Re: FrontPage and Dreamweaver -- what gives?

"Flat Earth" <fbx2@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:bs2cnRqML4aV6ZuiXTWJhw@comcast.com:

> I've been using FP for several years to do several sites, one of which
> has 600 pages (a literary magazine). Nothing very fancy and I am far
> from expert, but lately I've noticed EVERYBODY at my university uses
> Dreamweaver and sort of looks down there noses at FP.
>
> Well, I spent a few hours with Dreamweaver MX recently, and a few
> years ago spent time with Dreamweaver 4, and I just don't get it. What
> is it that sets Dreamweaver head-and-shoulders above FB from the DW
> devotee's point of view? Could someone give me a point by point list
> of what people who love Dreamweaver think are the big advantages of
> DW?
>
>
>

I like DW because it has the ability to check browser compatability.
FP poops a ton of redundant tags into the code.
DW produces web sites that run without the FP extensions and hence can be
hosted on a greater variety of systems.

Other than that FP is great.

FrontPage 2003 has fixed many of the problems that caused professional web
designers to look down their noses at it and to favor Dreamweaver. It no
longer automatically corrects (mangles) HTML code it doesn't understand, can
be set to not include "tons of redundant tags" the earlier versions
included, and even accepts the DWT templates that Dreamweaver uses. It
remains somewhat easier to use than Dreamweaver, in my opinion, but
obviously someone already familiar with Dreamweaver would see that very
differently.

Alex

<PMitchener@carrollhealthcare.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94D560284C690PMitchenercarrollhea@216.196. 97.131...
> "Flat Earth" <fbx2@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:bs2cnRqML4aV6ZuiXTWJhw@comcast.com:
>
> > I've been using FP for several years to do several sites, one of which
> > has 600 pages (a literary magazine). Nothing very fancy and I am far
> > from expert, but lately I've noticed EVERYBODY at my university uses
> > Dreamweaver and sort of looks down there noses at FP.
> >
> > Well, I spent a few hours with Dreamweaver MX recently, and a few
> > years ago spent time with Dreamweaver 4, and I just don't get it. What
> > is it that sets Dreamweaver head-and-shoulders above FB from the DW
> > devotee's point of view? Could someone give me a point by point list
> > of what people who love Dreamweaver think are the big advantages of
> > DW?
> >
> >
> >
>
> I like DW because it has the ability to check browser compatability.
> FP poops a ton of redundant tags into the code.
> DW produces web sites that run without the FP extensions and hence can be
> hosted on a greater variety of systems.
>
> Other than that FP is great.
>

I wish I could figure out why FrontPage gets insulted too. I've used
it since the 98 version, and nearly all of the bashing complaints
about it are fake. I believe the true hatrid seems to be with
Microsoft, and people everywhere LOVE to find alternbatives to the
leader.

To be honest, I probably would prefer FrontPage if it were a little
guy company (grin).

As a tool... it works, it was fairly easy, and it handles things
better than anything I've tried. You just have to accept that you
can't tell anybody it's what you use. Microsoft tries with each
release to get them to believe, but it's not a real image - just a
perceived one, so nobody is really interested in believing anyway.

Jeff Goebel
- frogstar.com web design with FrontPage


On Sat, 01 May 2004 17:48:23 GMT, "auerbach"
<auerbach_no_spam@pacbell.net> wrote:

>FrontPage 2003 has fixed many of the problems that caused professional web
>designers to look down their noses at it and to favor Dreamweaver. It no
>longer automatically corrects (mangles) HTML code it doesn't understand, can
>be set to not include "tons of redundant tags" the earlier versions
>included, and even accepts the DWT templates that Dreamweaver uses. It
>remains somewhat easier to use than Dreamweaver, in my opinion, but
>obviously someone already familiar with Dreamweaver would see that very
>differently.
>
>Alex
>
><PMitchener@carrollhealthcare.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns94D560284C690PMitchenercarrollhea@216.196 .97.131...
>> "Flat Earth" <fbx2@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:bs2cnRqML4aV6ZuiXTWJhw@comcast.com:
>>
>> > I've been using FP for several years to do several sites, one of w
>>
>> > has 600 pages (a literary magazine). Nothing very fancy and I am far
>> > from expert, but lately I've noticed EVERYBODY at my university uses
>> > Dreamweaver and sort of looks down there noses at FP.
>> >
>> > Well, I spent a few hours with Dreamweaver MX recently, and a few
>> > years ago spent time with Dreamweaver 4, and I just don't get it. What
>> > is it that sets Dreamweaver head-and-shoulders above FB from the DW
>> > devotee's point of view? Could someone give me a point by point list
>> > of what people who love Dreamweaver think are the big advantages of
>> > DW?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I like DW because it has the ability to check browser compatability.
>> FP poops a ton of redundant tags into the code.
>> DW produces web sites that run without the FP extensions and hence can be
>> hosted on a greater variety of systems.
>>
>> Other than that FP is great.
>>
>

"auerbach" <auerbach_no_spam@pacbell.net> wrote in
news:HpRkc.58803$bs4.37972@newssvr25.news.prodigy. com:

> FrontPage 2003 has fixed many of the problems that caused professional
> web designers to look down their noses at it and to favor Dreamweaver.
> It no longer automatically corrects (mangles) HTML code it doesn't
> understand, can be set to not include "tons of redundant tags" the
> earlier versions included, and even accepts the DWT templates that
> Dreamweaver uses. It remains somewhat easier to use than Dreamweaver,
> in my opinion, but obviously someone already familiar with Dreamweaver
> would see that very differently.


Re HTML and extra tags:
That's good to hear.
I did not know that. It is about the only thing about FP I really didn't
like.

I have to ask myself why MS allowed the extra tags in the first place.
Could it be for better browser backward compatability. Sometimes it is so
bad it could be considered spam (the amount of wasted bandwidth).
Glad to see it's taken care of.



>
> Alex
>
> <PMitchener@carrollhealthcare.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns94D560284C690PMitchenercarrollhea@216.196. 97.131...
>> "Flat Earth" <fbx2@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:bs2cnRqML4aV6ZuiXTWJhw@comcast.com:
>>
>> > I've been using FP for several years to do several sites, one of
>> > which has 600 pages (a literary magazine). Nothing very fancy and I
>> > am far from expert, but lately I've noticed EVERYBODY at my
>> > university uses Dreamweaver and sort of looks down there noses at
>> > FP.
>> >
>> > Well, I spent a few hours with Dreamweaver MX recently, and a few
>> > years ago spent time with Dreamweaver 4, and I just don't get it.
>> > What is it that sets Dreamweaver head-and-shoulders above FB from
>> > the DW devotee's point of view? Could someone give me a point by
>> > point list of what people who love Dreamweaver think are the big
>> > advantages of DW?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I like DW because it has the ability to check browser compatability.
>> FP poops a ton of redundant tags into the code.
>> DW produces web sites that run without the FP extensions and hence
>> can be hosted on a greater variety of systems.
>>
>> Other than that FP is great.
>>
>
>
>

>I have to ask myself why MS allowed the extra tags in the first place.
>Could it be for better browser backward compatability. Sometimes it is so
>bad it could be considered spam (the amount of wasted bandwidth).
>Glad to see it's taken care of.

It should be noted that Dreamweaver added almost as much when used in
WYSIWYG mode.

In addition, FP 2003 includes an "optimize" feature that enable you to rip
out some or all of the comments, etc., as you publish your pages to the
website. This feature gives you so much power, in fact, that you need to be
cautious you don't overdo it and slash away stuff that FP may need for later
management of the site. But it indicates that Microsoft was being responsive
to the complaints about file bloat.

Given the cost of bandwidth and the high penetration of DSL, cable, etc.,
among Web users, I'm not sure that a hundred extra bytes per page is really
all that important. I suspect that designers were really just annoyed that
Microsoft chose to add a little advertisement for itself on every page that
FP produces. At least Redmond heard the complaints.

"Jeff Goebel" <jeff@frogstar.com> wrote in message
news:pjhl90t79q0p89hbbiel95g6cpp2j6gvcq@4ax.com...
> >I have to ask myself why MS allowed the extra tags in the first place.
> >Could it be for better browser backward compatability. Sometimes it is
so
> >bad it could be considered spam (the amount of wasted bandwidth).
> >Glad to see it's taken care of.
>
> It should be noted that Dreamweaver added almost as much when used in
> WYSIWYG mode.
>

Jeff Goebel <jeff@frogstar.com> wrote in
news:pjhl90t79q0p89hbbiel95g6cpp2j6gvcq@4ax.com:

>>I have to ask myself why MS allowed the extra tags in the first place.
>>Could it be for better browser backward compatability. Sometimes it
>>is so bad it could be considered spam (the amount of wasted
>>bandwidth). Glad to see it's taken care of.
>
> It should be noted that Dreamweaver added almost as much when used in
> WYSIWYG mode.
>


I hadn't noticed that. I'll watch out for it.
Never use WYSIWYG though.


PM