Frontpage or Dreamweaver???

  WHATEVERULIKE 21:24 10 Aug 2004

I am very new to web page making and have very little knowledge of HTML. Would anyone be able to advise me on which of the two is better, Frontpage or Dreamweaver.
Also if anyone knows of another program which is easier to use, any suggestions will be welcomed.

  Forum Editor 21:35 10 Aug 2004

to web design software I don't recommend DreamWeaver as an introduction. It has a fairly steep learning curve, and many people find it a little daunting.

FrontPage is probably a good deal easier at first, although it's every bit as powerful as DreamWeaver when you get under the surface - it offers the best of both worlds in a way.

A real alternative is NetObjects Fusion. It's friendly enough for someone with no experience of web design, and powerful enough for when you gain a bit more confidence.

  WHATEVERULIKE 22:35 10 Aug 2004

Ive heard many people badmouthing Frontpage, particularly in the Amazon reviews section, yet i have heard nothing but praise for Dreamweaver why is this. In what ways are they different?
Also thank you very much for your quick response Forum editor.

  Jarvo 23:18 10 Aug 2004

I have used FP FP 2002,2003 and dream-weaver and FP especially in 2003 version offers most of what dream-weaver can do and in some cases more! this is combined with a user friendly MS interface so if you are used to apps like MS office you will soon be away and flying with FP. cant recommend the 2003 version enough.


  Forum Editor 23:31 10 Aug 2004

had almost achieved Olympic sport status at one time, and I suspect that quite a few of the people who still do it are actually basing their views on much earlier versions - they haven't bothered to use any of the recent editions.

It's true that in the past FP deserved its bad press - it wasn't truly a mainstream application an any sense of the word. All that was a few years back however - the latest version of FrontPage is a real heavyweight, and in some areas (notably data-driven sites) it leaves DreamWeaver in the shade.

DreamWeaver is a superb program, and no web designer worth his or her salt would be without it, but it isn't possessed of magical powers - it's still you who designs the site. DreamWeaver is an excellent tool, and I use it myself on a regular basis, but it doesn't have an undisputed claim to be the best software for web design. An aura of mystique has tended to surround DW for some time, and I don't know why. It's good, but it's just software, and like all software it has its faults.

FrontPage has truly come of age now that we have FP 2003, and anyone who says otherwise just hasn't tested its capabilities to the full. Likewise NetObjects Fusion - it's latest version is superb, and I've used it to design some quite large corporate web sites.

My advice remains unchanged - Try FP or NOF if you're a novice. You can move onto DreamWeaver a little later.

  Trev-199290 11:09 13 Aug 2004

Just ordered MS Frontpage 2003 on someones reccomendation, i was glad to read your reccomendation of it Forum editor.
I just wanted a package that was easy to use and that was potentially powerful once I am experienced.

  jz 21:32 13 Aug 2004

Is it snobbery, like the 'Visual Basic is rubbish' argument that C++ programmers come out with?

  Taran 21:59 13 Aug 2004

No, it is not quite the same, but it does share some similarities.

Visual Basic is sometimes frowned at because of its visual element. 'Proper' programmers or codeslingers don't need to drag and drop interface components into a form and then write a ton of DIM and If...Else statements to get things rolling.

The C++ and JAVA crowds have a lot of valid points in some of their criticisms of VB, but VB is still a superb language, capable of all kinds of everything in the right hands and I have a lot of time for it in the right scenario.

Dreamweaver users often took exception to the proprietary code that earlier versions of FrontPage produced. They revelled in the fact that FrontPage sometimes took far more lines of code to create a similar visual page to one made in Dreamweaver. However, I've seen some HUGE amounts of HTML produced in Dreamweaver by people who did not know how to design efficiently.

The problem is, once a bad reputation becomes established, it sticks whether it was deserved or not in the first place.

Personally I have no time at all for the mine is better than yours approach. I have seen some truly superb sites produced with FrontPage, Dreamweaver, Adobe GoLive, NetObjects Fusion, or just coded by hand in a simple text editor which is how I started in the game. I feel that Dreamweaver is vastly overrated and those who call other programs the loudest often have no personal experience of using them. If they did, perhaps they would put a more balanced and intelligent argument forward instead of regurgitating old urban myths.

FrontPage, especially the latest version, is right up there at the top of the tree. Dreamweaver is overrated in many ways and FrontPage has a lot in its favour. Its table handling leaves Dreamweaver standing, as does its ability to hook into and utilise more kinds of data than any other WYSIWYG editor on the planet.

It ain't what you use, its how you use it.

So the argument is not quite the same as VB/C++ but it does share some very common elements.


  AngeTheHippy 18:38 14 Aug 2004

FrontPage? piece of cake..... Dreamweaver: NOT !!!


This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

iPhone X review

Political cartoons in 2017: Chris Riddell, Rebecca Hendin and Dave Brown on what it’s like to…

The best iPhone for 2017

Tennis : comment regarder la finale de la Coupe Davis 2017 ?