WebGuerrilla
msg:938215 | 4:00 pm on Jun 25, 2001 (gmt 0) |
Yes, it is a sign... :)
|
Eric_Jarvis
msg:938216 | 4:20 pm on Jun 25, 2001 (gmt 0) |
I have a solution change over to DW now before they install the extensions on the server and you get tempted to use them I may try FP 2002...but I intend to wait until after my skiing holiday in Hell
|
net24_7
msg:938217 | 5:07 pm on Jun 25, 2001 (gmt 0) |
it is a sign - learn DW, you'll never go back to FP
|
toolman
msg:938218 | 5:26 pm on Jun 25, 2001 (gmt 0) |
>>>>The new version has given me tons of problems What a coincidence, huh? I guess that's because of all the "innovation" that goes into M$ products. Check out Amazon and other places for the version 3 of Dreamweaver/Fireworks Studio. Last I saw it was only $150 for the combo. About the same price you pay for that FP junk. You say you have DW? Dude....you know what to do. I used my old FP disks for skeet practice.
|
mack
msg:938219 | 8:20 pm on Jun 25, 2001 (gmt 0) |
you can make great interavtive webpages with ms frontpage...that is until you view then in a non microsoft browser. front page is to web design what mustard is to a cake.
|
legster
msg:938220 | 8:29 pm on Jun 25, 2001 (gmt 0) |
Ok maybe its just me but I am sensing an anti-frontpage attitude here? :) Ok Ok! I plan on installing Dreamweaver tonight, and learning to use it. Actually I have been able to make my sites pretty compatible with Netscape using Frontpage by doing alot of hand editing, and checking in both browsers often. At least this thread can provide a warning to anyone considering buying or upgrading Frontpage. :)
|
theperlyking
msg:938221 | 9:59 pm on Jun 25, 2001 (gmt 0) |
A different outlook, I hand code my html stuff now and every so often I wonder if perhaps I'm missing out. I decided to check out frontpage and dreamweaver and after about 5 minutes realised never mind knowing anything about HTML I would have to actually figure out how to use this software, the thought of learning how to use something to do something that I allready know how to do put me off the idea :) Hope this makes sense :o
|
Mike_Mackin
msg:938222 | 10:04 pm on Jun 25, 2001 (gmt 0) |
>by doing alot of hand editing
Please define "alot" ;)
Are you uploading via FP or do you control your file structure via FTP?
|
Woz
msg:938223 | 2:38 am on Jun 26, 2001 (gmt 0) |
>Ok maybe its just me but I am sensing an anti-frontpage attitude here? Which still ANNOYS me greatly. <gets off soapbox> Thanks for the headup Legster. MS does have a tendancy to get things out of whack in the first release of software. I will be sticking to FP2000 for a while longer yet. Onya
Woz
|
Steph
msg:938224 | 8:07 am on Jun 26, 2001 (gmt 0) |
>Ok maybe its just me but I am sensing an anti-frontpage attitude here? Why did you say that, i really don't see :) I began html with HotMetal from softquad (not really wysw...), after works a little with frontpage (lot of hand editing of course) and now i use dreamweaver. I agree there is perhaps less functionnalities in other than FP but the code is cleaner in the other (it's my opinion and i share it :) )
|
knighty
msg:938225 | 9:33 am on Jun 26, 2001 (gmt 0) |
I started out in Frontpage and actually had a copy of Dreamweaver but never used it until I had to. Now I cannot beleive that I was using *shudder* Frontpage. I'm not going to go on about it but I used Frontpage (up to version 2000) for about 2-3 years and DW for about 1yr+. Until you really use Dreamweaver extensively you don't realise how many excellent features it has over Frontpage.
|
Brett_Tabke
msg:938226 | 12:40 pm on Jun 26, 2001 (gmt 0) |
> anti-frontpage attitude here? From what I see, that is a universal constant throughout the non-microsoft World. It is rare to find a group of webmasters who use or endorse FrontPage usage that are not under direct Microsoft control or heavy handed influence. We've tried walking middle ground before on FrontPage and it just doesn't hold up under scrutiny. From the security holes in FrontPage extensions to the proprietary code that it produces, FrontPage has flatout been bad for the web, bad for webmasters, and bad for web users. That is not to criticize those that use it. For many of us, it is just a question of education. By using FrontPage and it's extensions, you are hurting the web and hurting users by hurting usability and independence by not supporting accurate and honest web standards. Many of us feel we are coming directly under attack by the Microsoft machine. Our sites, our operating systems, down to our content appears to be targeted for control by Microsoft. From the point of origin to the point of destination, Microsoft has worked their fingers into every step of our web lives. Therefore, anti-FP discussions around here are not about the people using, it is about self-preservation -- it's about education. Many people just don't understand the problems with FP. It's not just the code it produces, or the extensions on the server. We can't go into line-by-line problem-by-problem details of FP because it's not *just* FP - it's the whole Microsoft control game. FP is just one aspect of that. Getting caught up in the minutia of FP is missing the overall picture. So when these discussions come up, we try to give people alternative points-of-view and options like DreamWeaver. >the thought of learning how to use something to do
>something that I already know how to do put me off the idea That makes perfect sense. It is just another layer of abstraction that removes you one step from your site and users.
|
knighty
msg:938227 | 12:54 pm on Jun 26, 2001 (gmt 0) |
If you are comfortable with HTML then it should'nt make a lot of difference what package you use. Some packages just require more tweaking to get the desired results.
|
angiolo
msg:938228 | 1:55 pm on Jun 26, 2001 (gmt 0) |
>anti-frontpage attitude here? Microsoft: if you know it, you will try to avoid it!
|
toolman
msg:938229 | 4:02 pm on Jun 26, 2001 (gmt 0) |
>>>>middle ground before on FrontPage and it just doesn't hold up under scrutiny "....and the truth shall set you free..." :) Thanks BT.
|
minnapple
msg:938230 | 4:08 am on Jun 29, 2001 (gmt 0) |
Anyone remember that old anti-drug commecial? This is your ". ." . This is your ". ." . on drugs. I have been "Forced" to work with FP on occasions and I say. This is your ". ." . This is your ". ." . on FrontPage. It has to be the worst product the Microsoft ever released! I hang my head low after Brett comments, but have I have been satisfied with most of the Microsofts products I have used over the last ten years.
|
pageoneresults
msg:938231 | 4:31 am on Jun 29, 2001 (gmt 0) |
| Some packages just require more tweaking to get the desired results. |
|
I'll agree with knighty's statement above. FP can be a useful tool if your preferences are set up correctly and you understand html. Unfortunately, it does produce invalid proprietary code if you use the shortcut features that it provides such as themes or shared borders and all the other junk that is there for the new user to experiment with. I've been using it since FP97 and won't use anything else just yet. I'm using FP2000 now and have been right after its official release. I won't upgrade to FP2002 until the bugs have been worked out. View the site in my profile and you'll see what FP is capable of. Its not a graphical site, but I manage over 20 other sites that have all been built in FP and function almost trouble free across most browser platforms. The Mac has been an issue but I've managed to figure out what code FP generates that is not 100% compatible. I purchased the Dreamweaver/Fireworks studio when it was at version 2.0 and found it to be a little too technical in some aspects, that was back then. Dreamweaver has its faults also and its just a matter of preference. FP in the wrong hands can wreak havoc. FP in the right hands can produce sites that are compliant and are pleasing to the eye. And on top of that, secure top positions in the search engines!
|
|
