D
d
Why use FP over other?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
S
Steve Easton
Because it's hard to publish using Notepad.
--
Steve Easton
Microsoft MVP FrontPage
95isalive
This site is best viewed............
........................with a computer
--
Steve Easton
Microsoft MVP FrontPage
95isalive
This site is best viewed............
........................with a computer
T
Tom Pepper Willett
Why not?
--
===
Tom "Pepper" Willett
Microsoft MVP - FrontPage
---
About FrontPage 2003:
http://office.microsoft.com/home/office.aspx?assetid=FX01085802
FrontPage 2003 Product Information:
http://www.microsoft.com/office/frontpage/prodinfo/default.mspx
Understanding FrontPage:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/office/understanding/frontpage/
===
| Why use FP over other?
|
|
|
|
|
--
===
Tom "Pepper" Willett
Microsoft MVP - FrontPage
---
About FrontPage 2003:
http://office.microsoft.com/home/office.aspx?assetid=FX01085802
FrontPage 2003 Product Information:
http://www.microsoft.com/office/frontpage/prodinfo/default.mspx
Understanding FrontPage:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/office/understanding/frontpage/
===
| Why use FP over other?
|
|
|
|
|
R
Rick Budde
Although others responses to your question are valid,
perhaps a better response would be to ask you to
define "other".
If by "other" you do mean Notepad, then the response
would be that Front Page shields you, to a great extent,
from having to learn HTML. Notepad would not.
If by "other" you mean Dreamweaver, the response would be
that the learning curve for Front Page is much shorter
than Dreamweaver.
If by "other" you mean Word or Publisher, don't even
think about using those programs to create web pages any
more than you would to use a hammer to make two boards
out of one ... a saw does a much better job. They are not
the right tool to create web pages.
perhaps a better response would be to ask you to
define "other".
If by "other" you do mean Notepad, then the response
would be that Front Page shields you, to a great extent,
from having to learn HTML. Notepad would not.
If by "other" you mean Dreamweaver, the response would be
that the learning curve for Front Page is much shorter
than Dreamweaver.
If by "other" you mean Word or Publisher, don't even
think about using those programs to create web pages any
more than you would to use a hammer to make two boards
out of one ... a saw does a much better job. They are not
the right tool to create web pages.
C
chris leeds
IMHO:
It's great for maintaining and publishing/ managing a bunch of sites. It's
integrated pretty well with office etc. so it's a familiar interface. the
publish function does a whole lot more than that.
I think now with fp 03 out, some of the valid reasons people would have
chosen the "others" is are rendered moot.
the fp 03 interface, split view, better and more broad publishing abilities,
and the little mentioned but great "clip library" are just great.
/IMHO
HTH
--
Chris Leeds,
Microsoft MVP FrontPage
The email address on this posting is a "black hole". I got tired of all the
spam.
Please feel free to contact me here:
http://nedp.net/contact/
It's great for maintaining and publishing/ managing a bunch of sites. It's
integrated pretty well with office etc. so it's a familiar interface. the
publish function does a whole lot more than that.
I think now with fp 03 out, some of the valid reasons people would have
chosen the "others" is are rendered moot.
the fp 03 interface, split view, better and more broad publishing abilities,
and the little mentioned but great "clip library" are just great.
/IMHO
HTH
--
Chris Leeds,
Microsoft MVP FrontPage
The email address on this posting is a "black hole". I got tired of all the
spam.
Please feel free to contact me here:
http://nedp.net/contact/
C
crlackey
1. Frontpage is the most powerful publisher I have encountered. Far
ahead of Dreamweaver.
Dreamweaver publisher sucks if you have a non-basic site. You will
end up with missing files (images or thumbnails) that you have to
recognize the problem and re-address publishing same.
2. Sadly, Frontpage 2003 regressed a publishing feature that was in
FP2000, but you won't miss it having never seen it.
3. My favorite feature as compared to Dreamweaver: FP does a magnificent
job when you insert an image into a page or table cell or layer, and you
can create the thunbnail with one click on the pictures tool bar. Link
from thumbnail to picture is automatic. With dreamweaver you have to get
their addon or become image editing proficient.
Negative:
1. Still uses MS Proprietary functions (when html and java solutions
exist already) which requires you to use a server with Front Page
Extensions... tends to force you to used a Windows server... (which cost
a little more) some exceptions noted, and improving.
Front Page extensions are easy to use when compared to doing it the
right way.
2. Frontpage frames step on Dreamweaver frames or vise-versa. Be
careful if you use both on the frames page. It will drive you crazy
figuring what happened.
FrontPage is definately the better choice for the beginner.
Carl
ahead of Dreamweaver.
Dreamweaver publisher sucks if you have a non-basic site. You will
end up with missing files (images or thumbnails) that you have to
recognize the problem and re-address publishing same.
2. Sadly, Frontpage 2003 regressed a publishing feature that was in
FP2000, but you won't miss it having never seen it.
3. My favorite feature as compared to Dreamweaver: FP does a magnificent
job when you insert an image into a page or table cell or layer, and you
can create the thunbnail with one click on the pictures tool bar. Link
from thumbnail to picture is automatic. With dreamweaver you have to get
their addon or become image editing proficient.
Negative:
1. Still uses MS Proprietary functions (when html and java solutions
exist already) which requires you to use a server with Front Page
Extensions... tends to force you to used a Windows server... (which cost
a little more) some exceptions noted, and improving.
Front Page extensions are easy to use when compared to doing it the
right way.
2. Frontpage frames step on Dreamweaver frames or vise-versa. Be
careful if you use both on the frames page. It will drive you crazy
figuring what happened.
FrontPage is definately the better choice for the beginner.
Carl
M
Murray
Dreamweaver publisher sucks if you have a non-basic site. You will
This is clearly nonsense.
You only need to have Fireworks, which many (most?) web developers already
use.
I can't figure out what you are saying here. FP uses ordinary HTML frames
(i.e., nothing proprietary), as does Dreamweaver. There is no conflict.
Both programs have a learning curve. The steepness of the curve will depend
on the understanding of HTML that you bring to the table.
end up with missing files (images or thumbnails) that you have to
recognize the problem and re-address publishing same.
This is clearly nonsense.
With dreamweaver you have to get
their addon or become image editing proficient.
You only need to have Fireworks, which many (most?) web developers already
use.
2. Frontpage frames step on Dreamweaver frames or vise-versa. Be
careful if you use both on the frames page. It will drive you crazy
figuring what happened.
I can't figure out what you are saying here. FP uses ordinary HTML frames
(i.e., nothing proprietary), as does Dreamweaver. There is no conflict.
FrontPage is definately the better choice for the beginner.
Both programs have a learning curve. The steepness of the curve will depend
on the understanding of HTML that you bring to the table.
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.