Dreamweaver vs Frontpage

[Adnan248999]

What would you go for?

I personally like frontpage since its a lot less bloated and i don;t have to put up about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 floating toolbars and palletes and then disable the ones i don't want

I would of added notepad but that would of just fux0red dreamweaver and frontpage

Edited December 30, 2003 by Adnan248999

[best_uv_d_best]

d00d yer outta your gourd. Dreamweaver knocks Frontpage on its ass time and time again. Frontpage is for n00bs. Dreamweaver supports CSS TONS better, ASP/PHP scripting w/ intellisense and does it in a W3C standard format... no proprietary MS junk thorwn in there.

[HeavyTwenty]

Notepad owns Dreamweaver and Frontpage.

[Pigsweeeper]

d00d yer outta your gourd. Dreamweaver knocks Frontpage on its ass time and time again. Frontpage is for n00bs. Dreamweaver supports CSS TONS better, ASP/PHP scripting w/ intellisense and does it in a W3C standard format... no proprietary MS junk thorwn in there.

word :yes:

[Adnan248999]

na its just full of crap frontpage plain and simple

[NeoSigma]

I like and use dreamweaver. Anyone here use golive?

[digitalslacker]

dreamweaver, i use to use frontpage but stopped because earlier versions were too slow. Haven't messed with frontpage 2003 yet. Think it's worth looking at?

[Adnan248999]

Notepad owns Dreamweaver and Frontpage.

lol i was gonna put notepad in there but that would have just blown em both away hehe :D

[Liquid]

dreamweaver of course. Frontpage is all based on its stupid extensions, with out those your site usually doesn't function as well.

[giga Veteran]

Since i've always used Frontpage, I cant really say. But Dreamweaver has a lot of features.

[Premgenius]

Dreamweaver then Frontpage 2003 any other would be a no

[Cosmic Arbiter]

My vote is for Dreamweaver, it is so much better than Frontpage any day :yes: and this is coming from having used Frontpage for a while when I was just getting into HTML way back when, the major problem with frontpage is M$ hasn't ever really cared enough even till this day to make sure that their html editor is WC3 compliant. So the best bet is, if you want a better running site that isn't running on bloated code, go with Dreamweaver and learn to use Notepad from time to time. :D

[RoboStac]

Well, their browser isn't compliant, so why should the web site design tool be ?

[xxdesmus]

i like frontpage 2003 so much better than dreamweaver. the code dreamweaver creates might be a little more streamlined, but the program itself is so bloated it's not even worth my time. frontpage 2003 is a good balance of those two things. :yes:

[TheDogsBed]

Dreamweaver supports CSS TONS better, ASP/PHP scripting w/ intellisense and does it in a W3C standard format... no proprietary MS junk thorwn in there.

Erm, what version of Frontpage are you using? It sure as hell isn't 2003.

na its just full of crap frontpage plain and simple

Nice to see an informative and experience based review.

I like and use dreamweaver. Anyone here use golive?

I tried GoLive for a while but I couldn't justify the 80MB ram footprint.

Haven't messed with frontpage 2003 yet. Think it's worth looking at?

2003 is much improved over previous versions. Faster, cleaner and more intuitive.

Frontpage is all based on its stupid extensions, with out those your site usually doesn't function as well.

Christ, have you even used FrontPage? You don't need a single extension to create a fully working website. I think it's time to use it for yourself and not regurgitate what you must have once read.

From someone who uses both regularly, I'll offer the following:

Usually I will create the site in FrontPage because it's quick and easy, and doesn't use the resource that Dreamweaver does. However, once I've got the layout roughly the way I want, I will fine-tune it with Dreamweaver. This is mainly because DreamWeaver has the expanded table layout which makes spotting problems with your TDs and TRs a little easier.

Those who belittle Frontpage are usually those who haven't used it, let alone bothered to customise it to suit their more advanced needs, or those who would pull it down because it has "Microsoft" on the splash screen anyway.

My advice: If you are just starting out, Frontpage will win every time. If you want more 'control' then Dreamweaver may be the choice for you.

[Adrian]

i do the layout in frontpage, then i program it in dreamweaver.

[TheDogsBed]

i like frontpage 2003 so much better than dreamweaver. the code dreamweaver creates might be a little more streamlined...

How so? Again, you cannot be using 2003 as you can use the code optimisation feature and dispense with what you like.

[parimal_kumar]

vi...anything more is for loosers!

(Joking! before I get flamed!)

Parimal :)

[best_uv_d_best]

Erm, what version of Frontpage are you using? It sure as hell isn't 2003.

actually, it was 03... and it's still a piece of n00bish junk.

[TheDogsBed]

vi...anything more is for loosers!

(Joking! before I get flamed!)

Parimal :)

lol Jesus, I used that in my SUN Solaris days. Frightened the life out of me, as it still does!

[cope]

Usually I will create the site in FrontPage because it's quick and easy, and doesn't use the resource that Dreamweaver does. However, once I've got the layout roughly the way I want, I will fine-tune it with Dreamweaver. This is mainly because DreamWeaver has the expanded table layout which makes spotting problems with your TDs and TRs a little easier.

You really shouldn't use tables for layout. Use css for layout, html for content.

[TheDogsBed]

actually, it was 03... and it's still a piece of n00bish junk.

Well, as good as any software company may me, they can only provide the software, they can't hold your hand and teach you to use it properly. I'm afraid the error there lies with you, not the software.

[best_uv_d_best]

i agree with that last statement. layers rock.

and Dreamweaver will do everything that Frontpage will with tables... just DW will do it cleaner and better. I'd stick with DW if i were you.

[parimal_kumar]

vi has to be simply the fastest editor out there - but it's learning curve is practically vertical - I use it for quick editing purposes. It is quite bewildering at first but if you persist with it, it's very rewarding!

[best_uv_d_best]

i didn't say i couldn't use it... just said it was a piece of junk. do i not type clearly? ;)

[TheDogsBed]

You really shouldn't use tables for layout. Use css for layout, html for content.

Believe me, I would love nothing more than to convert to CSS 100%. All my fonts, and many of my TD styles already are assisted by CSS. However, until such a time that I can layout my sites as well as I can using tables in css, then tables will be a must.

I remember reading not so long ago, on several websites, the hassle involved just to get a footer using CSS. However, if you can duplicate my site using purely CSS to prove me wrong, knock yourself out.