| 6:09 pm on Oct 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
ha! know what you mean, i started on dw2, moved to ultradev when i started building an asp site - and it really helped me get going, although i've by now rewritten nearly all the code by hand, but it gets you going quick, once you've learnt it. This year bought mx2004 and my it is a busy interface, hardly use it and wonder if it was worth the money, but it does have php support now - and for banging out a skeleton dynamic site is quick.
but what you already know counts for a lot, personally i'd say if you are coding straight html sites don't bother changing. if you are building dynamic sites then dwmx is fantastic but be prepared to rewrite a lot of the code if you are fussy, if not it does a good job anyway, plus the learning curve is quite steep, and unless you really learn to use the functionality then why bother using it.
| 7:13 am on Oct 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The one that's best is the one that works best for you. If you're happy with FrontPage (or Dreamweaver, or anything else), why change for the sake of change?
| 1:27 pm on Oct 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
| 12:34 am on Nov 4, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I agree with europeforvisitors. Use which one you're comfortable with. They are all just tools. The final product will be the same regardless.
| 12:42 am on Nov 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Dreamweaver writes better code. Macromedia specializes in web tools. Web tools are just a small part of Microsoft's arsenal.
Anyone can learn Dreamweaver. You will find it more intuitive than Front Page.
| 1:42 am on Nov 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Anyone can learn Dreamweaver. You will find it more intuitive than FrontPage. |
Have you seen FrontPage 2003? ;)
|Dreamweaver writes better code. |