So Why is Frontpage Evil?

[pr0gr4mm3r]

I use FP because of the easy file transfer. It's too annoying to mess with ftp when I just want to edit a simple file. FP lets me do it w/o downloading the file first. I do not use any templates or any formatting by FP. I do everything from scratch. I know what people are talking about with browser compatibility. That's why I don't use any of FP's features. I design in FP, and have the FireFox window open in the other monitor for previewing. Works great for me.

[Twillingate.info]

I use frontpage sometimes to code my small websites, because of easy previewing. But, I always insert HTML code via the HTML tab instead of going into Insert > Advanced > HTML or whatever it is because when you do that Frontpage adds <!-- --> tags around your HTML...

...But my Frontpage is fairly old so I don't know what the new ones do.

[pr0gr4mm3r]

I use frontpage sometimes to code my small websites, because of easy previewing. But, I always insert HTML code via the HTML tab instead of going into Insert > Advanced > HTML or whatever it is because when you do that Frontpage adds <!-- --> tags around your HTML...

I never knew you could insert html that way. It seems like more clicks and more effort than just clicking the HTML tab.

[hillrunr]

But my Frontpage is fairly old so I don't know what the new ones do.

That's a good point. Once upon a time, a long time ago, I did quite a bit of my development in FP 98. It wasn't bad, didn't do too much to mangle your code as long as you used the WYSIWYG editor for simple layout purposes and always checked your code for any cleanup issues.

Then, I installed Office 2000. It took me about two days of trying to figure out why the new FP was mangling my code so badly and how I could keep it from doing that before I got fed up with it and just uninstalled it. I've heard that later versions of FP have just been getting worse.

Once you get used to working only with the code, it's not bad at all. I actually wouldn't go back to a WYSIWYG editor even if I did find a good one now.

[pr0gr4mm3r]

The only problem I have with FrontPage is when I save a file, it makes all of my picture URLs relative. I hate that. If anybody knows what to change to make FP stop doing that, I would appreciate it.

[Alienationsam]

I have had so many problems with Front Page in the past a while back the files got so messed up i have to make the whole entire site allover again using the internet files i had published on the net and copying and pasteing them to front page. I took me hours and was an absolute nightmare!

[Conbud]

I started out using FP and since learning to code more and more on my own. I am just starting to break away from them. I found out like you guys were saying that FP is IE compatable pretty much, which is not too cool these days.

[amoun]

Hi.

Well I realised FP98 was a bloted load of crap back then and stuck to FrontPage Express. The later is so simple there's little that can go wrong and it's necesssary to hard code anything other than the basics, and I didn't care about the non-ie browsers.

So it was good for simple layouts and simple sites.

However last xmas i switched to Firefox and saw my undoing. I've recently started using Nvu and am still getting used to it. FrontPage express was easy but I've given it up for Open source.

Amoun

[house_quake]

Been coming here for awhile and decided to finally post

A few fact vs. myth concerning Front Page

Most of what I have read in this thread is very much true or was at a time....

However...

I'm reading testimony based on 'older' versions of the software. None takes into account that FP has been updated every couple of years or so. Comparing FP 98 or 2000 to the current release of 2003+ is like comparing your 19" Color RCA TV to a 52" DPL (I'm not gonna claim Plasma )

It is functionally just that more advanced and different.

At default settings or user controled.. it no longer over writes your coding... it is 'very' cross browser compatible... If you want 'clean' HTML up loads, it does so... FP extensions are still required for some aspects, but not all anymore, since it can now opt to upload pages to your server directly using FTP etc etc etc

In other words... very little is true about most horror stories.. any more.

[amoun]

Hi house_quake.

That's good news about FP, and even better news for those that use it.

Still I'm trying to kick the macro$haft habit, but I'll give them credit. If it wasn't for their mass marketing, no doubt helped by license fees, computing and the web would be less used probably.

Amoun

[garble]

I used FP a bit - especially when I started doing websites. I was one of those people who didn't really know what they were doing. Now I use DW but I have to say I was unexpectedly surprised when I had to use FP 2003 recently. I thought it was a vast improvement over previous versions as HouseBoat said, and I didn't notice any code bloat (as long as you stay away from FP themes etc, and don't do things like copy/paste from MS Word into FP - check the HTML after to see why). I also thought the file transfer window was reasonable user-friendly - much more so than that irritating little publish window in previous versions.

But I still use DW 8)...

[Twillingate.info]

I use frontpage sometimes to code my small websites, because of easy previewing. But, I always insert HTML code via the HTML tab instead of going into Insert > Advanced > HTML or whatever it is because when you do that Frontpage adds <!-- --> tags around your HTML...

I never knew you could insert html that way. It seems like more clicks and more effort than just clicking the HTML tab.

Yeah, it is actually more work. I don't know why Microsoft put that feature into Frontpage. (Then again, it is Microsoft we're talking about here).

[OTmaster]

I use sea monkey from mozilla. its free and displays excellent code.

[mw-dnb]

Been coming here for awhile and decided to finally post

A few fact vs. myth concerning Front Page

Most of what I have read in this thread is very much true or was at a time....

However...

I'm reading testimony based on 'older' versions of the software. None takes into account that FP has been updated every couple of years or so. Comparing FP 98 or 2000 to the current release of 2003+ is like comparing your 19" Color RCA TV to a 52" DPL (I'm not gonna claim Plasma )

It is functionally just that more advanced and different.

At default settings or user controled.. it no longer over writes your coding... it is 'very' cross browser compatible... If you want 'clean' HTML up loads, it does so... FP extensions are still required for some aspects, but not all anymore, since it can now opt to upload pages to your server directly using FTP etc etc etc

In other words... very little is true about most horror stories.. any more.

its made by microsoft. i think this sums it up

it uses MS's standard on HTML. Not the W3C's standard for XHTML.

[darlin001]

If I had to pick between FP or DW, I would go woth DW hands down. I personally wish FP did not exist. Over the years helping people with their sites, I have found that the ones using FP is a mess. Extensions can become corrupted at the drop of a hat. You are pretty much limited to using FP to upload files, unlike DW.

I guess everyone does not want to learn basic html, but if you consider the time it takes to learn how the software works, you could use that time learning html. Trust me it is not that difficult. If you want to learn html, I would recommend the following book: "HTML For The World Wide Web - With XHTML And CSS - by: Elizabeth Castro.

The book is not expensive, around 20 bucks, and it is very simple to understand. By the time you finish the book, you will be creating some nice looking web pages.

You can find the book at Amazon. Just type in either the authors name or book title.

Let me know what you think.