FrontPage 2003 - Will you?

FrontPage 2003 - Will you? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Web Development] >> General Web Development

[Poll]

Yes, Ill upgrade when it comes out

42% (66)

Perhaps after SP1...

11% (18)

I think Ill stick with FP2002

33% (52)

I think Ill stick with FP2000

9% (15)

I think Ill stick with FP98

0% (0)

I think Ill stick with FP97

0% (0)

FrontPage? Whats that?

1% (3)

Total Votes : 154

(last vote on : 6/29/2007 18:30:56)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

Spooky -> 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?

abbeyvet -> 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.

Mike54 -> RE: FrontPage 2003 - Will you? (6/24/2003 7:27:38)
I' ll probably go for it when it comes out but only if I can get the company to pay for it.[;)] 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. It seems to me that MS is going to shoot themselves in the foot by tying FP to tightly to their other software. The way their going FP2K5 will probably only build sites viewable in MS OIB. (that would be the MS Office Integrated Browser)[8D][sm=tongue.gif][:D]

Shirley -> 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 : )

bobby -> RE: FrontPage 2003 - Will you? (6/24/2003 11:40:06)
quote: It seems to me that MS is going to shoot themselves in the foot by tying FP to tightly to their other software. Replace Front Page with any MS title above [;)] I won' t upgrade because FP 2K2 does what I need from Front Page. I already use First Page a lot, and Quanta Plus is quickly becoming one of my favorites...

gorilla -> RE: FrontPage 2003 - Will you? (6/24/2003 14:18:20)
Interesting that this is coming up here today. As it happens many of us in the " Gorilla Group" were talking about this after our meeting last night. (Held on the open sea, in other words " my place" I like living on a boat [:)]) Anyway not one of us amongst those who have or use Frontpage (that' s more than 20 of us) have upgraded from Frontpage2000 - we just didn' t feel it worth it paying the extra for the improvements between FP2000 and 2002 - not at that price. Not worth it. The reasons advanced by Katherine more or less summarise the " sense of the meeting." As a related issue. Most of us are going " all linux" - as we simply do not want to be forced into doing things the Redmond way without any choice in the matter. The meeting was to work out a rota for training courses that those of us who ar eproficient in Linux set up and admin will give to those who still aren' t. Karsten Who is rapidly advancing up the Gorilla alpha male silverback hierarchy after succesful experimentation involving gravity, unwary rivals, and vaseline on the vines [;)] København Juni 24 2003

moose -> 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...

Peppergal -> 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.

Gil -> RE: FrontPage 2003 - Will you? (6/25/2003 9:34:29)
I find myself using FP less & less - Actually I only use it now for older sites built w/ it and a few Intanets that reside on Windoze servers. The integration of PSP in Dreamweaver MX has been the best thing I' ve found lately! I agree w/ Katherine about the " PALM" combination - but have been looking ral hard at .jsp lately and the SUN one server. I see no reason to upgrade at this time - maybe if a client insist and the $ warrants? [8D]

smcfarland -> RE: FrontPage 2003 - Will you? (6/25/2003 10:56:27)
Well, I thought FP2000 had most of what I needed, but there are small things that are helpful in 2002 (reports, content inclusion, etc) and maybe the same in 2003. I only upgraded to 2002 because I was having problems with 2000 and couldn' t find my disc. [:@] I would upgrade to 2003 if there was someone interested in using it w/SharePoint and the other team services... but I am very happy with 2002 and most of my clients are as well (small businesses). Unfortunately, I am a Microsoft person :( and rather enjoy using their products -- but I guess that is because I didn' t have a mouse for years and started learning PASCAL and LOGO when I was 6 or 7. It is very comfortable and I am too busy right now to learn new things.

susandennis -> RE: FrontPage 2003 - Will you? (6/25/2003 11:09:05)
Ok, so I' m over here all by myself. No biggie. [:)] I' ve been using the 2003 beta for several months now and there is no way I would go back. The split screen itself (code on top, wysiswyg on bottom) alone is worth it to me. I' ve coded by hand and I' ve had jobs where Homesite was a requirement (oddly, one of those jobs was at Microsoft - before FrontPage was born) and jobs where Dreamweaver was a requirement. On my current job no one cares as long as the web pages look wonderful and work. I used FrontPage 2002 a fair bit but spent a lot of time hand fixing and doing work arounds. FrontPage 2003 does almost every single thing I need and want and does it fine and dandy. The only question mark I have is the database interface. The early beta screwed this up fairly severely. I' m told a code refresh out this week should clean that up. I will be purchasing 2003 for home and for work, the minute it hits the streets.

ajdevies -> 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.

abbeyvet -> RE: FrontPage 2003 - Will you? (6/25/2003 11:37:33)
quote: I will be purchasing 2003 for home and for work, the minute it hits the streets. Can I ask a question on that? If you were, and I am assuming maybe incorrectly that you are not, a user who depended on FP extensions for forms, reliable use of includes and so on, who published always (as distinct from FTPing) and who would now presumably therefore need to use the new Sharepoint Services, how would you feel about 2003? How would it perform for people who have existing sites using extensions and which will need to be worked on in the new version? Or have you had an opportunity to test these sort of things? quote: I used FrontPage 2002 a fair bit but spent a lot of time hand fixing and doing work arounds. What sort of things no longer need fixing and what sort of things needed but no longer need work arounds? The only things I have ever needed to fix is the stupid border-collapse stuff, but since I use tables less and less that is not really an issue. Maybe there are other things that I have just forgotten because I am so used to dong the fixes! [:D] I am just curious, and pleased to see a positive post on the new version, but because so many of us use FP in such different ways I think it may affect each of us differently.

cfilut -> 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?

vansmack -> 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 -> 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 -> 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

WakonTonka -> RE: FrontPage 2003 - Will you? (6/25/2003 12:20:12)
I' m going to upgrade myself, simply to learn the sharepoint aspects of FP2003, but I am planning to make Dreamweaver my design tool of choice. I just like it better, but I will still use Photoshop and FP. [8D]

tippie -> 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 -> 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 [:D] I still remember waiting almost 6 months for a set of extensions that worked after the 2000 to 2002 upgrade!!!!

grafikat -> 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

_gail -> RE: FrontPage 2003 - Will you? (6/25/2003 14:38:24)
Here' s some thoughts from one of the " little guys" who creates small websites for small businesses and organizations, designing as I sit in my home office in my jammies. [:D] I may just change my mind and upgrade after reading some of the new comments in this thread and checking out the MS comparison chart: http://www.microsoft.com/office/preview/frontpage/compare.asp#section1 I' ve never had a need to pay attention to the office integration stuff. I just pretend like it isn' t there. As to FP 2003, I like what I' ve read as it relates to my kind of web design work. I am now comfortable with FrontPage, having become familiar with some of its peculiarities and learned to work with or in spite of them. Along with Photoshop and Outlook, I use FrontPage more than any other program. I always upgrade programs I use a lot and have rarely, if ever, been disappointed. I' ll skip the beta version though. gail

davids -> 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.

abbeyvet -> 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.

awasson -> RE: FrontPage 2003 - Will you? (6/25/2003 20:51:06)
I couldn' t resist this thread [:D] 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

leehintz -> RE: FrontPage 2003 - Will you? (6/26/2003 16:47:18)
I will go ahead and upgrade. I am a Microsoft wpd and like the idea that they are trying to include features that make FrontPage more like Dreamweaver and gain more creditability as a professional' s Web design tool. [8\|]

muddysideup -> RE: FrontPage 2003 - Will you? (6/28/2003 14:06:01)
I`m another one who got caught up in Front Page and as the commercial websites I administer are in that format would find it hard to change. But.... I REALLY LIKE Front Page.... [8\|] My current problem is that I recently upgraded to a new PC with Windows XP and didn`t install a firewall as there was so much other stuff to install.. Unfortunately a hacker got into my PC and left a gateway to one of the websites, making three visits in total. I got rid of him and installed a firewall and bought Frontpage 2002 upgrade as someone told me it had more security features. I thought it would integrate with FP2000 but no; when I altered the borders on one website, it altered them on all the websites!! I have uninstalled the upgrade and re-installed the FP2000 version until I can figure it out.. ANY IDEAS anyone?? Please.... pretty please [&:]

awasson -> 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

Lydecker -> 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 -> 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.....

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

0.109375