Wow!!! Dont care about standards? Frames and tables? Used it for years... So why arent you still running Win98SE???
I used to use FP to produce corporate sites, I havent used it in years, too outdated too limited.
If you arent moving ahead and learning in this industry then you are losing ground to someone who is!
Keep running in reverse with your dinosaur! Muhahahaaaaa!!! LOL!!!!
Here is why I don't care. I use FP for my Web based business site, which is retail based, I have about 4 main keywords I target for my site and about 8 - 10 others that are secondary targets. I'm number one in Google, Yahoo and Bing for all of those keywords and have been for years. And I'm running up against BIG corporate sites for these keywords such as Disney, Amazon and eBay. Why would I change something that works for me and my business? I know the software, I know how to get it to do what I want, and it works.
Wow!!! Dont care about standards? Frames and tables? Used it for years... So why arent you still running Win98SE???
I used to use FP to produce corporate sites, I havent used it in years, too outdated too limited.
If you arent moving ahead and learning in this industry then you are losing ground to someone who is!
Keep running in reverse with your dinosaur! Muhahahaaaaa!!! LOL!!!!
So yeah, perhaps I'm riding a dinosaur, but I like where it's taken me so far. Oh, and notepad is my secondary editor for quick adjustments, so I guess I am using some Win98SE technology as well.
Side note: New "standards" and "compliances" are great economic drivers.
But, so I'm not ending on an arrogant, I know everything note, I have to admit that my site doesn't require the top flashy stuff, I'm selling watches, and there's only so many ways you can present a watch, so FP suits my needs fine. Obviously it won't suit the needs of someone wanting all the latest and greatest. So my whole point to this rant is that everyone has their tools that they personally like, to accomplish what they wish for their site. If someone chooses to use a dinosaur to work with because it does what they need, then why should anyone jump on them for their choice?
*Insert Darryl Licht coming compliance rant here and completely ignore that FP works for some*
Theres nothing wrong with tables and frames
Wasnt FP discontinued in 2005-06 because it was outdated and non compliant?Here is why I don't care. I use FP for my Web based business site, which is retail based, I have about 4 main keywords I target for my site and about 8 - 10 others that are secondary targets. I'm number one in Google, Yahoo and Bing for all of those keywords and have been for years. And I'm running up against BIG corporate sites for these keywords such as Disney, Amazon and eBay. Why would I change something that works for me and my business? I know the software, I know how to get it to do what I want, and it works.
Wow!!! Dont care about standards? Frames and tables? Used it for years... So why arent you still running Win98SE???
I used to use FP to produce corporate sites, I havent used it in years, too outdated too limited.
If you arent moving ahead and learning in this industry then you are losing ground to someone who is!
Keep running in reverse with your dinosaur! Muhahahaaaaa!!! LOL!!!!
So yeah, perhaps I'm riding a dinosaur, but I like where it's taken me so far. Oh, and notepad is my secondary editor for quick adjustments, so I guess I am using some Win98SE technology as well.
Side note: New "standards" and "compliances" are great economic drivers.
But, so I'm not ending on an arrogant, I know everything note, I have to admit that my site doesn't require the top flashy stuff, I'm selling watches, and there's only so many ways you can present a watch, so FP suits my needs fine. Obviously it won't suit the needs of someone wanting all the latest and greatest. So my whole point to this rant is that everyone has their tools that they personally like, to accomplish what they wish for their site. If someone chooses to use a dinosaur to work with because it does what they need, then why should anyone jump on them for their choice?
*Insert Darryl Licht coming compliance rant here and completely ignore that FP works for some*
I am not ranting, <-- He said while standing on a soapbox! I just believe that with so many other Internet appliances out there that compliance is important... very important. But everyone has to get on board for it to work! It is a responsibility, in my eyes, for web developers to keep up with the times! If you can muddle through FP, you can surely figure out Expression Web... and heck you can download a trial for free, here: Studio Ultimate Product Trial | Studio Web Professional Product Trial | Encoder Download | Microsoft® Expression®
On a side note: Your ranking has absolutely nothing to do with the tool you use to create your page! It is based upon the keywords, page and text content, links, etc... you could do the entire site in notepad and it would still rank where it is if you use the same keywords, title, links, etc.
This is an extremely good reason to continue using FrontPage. I have a similar situation where pages are well-optimized. As for compliance, if one doesn't use the arcane proprietary baubles built into FP, and stays with building in relatively uncomplicated tables, there's not much that gets violated. Anything non-compliant can easily be found and replaced-out, although that's typically very little.
I think the marketplace itself can sort this out rather than site-builders attempting to police each other -- if a site doesn't appear as nicely in a given browser, the site-builder will lose audience and therefore revenue; he'll have an incentive to change anything non-compliant. If it crashes a browser (or device!) then the browser is junk, as is the OS of the device. Browsers are built to be mostly backward-compliant, and even settings to adjust what can be accepted/interpreted.
FP is decent enough and there's no need to change if it meet's one's needs. I have hundreds of sites I've built using it, in combination with some scripts which I FTP into place, and there's no freaking way I'm going to re-build or attempt conversion. If you look at my list of OS's, they're long, as is the list of browsers I have loaded on these various PCs and devices, and I have difficulty finding FP-built pages that don't display correctly or load slowly.
If the internet reaches a point where such standards and compliances are enforced, it will cease to be the open marketplace of ideas which it still remains, despite such attempts. The onus, frankly, is on builders of browsers -- if they don't make something that properly identifies and runs older and newer sites equally well, they'll quickly fall into disuse with plenty of competition to take their place.
If Microsoft, or anybody else for that matter, wants to provide a product that does a 99.99 percent complete job of importing and properly restructuring our Front Page sites into a new site builder which is W3C (or whatever) compliant, AND works as easily and intuitively as Front Page, AND gives us as nice an editor with split-screen HTML/WYSIWYG view, then I would imagine many of us old FrontPagers will upgrade to that product.
It can't be that difficult to build something like that, and, judging by the vast number of FrontPage-built websites I still see around, there's certainly a market for it. Sooner or later we won't be able to find ways to build custom RPMs to install the old FrontPage Server Extensions into our Linux servers, and we'll be finally FORCED to make the change. Considering how nicely backward-compliant Linux is, that'll be in about 25-50 years. LOL
You should know that Microsoft has just made Expression Web 4 available for free, and it resolves most of the standards issues associated with FrontPage.
Note the EW4 does not use the FP extensions so if your website does use them you should find a way to get off them before using EW4 on you rsite.
Wow, a flash from the past - a thread over two years old!
Regards,
GEWB
With Windows 7 Ultimate you also have XP Mode. I find it ever better to install things like FontPage in XP Mode. The software works much better.
I used FrontPage from the first version. I loved the easy of Site management and Web Editor all integrated into a single UI. Since FrontPage had hit the "End OF Life" I started looking for a replacement. What I found to be the best solution was not any web editor but to use a Content Management System (CMS). I now use Joomla CMS for all web sites.
FWIW:
One of the biggest issues I see people have with FrontPage website is SEO. Unless all your competitor's web sites use FrontPage, they will probably out rank them in the search engines.
Last edited by HiTechCoach; 09 Sep 2015 at 17:24.
Tho I’m not an in-with-the-old / out-with-the-new kind of guy, as a part-time web designer doing many pro-bono pages may I point out:My web pages done with FrontPage 2003 work exceptionally well on iPhones, iPads, Galaxys, etc. and manage pinch-in & out and hotspots better than a vast number of sites apparently produced by current apps and standards.I don’t usually indulge anti-innovative thinking – having computerized a thousand libraries over 16 years, but in this case………….
(I don't use FP Extensions or forms, and I am heavily table-based and do tons of podcasts. See nymas.org)
It also should be noted that the highly recommended Expression Web and Expression Studio are being discontinued.
Bob Rowen
Director of Operations and Programs
The New York Military Affairs Symposium
Quote