Is Frontpage 2000 as bad as everyone says it is. I have used it and find it to be a very extraordinary tool. The price is what it is but you can't really change that. I mean i used other html editors but this seems to give me the best deal? Any comments

Originally posted by TheComputerGuy
Is Frontpage 2000 as bad as everyone says it is. I have used it and find it to be a very extraordinary tool. The price is what it is but you can't really change that. I mean I used other html editors but this seems to give me the best deal? Any comments

Alot of users love it but alot of host and I quote call it the "Bane" of their exsistance *G* ...Recently (on another thread) I was talking about how I didnt like Dreamweaver because of the interface..I found a WYSIWYG Editor that doesnt require extentions or put in junk code that I really like. http://www.namo.com (which is high praise from someone who swore she would never use a WYSIWYG Editor)

Im using it to do layouts..and then using Homesite 4.5.1 for hard coding (along with all my treasured freeware apps LOL)

I think the bottomline is what works best for you..we each have our own style just like each editor does.

Good Luck:)

From a Dreamweaver boy:

I'll stick with Macromedia :) It writes very clean code contrary to the 'hard coders' opinion. Also the ability to extend it through the Macromedia Exchange is a valuable addition.

In contrast Frontpage uses a lot of 'bot' scripts to clutter up code as well as writing very bloated html. This is very evident in it's writing of tables (they're HUGE code wise). Uploading has an odd slant too with their 'publisher'. Dreamweaver uses an ftp model which makes more sense to most people.

FP 2000 is apparently a large improvement on previous versions, but it's still second to Dreamweaver in almost any review you'll ever read online or off.

Haven't looked at Namo but after parting with the money for DrmWeav I don't think I'll be swapping any time soon *grin*

Greg Moore
http://www.akashik.net

I'm a Dreamweaver user, I would not trade it for the world but ... I must admit that Fromtpage Extentions are a godsent for people that don't know CGI, it would be nice to see them in other packages.

I have not used Dreamweaver, so I can't compare FrontPage to it. I can say that, as a host with FrontPage users, I have not had problems with it. I have gotten a disproportionate amount of support requests from clients who use it, but I have noticed that these are from newbies who may very well have just as many questions (if not more) if they were using FTP and hardcoding. I think it has a worse reputation then it now deserves.
*note* it does still produce bloated code though. :(

Two months ago I had the same opinion as you Computer Guy, FP was fast, simple and then you could edit it in Notepad. But after getting fimiliar with DW 2 I could not go back to FP2000. After you learn the shortcuts and stuff for DW you won't either. In my opinion FP2000 is an inferior product.

But at the end of the day you can produce a website (of near enough the exact same code) in both of them.

I would recommend Hot Metal Pro too (as an FP user switching you will probably find amazing), very good WYSIWYG html editor, the last version I used was version 4 pro and prior to that version 3 light, version 6 is know out, in the UK it's £89 so in the US you could probably get it cheaper perhaps $100. Version 6 has some very favourable reviews, and I will get a demo of this version to see what it really can do.

Originally posted by akashik
From a Dreamweaver boy:

I'll stick with Macromedia :) It writes very clean code contrary to the 'hard coders' opinion. Also the ability to extend it through the Macromedia Exchange is a valuable addition.

In contrast Frontpage uses a lot of 'bot' scripts to clutter up code as well as writing very bloated html. This is very evident in it's writing of tables (they're HUGE code wise). Uploading has an odd slant too with their 'publisher'. Dreamweaver uses an ftp model which makes more sense to most people.

FP 2000 is apparently a large improvement on previous versions, but it's still second to Dreamweaver in almost any review you'll ever read online or off.

Haven't looked at Namo but after parting with the money for DrmWeav I don't think I'll be swapping any time soon *grin*

Greg Moore
http://www.akashik.net


I finally figured out how to use Dreamweaver and arrange the tool bars so I wont go mad from the clutter *G* Seeing as I got it as a gift..Im going to use it opposed to Namo...one of the deciding factors is how well it intergrates with Homesite.

If it wasnt for all of you going on about dreamweaver I would have not given it a fair shake:)

Well I have noticed something wierd about Front Page.. It makes the page size bigger then what notepad would make it.

For eg.
A simple page with a table and 2 rows and 2 cells and some text, would be abt 2kb in size in Front Page, and only .5kb -1kb in notepad. [ these are just approximate values ] This is a BIG problem according to me. That 1kb -1.5kb can make a big difference to load times! Load time is the most important thing for any designer or website!

[Edited by kunal on 09-10-2000 at 03:36 PM]

Hi Kunal,

The file size differences between FP and Notepad is because FP automatically adds its extra (or bloated, or often unnecessary) HTML code.

Remember, in the end an HTML page is nothing but a file containing ASCII text. This simply means that every extra character or hard space or line break inserted will just add up bytes to the sum total of the file size.

That is why web designers, after generating their code in HTML editors such as FP, will "clean up" the bloated/unnecessary code.

Here is an example of what would be considered bloated/unnecessary code often produced by many of the HTML editors out there:

<b><font face="Arial,Helvetica"><font color="#C0C0C0"><font size="+1">This is the first line of text</font></font></font></b>
<br>
<b><font face="Arial,Helvetica"><font color="#C0C0C0"><font size="+1">This is the second line of text</font></font></font></b>

One can clean up this code (which will produce the same results) by writing it this way:

<b><font face="Arial,Helvetica"><font color="#C0C0C0"><font size="+1">This is the first line of text<br>This is the second line of text</font></font></font></b>

An even cleaner code would look like this (where the attributes for font face, color and size are contained in the Body tag as the default font attributes:

<b>This is the first line of text<br>This is the second line of text</b>

All the three examples above will produce the same look when opened in most browsers.

So Kunal, I hope this helps you understand better one of the major causes of why file sizes are different when two or more different HTML editors are used.

Regards,

Learner

[Edited by Learner on 09-10-2000 at 07:08 PM]

[/B][/QUOTE]

I finally figured out how to use Dreamweaver and arrange the tool bars so I wont go mad from the clutter
[/B][/QUOTE]

*lol* yeah clutter is always a hassle, especially on a smaller monitor (try a 12 inch LCD!). I usually make sure I only have the properties and objects bars running. The launcher is duplicated in the bottom right of the main window anyway so it's pointless having it running as well. I just popup the html editor and behaviour menus as required. The main window is always full screen so I get as much as my 'page' viewable as possible.

So all in all I see what I'm working on with two menus over it. Not too much clutter at all :) With the properties bar expanded so I can see the extra detail a lot of the time I don't need anything beyond what I see all the time.

For me it's a breeze. I'm pretty use to the layouts of Photoshop, Flash, Fireworks etc etc. Now THEY have some serious clutter *lol* I suppose if you're use to notepad however it may take some getting used to. :)

**Personal brag note:

Just picked up a cheap second hand copy of Photoshop 5.02 *Whoo hoo!* Can get rid of that nasty LE version I've been using. Oh how I've missed my actions and history palettes. *chuckle*

Greg Moore
http://www.akashik.net

Originally posted by akashik



I finally figured out how to use Dreamweaver and arrange the tool bars so I wont go mad from the clutter
[/B][/QUOTE]

*lol* yeah clutter is always a hassle, especially on a smaller monitor (try a 12 inch LCD!). I usually make sure I only have the properties and objects bars running. The launcher is duplicated in the bottom right of the main window anyway so it's pointless having it running as well. I just popup the html editor and behaviour menus as required. The main window is always full screen so I get as much as my 'page' viewable as possible.

So all in all I see what I'm working on with two menus over it. Not too much clutter at all :) With the properties bar expanded so I can see the extra detail a lot of the time I don't need anything beyond what I see all the time.

For me it's a breeze. I'm pretty use to the layouts of Photoshop, Flash, Fireworks etc etc. Now THEY have some serious clutter *lol* I suppose if you're use to notepad however it may take some getting used to. :)

**Personal brag note:

Just picked up a cheap second hand copy of Photoshop 5.02 *Whoo hoo!* Can get rid of that nasty LE version I've been using. Oh how I've missed my actions and history palettes. *chuckle*

Greg Moore
http://www.akashik.net
[/B][/QUOTE]

Just picked up a cheap second hand copy of Photoshop 5.02 *Whoo hoo!*

Wahhhhhhhhhhh No fair LOL J/K enjoy it!:)

I agree that Frontpage does add a great deal of junk to the html. But I use tables very extensivley, and incorporate many excel spreadsheets within those table. I have seen nothing that is as user friendly and easy to use with regards to tables. Until that time happens, I will be using FP.

I totally agree with you Learner. The extra code that Front Page puts in your messages is what I hate!! Which is why I am a notpad lover :p


Or one can check out 1st Page 2000. I use this most the time :)

Sorry to carry on about Dreamweaver but try this...

Make your page, then select 'Clean up html'. It cleans out all the duplicate tags and crap html giving a nice clean slick product :)

Greg Moore
http://www.akashik.net

well any big versions of Dreamweaver? any one really good. I know i like some older versions than i do newer of some apps.

Macromedia has a strange approach to software where they actually DO listen to users and build suggestions into their new products. I've never seen a MM product that poorer than it's previous version :) Go for the latest and you'll do ok

Greg Moore
http://www.akashik.net

I have never liked Macromedia's Dream, windows everywhere and pretty messy in my view but then again people like different things... I personally prefer HomeSite and then use FP2000 for the tables. I have yet to see anything better in that combination. It is also what you are used to use and your skills, some prefer TextPad others HotMetal - TestDrive a couple all of them come with a trial, in that way you can see what is most suitable for you.

TheComputerGuy: In regards to your "bad" rumours of FP2000, wouldn't worry too much it isn't as bas as people like to say. Sometimes you will find it is a "status" to say "I-am-using-an-advanced-editor" but ignore that FP2000 is excellent both for the new and pros.