Front Page 2003 Beta Software

[Ken Salisbury]

I just ordered the Microsoft Office 2003 Beta Version, primarily so I could test the Front Page 2003 software. I use FP 2002 in generating and maintaining my 2 web sites. Has anyone used this yet. Comments?

[Aaron Koehl]

I just ordered the Microsoft Office 2003 Beta Version, primarily so I could test the Front Page 2003 software. I use FP 2002 in generating and maintaining my 2 web sites. Has anyone used this yet. Comments?

Can't say that I have-- I do all of my editing with Dreamweaver and Notepad. :D

_Aaron_

[Ted Shrader]

Ken -

I stick with Arachnophilia. The FrontPage editions put too much overhead in the pages for me.

Ted

[Ron Meadows]

Dreamweaver here too. Frontpage generates tons of needless code that makes your site(s) load slower

[Dan McLaughlin]

I'm in the same boat as Aaron. We use Dreamweaver

[Jim Becker]

I just ordered the Microsoft Office 2003 Beta Version, primarily so I could test the Front Page 2003 software. I use FP 2002 in generating and maintaining my 2 web sites. Has anyone used this yet. Comments?

I also bagged FP in favor of Dreamweaver so that my site would look the same for all CSS compliant browsers. I had a LOT of problems with non-IE users when my site was built and maintained with FrontPage.

[Ken Salisbury]

Posted by Ron Meadows - Today at 2:25 PM
Dreamweaver here too. Frontpage generates tons of needless code that makes your site(s) load slower
Posted by Ted Shrader - Today at 2:05 PM
I stick with Arachnophilia. The FrontPage editions put too much overhead in the pages for me.

I am aware the above concerns - I do have Dreamweaver but have never taken the time to climb the learning curve on it. I have used Front Page since long before the birth of Dreamweaver and can walk through it like a weasle through a hen house (as they say in Alabama). All of the reviews that I have read indicate this new Front Page will compete with DW. That is why I am curious if anyone has tried the Beta Version yet. I am sure with my past experience with Front Page that it would be easier for me than to take the time to climb that steep learning curve for DW.

[Jim Becker]

[b]I am sure with my past experience with Fron Page that it would be easier for me than to take the time to climb that steep learning curve for DW.

I, too, was worried about that, but found that DreamWeaver MX was actually very easy to learn--and I did it on the fly while I was converting my site to it's present CSS format. To me, it was more intuitive than FP. But then again, that was me! There is no harm in trying out the next FP, especially since the price is low for the beta and you can always make an alternative decision later.

[Ken Salisbury]

Can't say that I have-- I do all of my editing with Dreamweaver and Notepad. :D

_Aaron_

Yeah - but you are a computer wizard and I am just a dumb old man :D

[Jim Becker]

Yeah - but you are a computer wizard and I am just a dumb old man :D

Au contrair! You're a FAR better photo editor than I am and that takes considerable skill...and comfort with the computer. Besides, you were close to computers before I knew they existed given your association with the Itty Bitty Machine Company!

[Don Henthorn Smithville, TX]

I am pretty computer ignorant. I have used Netscape Composer and Notepad to make my websites, but find it pretty limiting. What is this Dreamweaver stuff? Is it an expensive program beyond the needs of an amateur?

[Jim Becker]

I am pretty computer ignorant. I have used Netscape Composer and Notepad to make my websites, but find it pretty limiting. What is this Dreamweaver stuff? Is it an expensive program beyond the needs of an amateur?

Don, <a href="http://www.macromedia.com/software/dreamweaver/" target="_new">Dreamweaver</a> is not inexpensive ($369 at Amazon), nor is FrontPage when you get down to it. (You can download and try it for free for a month, however) This is kinda like one of those tool buying decisions...actually it's the same as tool buying as the application is the "tool" you use to build and maintain your web site. Both FP and DW allow normal humans to do that, yet offer a huge assortment of features useful for large or complex web sites. Both are visual development tools, too...you see what the page looks like while you build it...yet have the ability to tweak the actual code if you need to and know how.

I would suggest to you that if your web work is something you enjoy and you want to have the ability to get really creative without writing a lot of code, either of these two programs are great and worth consideration of the investment. I like DW better as it offers much better compatibility with a variety of browsers...it's not IE-centric. It's a real pro tool, yet easy to learn and use. I took advantage of it's great support for Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) when I made the current version of my site...no tables, other than a few in specific articles to separate pictures and text, such as the thumbnails for my kitchen project progress. Everything is formatted and positioned from one external file, which means I can easily change the whole site's look in a few minutes.

But there are a few less-expensive programs out there, too, that offer better features than Composer and Notepad. Check any online retail software source for web development programs to see what's available.