Forum Moderators: open
Other than graphics, and if you through out the shared borders and bad themes is there really a difference?
I learned to use both in school, I'm not finished up with dreamweaver, but I think the coolest thing about it is creating a link using the crosshair to point to a file, or it is more convenient to link to a bookmark on another page. I don't know much but is there something more significant that I'm missing?
Is one more stable? What if you were more worried about integrating a database with nested search results several layers deep? Or integrating a shopping cart? What about using a .net and sql server instead of Linux/unix and mysql; is there a different aspect there or no difference at all in the design tool?
Plus DreamweaverMX comes with pre-made code snippets for Accessible tables and navigation elements. Under the file menu, there's also an option to check your page for acessibility.
-MC
Just a few things I noticed right off the bat...
1. Shared borders are now a feature you have to actually go in and turn on
2. FP now has layers and a pretty descent table editor
3. You can 'clean up' your code pretty easily with a built in code checker
4. There is now a split code/design view like Dreamweaver
5. I still would never connect to a database with anything other than a hard coded database connection
6. I still wish I had the same type of debugging available in Visual Studio in FP (maybe I'm just missing something)
If you use FrontPage to design or develop websites, you pretty much guarantee that they will only look and work right in Internet Explorer.
**sigh**
Though I hate to contradict someone so expert, this is just rubbish. Frequently repeated rubbish it must be said, to the point where it has become accepted as fact by way too many people who really know FP very little.
I, and many others I know, use FP as a tool (among others in the toolbox) to develop cross-browser compatible sites using valid CSS and HTML (and increasingly xhtml).
The key in that is that FP is just a tool - that's it, nothing more. Any tool is only as good as the person using it and for any person the best tool is the one they know best and are most comfortable with.
For some that is Dreamweaver, for some FP, for some Notepad, for some Homesite etc etc.
So my advice is to play as many different options as you can and then primarily use the one you are most comfortable with.
I do find FP to publish a little easier, I have published one site with dreamweaver. Another site won't, DW will connect, but gets ftp errors for each page. When I look at remote view, it is an empty folder. DW did however pull the site down from the server so I could Sync up, and it got everything. FP Always downloads a site with the pages that are accessable, not the cgi stuff or teh important folders. FP did not ask for a password either.
It's like making pie crust or cookie dough: Some people like a mixer, others like a food processor. The first offers more control and hands-on involvement; the second is faster and less likely to splash flour on the countertop. Which is better? That depends on entirely on the chef's personal tastes. Whether you're a pastry chef or a person creating Web pages, you shouldn't base tool-buying decisions on other people's likes and dislikes. You need to learn what works best for you.
FP is a tool. If you make bad pages in FP you'll probaly make bad pages in DW. It's not the software that's the problem anymore...
FP2003 looks to be a much better tool than previous versions. I'd wait until after it's released on October 21 to pronounce judgement.
Yes, FP 97 did mess with your HTML a bit, and there wasn't much you could do about it
FP2000 does too. Go to insert>advanced>html and post a simple <a href="mysite.com"...</a> code. FP will insert <!--webbot bot="HTMLMarkup" startspan --> and <!--webbot bot="HTMLMarkup" endspan -->
Now you can't see what you are doing in "Normal" mode as that link text doesn't show up at all till you remove that stupid startspan and endspan text in html view.
There are a million such annoyances. The only reason I continue to use FP is because I can't be bothered/don't have the time to learn DW.
Go to insert>advanced>html and post a simple <a href="mysite.com"...</a> code.
Why would you do that when you can just right click and 'Create Hyperlink' and will have no such problem?
I have been using FP for years and I don't believe I ever used Insert>Advanced>HTML. I just put the HTML in in HTML view and never have a problem.
<!-- GeoTrust QuickSSL [tm] Smart Icon tag. Do not edit. -->
<SCRIPT LANGUAGE="JavaScript" TYPE="text/javascript" SRC="//smarticon.geotrust.com/si.js"></SCRIPT>
<!-- end GeoTrust Smart Icon tag -->
<!-- webbot bot="HTMLMarkup" endspan -->
FP2000 does too. Go to insert>advanced>html and post a simple <a href="mysite.com"...</a> code. FP will insert <!--webbot bot="HTMLMarkup" startspan --> and <!--webbot bot="HTMLMarkup" endspan -->That's not a bug, it's a feature ;)
That's the way the WYSIWYG adds HTML from the WYSIWYG interface. If you look at it, it's really just comments. FP interprets these so that they show up in the WYSIWYG a certain way. It's been like that since FP97 at least. FP is not altering your code, you chose to use an FP bot from the WYSIWYG and FP just put a wrapper around it. Your code inside is safe and has not been altered in any way. The comments don't do anything to your HTML any more than your own comments would...they validate too.
Now, if you had entered this HTML from the HTML pane and had your options set not to let FP reformat your code, then there would be no problem, even in FP2K.
<!--webbot bot="HTMLMarkup" startspan --><!--webbot bot="HTMLMarkup" endspan -->
Also what is the virus like code? I never heard of it in microsoft, but then again I start My first website a year ago.
"To improve the predicament which they've created, Microsoft is forcing consumers to accept MO3 embedded into every computer. Listen closely and you'll hear Microsoft mouth pieces speak of "turning software into a service" which really means they will be changing the software on your computer whenever they feel like it. They will slowly limit your ability to run non-Microsoft software."
At school, the dreamweaver users and teacher think I'm crazy for saying that fp is as good as dw. Or at least up to par anyway. But then again no one knew FP 03 exists. I have not used DW 04. I currently am learning DW at a school program and the class is moving a bit slow. I have not learneed the real capabilities of DW so I may seem a little biased.
[dramatic pause]
I will never go back to FP. They could make it spit a T-Bone steak out of my monitor every time I open it and it wouldn't be worth it.
Messing with Dreamweaver for the first time was like a religious awakening for me... I was born again! Nowadays I hard code the majority of my stuff since I use php a lot, but I still do my coding in Dreamweaver.
I have used CSS for quite a while in DW and now maybe with FP2003 they might be catching up with technology, but FP2002 appears to me to have minimal <div> layout or formating capabilities(at least that I have not found yet). I could not select a <div> that was previously created and format the background, FP2002 would format the TEXT in the <div>.
Im sticking with DW, be interesting to see how FP2003 is updated though.
Not true of the latest versions!
This sounds like someone who either used a Pre 2000 version or doesn't know how to use it.
You can tune it to work with other browsers, or, tell it to "leave my code alone" meaning don't make changes you don't know about.
I use it for most things and find it works great for the later Nutscape browsers as well. The DHTML it generates is not the greatest, but then if you know DHTML, you won't use the built-in for that anyway!
The above comment applied only to pre-2000 versions of FP, in my opinion.
I have Dreamweaver mx, but find it totally hard to use, the screen is so cluttered you can't see much of your own code or page. I don't want to take a college level course to use it, I want to install it and sit and use it within a few minutes. With FP, you can do that.
Don't get me wrong, FP has quirks and there are times I HATE it, really, but it's the easiest to use and does get a bum rap a lot - like the comments above show.
Shadows Papa.
FP 2003 - cost? Availability? Page to view for details?
Shadows Papa
