|
| |
|
[Poll]
|
FrontPage 2003 - Will you?
|
| Yes, Ill upgrade when it comes out |
|
| Perhaps after SP1... |
|
| I think Ill stick with FP2002 |
|
| I think Ill stick with FP2000 |
|
| I think Ill stick with FP98 |
|
| I think Ill stick with FP97 |
|
| FrontPage? Whats that? |
|
Total Votes : 154
|
(last vote on : 6/29/2007 18:30:56)
(Poll will run till: -- )
|
|
|
|
|
Spooky
Posts: 26606
Joined: 11/11/1998
From: Middle Earth
Status: offline
 |
FrontPage 2003 - Will you? - 6/23/2003 23:08:45
From what youve read or seen about Frontpage 2003, will you be upgrading and why?
If not, what would it require for you to want to upgrade?
_____________________________
If you arent part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
§þ k¥
|
|
|
|
abbeyvet
Posts: 5095
From: Kilkenny Ireland
Status: offline
|
RE: FrontPage 2003 - Will you? - 6/24/2003 5:16:39
Based on what I have read, no I will not.
Why not?
- It does not seem to have anything new that is of interest to individuals building sites - as distinct from companies building intranets/extranets. The tight integration with Office which seems to be a part of this release would not suit me: " FrontPage users can create the front end to whatever is available from other parts of the Office suite"
Since this is not something I have ever needed or wanted to do, it doesn' t offer anything to me that I need.
- On a personal level I don' t use extensions anyway, but if I did I would be concerned that the change from use of extensions to sharepoint services or whatever they are called would be a problem rather than an benefit.
- I am accustomed to, happy with and intend to continue using the ' PALM' combination (PHP, Apache, Linux, MySQL). I have no intention of changing this and have turned down work where working on a Windows server was part of the deal. I think most of the ' high end' changes, if you like to call them that, will require a Windows platform. Could be wrong about that, but it sure looks that way to me.
- They are making a big thing out of some new " Layout tables" feature, which seems odd when the rest of the world is starting to move away from tables as a means of layout.
- Although apparantly " This version of FrontPage does not require hand coding for style sheets, as did previous editions" I don' t trust that. Don' t ask me why, I just don' t. I have a feeling that those style sheets might make beautiful layouts in IE, but I would be dubious about their cross browser compatibility.
One thing I do rather fancy though is the split screen view - code in one, page in the other. That would be nice, but not enough for an upgrade.
_____________________________
Katherine
:: InKK Design :: InKK Domains
| |
|
|
|
Shirley
Posts: 3127
Joined: 1/8/1999
From: Omaha, Ne USA
Status: offline
|
RE: FrontPage 2003 - Will you? - 6/24/2003 9:57:36
I am with Katherine on this one.
I don' t use FP extensions on new sites and am slowly eliminating the need for them them on older sites.
I have lots of forms to convert to php or perl : )
_____________________________
Everything But Cake
| |
|
|
|
moose
Posts: 200
Joined: 4/6/2002
From: Plumpton NSW Australia
Status: offline
|
RE: FrontPage 2003 - Will you? - 6/24/2003 21:48:48
I have to agree with the comments already made here... I am happy with FP2k2 - it does what I need it to do...
It doesn' t work in Win98 - which is another problem. All our PCs at Wild Purple run Win98 (although my machine will get an upgrade shortly when it gets repalced for a new PC - which will see XP step into the office - hehehe. that' ll be fun).
Am gonna have a look at 1st Page too...
_____________________________
L8R,
Moose
http://www.wildpurple.com.au
| |
|
|
|
Peppergal
Posts: 2207
Joined: 9/20/2002
Status: offline
|
RE: FrontPage 2003 - Will you? - 6/25/2003 9:12:40
I' ve been looking into Dreamweaver myself.
I got pushed into front page by a guy who wanted me to make a website for him, but he insisited that I use Front Page. Since I was trying to learn HTML the old fashioned way, I was resisting, until he said he' d buy it for me. Oh! Okay, I' ll use it then. LOL
I like it okay...it pretty much does what I want it to do...all I can say is thank GOODNESS I found this forum, because I would have begun hating FP a long time ago. As it is now, FP and I have an understanding...it' s a working relationship, I guess.
It' s not a piece of software that I love. I like it alright. ..but not enough to cough up more money to upgrade.
As opposed to Paint Shop Pro. I love, love, love that software, and as soon as I get the $$$ I' m going to purchase PSP 8.
_____________________________
Northeast PA / Poconos/ Lake Wallenpaupack Real Estate
wallenpaupacklakeproperty.com
Karen's Real Estate Blog
| |
|
|
|
ajdevies
Posts: 113
Joined: 6/19/2002
From: Holly Hill, FL
Status: offline
|
RE: FrontPage 2003 - Will you? - 6/25/2003 11:26:42
quote:
I' ll probably go for it when it comes out but only if I can get the company to pay for it. - Mike54
I hope by " company" you meant Microsoft, Mike54! (LOL)
I' ve actually stopped using FP2002 so much and gone back to hand-coding. I got tired of ' repairing' code I wrote, only to have FP2002 change it to FP2002' s default, and yes, I made changes to the ' default' template, but FP2002 still switches it back on every new page I create.
I use FP2002 for my basic layout, then start typing like a demon (60wpm) in Notepad, which has never changed a character I' ve typed, or I use cut and paste from a Wordpad document supplied by my client.
< Message edited by ajdevies -- 6/25/2003 11:27:35 AM >
_____________________________
AJ
| |
|
|
|
cfilut
Posts: 57
Joined: 4/9/2003
Status: offline
|
RE: FrontPage 2003 - Will you? - 6/25/2003 11:40:03
I have been using fp2003 for about a month now and i have found the upgrades to be significant. It has an entire behavior section that calls javascript, checks browser compatibility, controls flash, makes jump menus, creates pop up windows, pop up messages, preloads images sets text of status bar and much more.
The search and replace was upgraded to search and replace html, there is an entire Interactive button section that gives you a choice of at least 50 different interactive buttons to choose from for creating simple but nice graphical buttons.
You can optimize your html when publishing to get rid of all html comments, cell formatting and table comments, script comments, all html whitespace,also, everyones favorite, the generator and ProgID tags.
Publishing is also easier, fp now has included functions like publishing local to remote, remote to local and synchcronize.
The dynamic web template looks really cool too but I haven' t played too much with that yet.
My advice to anyone who has worked with FP in the past and really likes using it, the upgrade is certainly worth it, just for the split view code and design alone. Once you dive in and start working with it, you will definitely see the difference. My parents still run windows 95 because they like it, but we all know windows XP is soooo much better right?
< Message edited by cfilut -- 6/25/2003 11:43:32 AM >
| |
|
|
|
vansmack
Posts: 6
From: Washington, DC USA
Status: offline
|
RE: FrontPage 2003 - Will you? - 6/25/2003 11:42:35
You' re not alone susandennis.
I have been using the beta version as well, and I won' t go back either. Like most new products, the descriptions in magazines don' t offer much help on new advantages for users. But once you use the product, it' s the little thing that sold me.
And you' re absolutely right, the split screen alone is something I can' t do without now that I' ve been using it.
As for the databases, I' ve always felt that FP (and most web eidtors for that matter) has never done this properly and I handcode most of those anyway.
For those weary of upgrading, Outlook 2003 is worth it alone, so spend a few extra dollars on the professional version of the office suite and add FP. Standalone FP users, I recommend trying it out before you upgrade, but I' m pretty sure you' ll like it.
| |
|
|
|
stevec
Posts: 27
Joined: 4/18/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
RE: FrontPage 2003 - Will you? - 6/25/2003 11:46:59
quote:
I' ve been looking into Dreamweaver myself.
I purchased the FP2003 beta and used it for a few months. I very much liked the split screen interface and some of the new functionality. I learned that, in the opinion of some, MS " borrowed" some of the functionality ideas from Dreamweaver and so I downloaded the Dreamweaver demo and learned it and used it for a month. Now I' m hooked on DW and purchased the entire MX suite. I won' t be using FP anymore except to update old sites.
Ultimately, I think that web technology and design has moved beyond MS and their proprietary extensions. I am disappointed that this is the best they can do for 2003 and that their overall scheme seems to be getting people to buy into sharepoint and their other products. I think that is arrogant of them.
The other main reason is that even the 2003 version does not play well with php/mysql, whereas Dreamweaver accommodates both very well. FP kept screwing up my php code.
Not knocking FP. It served my needs for many years and I believe it is a fine tool for most people. I think I am outgrowing it and microsoft though and want to work with a tool that is purely desgned to serve my web building needs, not serve as a platform to try to get me hooked on other MS wares.
Steve
| |
|
|
|
orbiker
Posts: 2
Joined: 8/8/2002
Status: offline
|
RE: FrontPage 2003 - Will you? - 6/25/2003 11:58:53
I post my sites to a Linux box running FP extensions. Will there be any adverse effects if I were to change to FP 2003?
Thanks,
orbiker
| |
|
|
|
tippie
Posts: 19
Joined: 6/4/2003
Status: offline
|
RE: FrontPage 2003 - Will you? - 6/25/2003 12:38:34
I must admit that I' m an update junkie and usually update, if for no other reason than I like to be current. I have just loaded the Beta version of fp2003 and have not yet really had a chance to look it over good. But I do like the new upload screen and the split screen. I just started using CSS and on 2003 it is easy to move the boxes around and change parameters. I don' t know if you can do that in FP2002 - never tried CSS on 2002 and don' t now have it on my machine.
| |
|
|
|
Gil
Posts: 7533
From: North Carolina, USA
Status: offline
|
RE: FrontPage 2003 - Will you? - 6/25/2003 13:13:25
quote:
cfilut
It has an entire behavior section that calls javascript, checks browser compatibility, controls flash, makes jump menus, creates pop up windows, pop up messages, preloads images sets text of status bar and much more.
The search and replace was upgraded to search and replace html, there is an entire Interactive button section that gives you a choice of at least 50 different interactive buttons to choose from for creating simple but nice graphical buttons.
You can optimize your html when publishing to get rid of all html comments, cell formatting and table comments, script comments, all html whitespace,also, everyones favorite
Publishing is also easier, fp now has included functions like publishing local to remote, remote to local and synchcronize
quote:
susandennis
The split screen itself (code on top, wysiswyg on bottom) alone is worth it to me.
Hmmm, sounds like Dreamweaver two versions go 
I still remember waiting almost 6 months for a set of extensions that worked after the 2000 to 2002 upgrade!!!!
< Message edited by Gil -- 6/25/2003 1:13:49 PM >
_____________________________
Gil Harvey, 1947-2004
| |
|
|
|
grafikat
Posts: 7
Joined: 12/26/2002
Status: offline
|
RE: FrontPage 2003 - Will you? - 6/25/2003 14:05:03
My company usually upgrades their MS stuff pretty regularly. I actually just upgraded to 2002 about a month ago, as the server I was on didn' t have the FP2002 ext. installed.
I am looking forward to the split screen. As a mac user at home, I' ve grown quite attached to it on my DW
| |
|
|
|
davids
Posts: 211
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Belgium (American)
Status: offline
|
RE: FrontPage 2003 - Will you? - 6/25/2003 17:36:27
Thanks to Spooky and all the posters for this interensting and useful thread. I am more on the pragmatic than the religious side of this. FP, Paint Shop Pro, etc are just tools and I would rather spend $200 on a new tool than 3 days!
Like Gail, I am doing small sites for small companies, and one of the points I make to clients is that with a copy of FrontPage, they will be able to update their website themselves, since I keep content in include files in a separate directory. I don' t know of another " content management solution" that is within reach of a project budgeted under €5000.
I have resisted upgrading from FP 2000, but I will most certainly move to FP 2003. Besides the split screen and other features, I will be hoping for better support for CSS and data. I have tried TopStyle, but it can only use a local preview page. Anyway, I expect I will still have to hand code ASP for data operations.
What concerns me is the move from server extensions to SharePoint. If FP 2003 does not support a common hosting setup, then this is a non-starter.
_____________________________
Davids
International Relocation Technology
| |
|
|
|
abbeyvet
Posts: 5095
From: Kilkenny Ireland
Status: offline
|
RE: FrontPage 2003 - Will you? - 6/25/2003 18:20:49
quote:
I don' t know of another " content management solution" that is within reach of a project budgeted under €5000.
In fact there are dozens of free or extremely cheap ones available written in PHP and Perl, though I like the PHP ones better.
I add a CMS to about 50% of the sites I build. The vast majority of them are under $5000, many are under $1500. Using free or open source software of this kind means that to maintain/update their site owners need nothing more than a browser and the ability to fill in forms. They can creat new pages, even new directories, safely and with minimal training - usually about an hour on the phone.
While I can see that for those using FP anyway, having a site built in it is handy, it is certainly not the most cost effective way of providing content management.
_____________________________
Katherine
:: InKK Design :: InKK Domains
| |
|
|
|
awasson
Posts: 80
From: Vancouver BC Canada
Status: offline
|
RE: FrontPage 2003 - Will you? - 6/25/2003 20:51:06
I couldn' t resist this thread
Thanks for starting the thread Spooky!
I will upgrade my tired FP 2000 in for 2003 for the better coding environment. Like most of the posts here I resisted 2002 because it lacked any real advantages.
I use FP for convenience and only really got into using it because a client wanted to develop a FrontPage website to be bundled into their S/W app about 3 years ago. The strangest thing about it is that it opened doors to more projects where clients asked about us building FrontPage sites and a familliarity with FrontPage development was a major deciding factor.
When I need to do a quick update of a site (and FP extensions are installed on the server), I' ll open the page in notepad on my local machine, make the change then open the remote site in FP and drag and drop the page. It' s faster than ftp even if I have ftp bookmarks. I often open a site in File view and right click the page select open with... Notepad, make the changes and save it up. It doesn' t matter if it' s PHP, JSP, ASP, HTML, Dot.Net or whatever. It just works.
Also, sometimes we don' t have the luxury of telling the client how best they can edit and maintain their website. (sometimes we can) I have spent many an angst ridden evening ranting about how Dreamweaver would do a better job than Adobe GoLive, or that I could build a content management system and they wouldn' t have to use such and such. The bottom line for my business is that when the client wants to use something or we' ll loose the contract, we let the client use what they want.
I don' t usually use the extensions or Database Results Wizard because I tend to build content management and DB Security systems in a modular fashion and have include files to handle my db connections and smart navigation functions rather than the dreaded global.asa. (And I like doing that kind of stuff) That being said, when used correctly, the extensions and database results wizard are pretty darn handy if you don' t enjoy hand coding. I mean, how cool is the search engine page wizard when you' re developing on a windows server!
Like most of the folks here I do a large amount of work on Linux/Unix servers so I' m not too happy when my PHP code gets moved from before the html tag and into the body, but I' ve had Dreamweaver bust up some ASP pages for me so you just have to roll with the punches I suppose.
My tools are generally notepad (not a big fan of wordpad), FP2000, Dreamweaver MX (Been a fan since version 2 and yes MX kicks ass).
The biggest draw in FrontPage 2003 for me is CSS editing without XP crashing and Support for more scripting and programming languages. Namely VB.Net and C#.Net. Dot.Net runs on NT, 2K, Xp, and Win Server 2003...
And....
There are ports of Dot.Net running on Linux so it may not be too far in the future where you' ll have the opportunity to use Open Source Dot.Net on Linux for a commercial website.
For more on that: the open source Dot.Net alternative
I won' t tie myself to FrontPage or MS (because I don' t believe in MS' ethics or lack there of about half the time) but I will upgrade to 2003 and recommend it wear it' s a good fit.
How' s that for a look on the positive side,
Andrew
< Message edited by awasson -- 6/25/2003 8:54:56 PM >
| |
|
|
|
awasson
Posts: 80
From: Vancouver BC Canada
Status: offline
|
RE: FrontPage 2003 - Will you? - 6/29/2003 22:11:25
Hey muddysideup,
There is a fairly good firewall built right into XP.
You can get to it by looking at the properties of your connection and clicking advanced.
There is a check-box for protecting your connection with the firewall at the top and settings at the bottom.
Then go to This place
There is a test called shields up that you can use to check all of your ports.
Hope you get that fixed soon,
Andrew
< Message edited by awasson -- 6/29/2003 10:12:51 PM >
| |
|
|
|
Lydecker
Posts: 609
From: Oxshott, Surrey, England (UK)
Status: offline
|
RE: FrontPage 2003 - Will you? - 6/30/2003 19:32:49
Okay have had a quick browse over at http://www.microsoft.com/office/preview/frontpage/compare.asp I honistly think that FP2003 will be a big leap. In my view FP2002 was very similar to FP2000 - but FP2003 looks set to blow us away with features such as ' IntelliSense' .
I personally am looking forward to the XML features FP2003 promises to deliver.
Anyone know when it will be released (anything more acurate then the second half of this year that is....)
Thanks!
| |
|
|
|
Justjay
Posts: 697
From: Montreal, QC Canada
Status: offline
|
RE: FrontPage 2003 - Will you? - 7/2/2003 17:28:45
Why have I stopped using FP2002 until the full version of 2003 is out...??? The split screen and the fact that 2003 does not try and correct my php thinking it is html that I screwed up on...
IMO it has nothing to do with FPSE - it is now a stronger editor, and if you are familiar with the office interface you' re going to have a whiz of a time using it...
There are things that I like about Dreamweaver (MX) and FP2003 equally and they each have thier strong points which makes me like them...so I just use the RIGHT tool for the RIGHT job...no point in take a knife from the cutlery drawer to screw in a screw...scratch up the screw, knife and whateverelse...when the screwdriver is in the next drawer down.....
_____________________________
JustJay
thejehm.net Web Solutions
SAH Link Exchange
Serious About Hosting
| |
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Printable Version 
I think Katherine is right, everything I' ve seen indicates that you won' t get much extra out of it unless you' re running it with Sharepoint Team Services or on Windows Sharepoint Services. I' ve got a Windows 2000 (play) server with STS on it for our intranet so I might be able to get something more out of FP2k3 but frankly it doesn' t look like much more than I can do with FP2K on STS now. 
) 
