Um,… click on the 'Ratings' tab above the reviews. :-)

Macupdate46 Member IconComment+7

Curious... lots of talk about webinars, etc. but it seems that the tie-up with CloudAccess has led to 'the tail wagging the dog'. Difficult to find any meaningful guidance about Joomla and how to use it without it being subsumed into what a wonderful web host CloudAccess is. Not knowing much about Joomla except its reputation, I'm not tempted to investigate further.

Reply0 replies
Version 2.5.6
Diarbyrag Member IconComment+94

This comment has nothing to do with Joomla, I am just curious as to why Macupdate now allows anybody to rate software without reasons. Stars alone will make the ratings worthless. When all the software is on the Macapp store the ratings will all be there.. what happens here then ? Beginning of the end ?

Reply13 replies
Version 1.6

Here's MU's response to my comment (both since removed) in the Google Chrome listing about textless ratings:

Macupdate-Trevor replied to your thread:
"They're quick ratings, which is a star rating without comment. You can leave them with one click."

I've also commented on them in EarthDesk and Typinator listings, and yesterday mailed the suggestion they *at least* be optionally displayed (though I'd rather they didn't exist at all).


Thanks for the reply Sjk. I like this site, the ratings have value. But it is their site I suppose and if they want to follow Versiontracker into obscurity it will be a shame.


I think the value of ratings is increased by enforcing even minimal feedback that explains/justifies (hopefully) reasons behind them. Otherwise, an option to filter out these semi-anonymous cluttering quick ratings would be much appreciated.

Thanks for your comments, Diarbyrag. Too bad MU doesn't have/recommend a place to discuss site meta issues like this or even have any obvious place where they announce site changes(!)


We added quick ratings to the site to encourage people to provide more ratings and reviews for all apps. When you leave a quick rating, a link appears immediately prompting you to "tell us why" - basically we are trying to make it easier for people to get involved and provide opinions about the apps listed. In general, people are familiar with and accustomed to using the star rating system form other Mac apps, like iTunes, to quickly help classify some piece of data, and thus are much more likely to use this type of system to help rate the apps here.

Initially we chose not to show the ratings at all, but users and developers were both confused, not understanding what had happened to the ratings they had just left, or why an app's total rating seemed different than what was in the reviews with text, so we turned them on for all to see. We would obviously love to see all ratings be accompanied by some review and rationale, and are trying to make it as easy as possible for people to get involved with other users and developers here. Statistically, it is better to have more ratings per app to represent the total overall ratings. Although people may leave a low rating without any review to help explain things, they may also equally leave a high rating, and with the ratings ow being shown, we feel that people will more likely create honest and accurate ratings.

We are continuing to test and monitor this system and will likely be making further changes to how it is working, including the option to add a full review at a later date to any ratings you create, and/or moving the ratings without reviews to a separate ratings tab similar to how we separate troubleshooting comments and responses.

MacUpdate is always open to feedback - you can email comments and suggestions to feedback@macupdate.com.

take care,


Chad, thank you for a comprehensive reply.

As I said it is your site and you are free to run it how you like.
Like many others I have based my purchase of many of the great software programs I now use on the opinions of other Macupdate members free or otherwise. It saves a lot of wasted time and money and for that I'm sure we are all grateful.

I hope you do monitor this new system, the ability to just click stars without justification might not give such honest results as a system where people actually have to think and write before they click. You have to add comments in the iPhone app store.

Anyway the alternative to filter out star only ratings would be better.

I value this site and would hate to see it's influence in the Mac community diminish.

Best wishes


> We are continuing to test and monitor this system and will likely be making further changes to how it is working, including the option to add a full review at a later date to any ratings you create

The ability to update ratings/reviews/comments, and disallowing submission of multiple ratings (especially eliminating listings with multiple quick ratings from the same users), would be useful.

> and/or moving the ratings without reviews to a separate ratings tab similar to how we separate troubleshooting comments and responses.

Currently there's no indication when Troubleshooting contains feedback and it's tedious to explicit check there (especially to only discover it's empty). I'd much rather see Troubleshooting comments than textless Quick Ratings be included with Reviews/Comments.

> MacUpdate is always open to feedback - you can email comments and suggestions

The email I sent on Jan 11 wasn't acknowledged, leaving me wondering if you'd received it or not. Thanks for responding here so I know some bidirectional communication is happening. :)


Just for the record :)

I think quick rating option is a mistake. I do not like the idea of seeing "stars" posted by who knows by whom. What if it is a war of competing developers? I want to see real feedback from real people. Just a wish. And btw, I think Macupdate has a good future despite App Store release. The way you bring new information to us is something Apple will always lack.


> And btw, I think Macupdate has a good future despite App Store release. The way you bring new information to us is something Apple will always lack.

The signal-to-noise ratio is *much* higher here… and even higher without "quick ratings" or at least when they can be hidden. :)


Hurray! Quick ratings are now separated under a new Ratings tab. Thanks, MU!

PS: Would be useful if an item count for each tab was displayed (maybe only when unselected?).


"Statistically, it is better to have more ratings per app to represent the total overall ratings"

I would typically agree with your statement, Chad, but that's not the case in this situation. There aren't hundreds or thousands of individual ratings for many applications, so even a single rating has a big impact. Often, these ratings are absurd. Even with a detailed description sometimes the ratings are absurd (i.e., leaving a 1-star rating because an application does not work with a specific scanner, or because the developer did not answer an email on a Sunday morning, and so on)

Most of the time I see multiple poor ratings from people who don't contribute much to the site. Chances are that they registered just to downgrade an application. This, of course, may be done by competing developers. The opposite also applies. A developer may register multiple accounts to give themselves high ratings, or ask users to leave high ratings. I've not seen many of these instances.

With quick ratings, there's no option to Agree (smile) or Disagree (frown) with the rater. This brings up another interesting approach: weighted ratings. Ratings are weighed based on a rater's "credibility score." This would bring up even more problems, although it's better than the current approach.

Many Macupdate ratings are useless, and I often look elsewhere now for higher-quality information. If changes are going to be implemented, hopefully the ability to edit one's own ratings/comments can be added.

I hope this feedback is useful.


Thanks for elaborating some of the more obvious problems with MU ratings, Espiridion.

And I appreciate MU not deleting this subtopic.


Espiridion - thanks again for the feedback. Obviously any system that is open for input by anyone will receive a fair amount of "noise" in both directions - people who leave a low rating *or* a high rating, which again, is why we are trying to promote more ratings in general - to help normalize the data (more data-points results in a better overall picture). Although most apps do not yet have thousands of ratings, we are receiving a significantly greater amount of ratings *and* reviews than we previously did. One of the main purposes of the quick rating system is to lower the bar and enable people to add a rating, and then they are encouraged to leave a full review as well, which many people do.

We do of course monitor that reviews and ratings and are very aware of how the numbers fall. One of the original gripes people had with the quick ratings was that they were intermixed with the reviews - we have since moved quick ratings to their own tab, and are continuing to improve upon the overall rating system. Stay tuned for further updates in this area...



I'll add my voice in thanks for the improvements to the ratings and comments system. And PLEASE add the ability to edit, update, and revise one's own comments.

Gmax Member IconComment+70

WordPress forever!:D

Reply0 replies
Version 1.6b8
Bumbleb Member IconComment+330

Macupdate lists Joomla, because Joomla does so themselves. I don't think it's Macupdate who's keeping up to date with thousands of software - the developers themselves does.

Reply1 reply
Version 1.6b2

Yes, I think that's correct. And the reason Joomla! lists here is that many Joomla! programmers are Mac users. Joomla! is known to be Mac-friendly, perhaps the most Mac-friendly of the big guns in the open source CMS arena.

Nymphe Member IconComment+76

I still don't understand why MU lists Joomla. They don't list Wordpress, Drupal or any other CMS out there.

Here is my comment though: It is very easy to learn, very easy to install and modify. However adding lots of extensions, plugins and etc. is really annoying after some time. And it gets slower and slower.

I switched to Wordpress long long time ago. Instead of upgrading the site to 1.5, upgrading to WP was easier.

I am glad I did.

Reply0 replies
Version 1.5.17
Tianissimo Member IconComment+0

Joomla on mac? I'm confused.

Reply2 replies
Version 1.5.15
Ed Bishop

Run on a Mac?
Of course!
With MAMP:

Doug S.

I'm confused as well. Joomla isn't mac software, it's not even desktop software. It's listed under servers but it's certainly not that. It's a content management framework (you make it a CMS).

It's a Mac program in the same my my websites are: They're not.

yellowdog Member IconReview+10

As I'm a webmaster running quite a few sites using Joomla for an institution with 500 staff I thought I reply to a few ill informed comments that I see everytime I look at this page.
M-RICK ia plain wrong. I've trained people to install Joomla, PHP, MYSQL and its never taken 4hrs. Joomla basic install takes less than 10 mins even for a novice. Joomla is a CMS but it should be seen more as a website builder. M-RICK's 4 hr site built from scratch would not have the built in funcionality, the ease of expansion and the cms tools hat joomla has out of the box.

As for Mark Everitt - he doesn't actually say what his problems are. It does work with Safari but again he doesn't say WHAT doesn't work.
For non admins there is an interface that allows people to add pages and update them also. Its not difficult, I suggest that maybe people need proper training.

For anyone who wans to try Joomla on the mac, download MAMP a PHP, MYSQL, APACHE all in one and then install Joomla.

Once you've done that head over to the joomla site to look at the extensions pages and the forum. Joomla uses templates to create the look of the site, an excellent template and much more place to go is www.yootheme.com, its not free but they do excellent stuff.

Reply3 replies
Version 1.5.13
Mark Everitt

Specifically editing and saving a page with Safari was broken in the version we were using. Rendering was also buggy. Other issues to do with file uploading were also encountered. There was more but I don't keep a list of the problems on me.

The reason I only left a comment and not a rating was because (and I specifically noted this) we were running an older version of Joomla.

None of this changes the fact that so many users hate it, and yet have few issues with an in house CMS (we are a subgroup with our own systems, but the CMS still covers us). Add to this that nobody has issues with the wiki, which requires more tech savvy than Joomla should. We are physicists, so you won't find many groups of more qualified people to tell you when something doesn't work.

The version we were running was an administrative nightmare. I still advise people to steer clear of Joomla.


Most people use firefox when developing because it has things like firebug which help to see how pages are working, its also worth checking out one of the other editors rather than the standard joomla editor, I personally don't use one, but users find JCE easy to use.

I have 400 people using joomla on one site and once they get their heads around how a cms works they seem to be at ease.

My typical users are senior researchers, phd's, professors etc in neuroscience, nanbiotechnology, robotics, drug discovery from 72 different countrys.

Mark Everitt

Your typical mac user is not a developer, and should not be expected to switch to another browser for adding content to a CMS. This was confusing and irritating for new users. We appear to have had rather different experiences, which probably stems from us using an earlier version. It's good that these issues no longer exist.

I stand by my recommendation to stay away until I've had more experience with later versions.

user icon+5
Version 2.5.6
user icon+442
Version 1.7.3
user icon+0
Version 1.7.1
user icon+5
Version 1.6.4
> 4 9


Current Version (3.x)


Downloads 60,785
Version Downloads 959
Type Internet / Servers
License Free
Date 30 Apr 2014
Platform OS X / PPC 32 / Intel 32
Price Free