FrontPage Vs. Dreamweaver

[rhodesian.dragon 0]

I know that the gods of webdesigning revere dreamweaver as the best wysiwyg editor, but till now i've been using fp. when i heard dreamweaver was nice and tried it out - it freaked me out for the first time. agreed, it's powerful, but macromedia could've made the interface more simpler, like they have in photoshop. so out of your personal experience, which do you feel is the best? i'd go for fp.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First off Macromedia had nothing to do with photoshop that was Adobe. I agree Dreamwaver is powerful but it's only downfall is that there are a lot of features that are hidden and the navagation is a little bad. However now that Adobe bought Macromedia you can expect the navagation to look a lot like photoshop with a lot of intergration with it too...

 

 

for more on Adobe buying Macromedia go to my post by clicking here

[Grafitti 0]

i started out in frontpage, that was a very basic program. when i was introduced to Dreamweaver i couldn't figure it out at first, but after a few days of studying tutorials i had a working knowledge of the basics to it, and the time spent learning was well worth it. it saved me so much time compared to fp, and it's 100% more powerful, especially if you're going to be working in any langauge besides html. the downside...it's not free, but then i don't think fp is either. there are some competitive freeware options available as well, but for me, i'm sticking with dreamweaver.

[Dante_233 0]

I started out in FT but i moved to dream weaver to find that i could make alot better webpages with better graphics than in FT. Dream weaver would edit some of the files html tags but when i would try and edit it in FT it wouldnt let me. so i now just stick with DW. also lol it must be really complicated to make a website win Note pad. of coasre you have ultimate control but it takes hours to get everything right and to do the HTML. lol i just dont have the patients for that glad that some ppl do.

[TheJeffsta 0]

Dreaveweaver is best for more advanced websites and allows you to create better php pages (dont think frontpage does them). Although saying that, i still use Frontpage due to already having made a few sites with it and getting really familiar to it and its features. For my next site i would use Macromedia Dreaveweaver MX 2004 (which i have on my PC).

[sickgrrl723 0]

I used FP a little when i first started getting into web design. it's simple enough with the drag and drop scheme. but when i realized that if i was going to get anywhere doing web design, i needed to learn HTML. I started teaching myself HTML through Dreamweaver through the split HTML/preview mode. so i could see how HTML works. I still use the split viewing mode because i find my mistakes easier that way. I will admit, i was a little frustrated and intimidated when i started using DW, simply because i really had no idea what i was doing. But after time, i gradually got the hang of things and once you do, it's really a simple program. there are a lot of components to it, but you dont need to learn all of it to design a good website...

[Zony 0]

I have used DW for over a year now, it was the program I started with to. I have never had any problems, I feel i make a better site with it. When i tried FP first time, i was shocked, over how bad made it is. You have no control over what you make.. That was what I mean..

[morrisnoble 0]

i think FRONTPAGE is best for database and e-commerce sites that require a lot of work. the database wizard makes it easy for you to accomplish those kind of tasks.DREAMWEAVER is the best in terms of overall application. the interface looks crappy (dont know about DREAMWEAVER 8, i've been using 6/MX) but it is really powerful, with support for PHP, ASP.NET, JAVASCRIPT, MYSQL and a real good CSS editor.FRONTPAGE's themes are weak, gut it has some nice JAVASCRIPT rollover buttons for you to work with."If you can't code, use COFFEECUP!!!" morrisnoblejr@yahoo.com

[finaldesign1405241487 0]

DreamWeaver. Just look at its name. You have no idea how powerfull software hides behind a name of that. Just like Photoshop, it's a very powerfull software. If you are afraid of it's interface, look closer, it's so logically, and after just 1-2 hours you will get familiar with it. If you never had contact with DreamWeaver before and you don't know where to start it would be the best to surf a bit, and find some tutorials to it... There is planty of tutorials on web, just dig out some and start learning. If you have access to public library rent a book there, really it can help you alot, there is some excellent books on DreamWeaver subject. Probably you will need a couple of days to leard DreamWeaver from a book. Anyway, after 1 week, (If you learn and work constantly) you will learn everything you need to know to get you started with DreamWeaver and you web.Oh, and one more thing. Forgot about FrontPage. It's a piece of Sh*t from Microsoft, and it's for people who don't know how to use anything else except Word.

[Uzumaki-Naruto 0]

Well i have only used Dreamweaver and only use that for all the sites i make . Its really good and dont think anything is better than that . Well from the things ive read it looks like FP produces very unprofessional pages . Well thats it .

[scherzi 0]

The reason because macromedia is so different to photoshop is because before adobe and macromedia weren't toegether.

Adobe developed Golive (currently golive CS2) with an interface similar to Photoshop and capable of keeping the tables and cell structures made by photoshop websites. I am not very introduced to macromedia's Dreamweaver, but when I've tried to load a html file made with Photoshop into Dreamweaver it has collapsed.

If fp stands for Frontpage, then macromedia Dreamweaver is better. Its interface is very plain when you understand the basics and it is a powerful tool. However I think Microsoft usually doesn't produce well finished programs, but just the necessary to run.

Here is a good comparision between both programs:

http://www.duxcw.com/digest/Reviews/Software/fp/fpvsdw.htm

[soleimanian 0]

dreamweaver is more powerful and flexible than Front Page for example:with Front Page you can't edit and view PHP files with dreamweaver you can connect to Databases and webservers

[twitch 0]

I have both FrontPage 2003 and Dreamweaver MX 2004 installed on my machine. DW by far beats down FP with a log. It is more fluent, has a wider range of tools, components, the layout is better and more professional. But more importantly, when you are designing in WYSIWYG mode, the code generated is a heck-of-a lot more tidier and more compliant. The only errors caused in most cases are human errors. FP uses loads of redundent <font> tags and the likes.

[osiris1405241478 0]

Frontpage is good, but DreamWeaver is the best.

For some reason, dreamweaver are very difficult to use. but several use it, it become easier and more exciting..

I can see the code/script when edit the WYSIWYG design. The code itself is colored-type, so i know when my script is wrong. Support many format, including web templates. Support to tables and layers, easy formatting, and finally, great website management ..

 

So, no doubt ... dreamweaver is best overall ...

 

OSIRIS

[developer.cool 0]

I have been using DW for over two years. It was scary for me who used to do coding in EditPlus. But since everybody in the new office was using DW, I had to switch over. But within a week, I was just glued to it. It gave me full power to develop applications in PHP. From that day, it (DW) has been my essential tool. I tried FP but I never liked it. After using DW, it was like using MSPaint after using Photoshop.The html code generated by it (FP) really sucks. On the other hand, DW generates very clean code. The DW8 is really good. It has many new additions which really help the developers. For people who want to create static html sites, even they will like it.

[x2crazy4shadyx 0]

I found FP makes pages sluggish, because it produces very poor code. I agree that DW is scarey at first, but giv e it a try, look up a tutorial if you have to (the Macromedia site itself is wonderful for that one). I found DW meet all my needs, though I admit to using TopStyle Lite for editting CSS for IPB Skins (just is smaller and starts up faster)

 

For simple sites, I just stick to Notepadd ++ which is like notepad but offers syntax highlighting for a lot of langauges, ConText is equally good btw. I just dislike FP a lot, and even though I have the full Office Pro with FP, I never install it. I once did, to write a tutorial on how to FTp your site to Xisto from within FP, but I hate the program.

 

When i had classes in webdesign, HTML first. We had to WRITE the code on PAPER so we had to learn the tags etc. THen we were allowed to move to Glimmer, Vim, Vi, Emacs even LOL, or Gedit. (All text editors in Linux, but Emacs, it's an environment.) After a while we could use what we wanted for building sites, but on the finals Glimmer or Vi had to be used. I prefer Vim still Our final was this : recreate the slashdot.org site with everything, you can copy and reuse the graphics. But the site has to be hand coded (the teacher had copied ALL graphics, made a tarball out of them and we had the tarball and a screenshot of the site)

1064315515[/snapback]

 

 

You are correct about FP i have used both programs and i found out that dreamweaver seems too be the best. It just easy too use if you know what your doing. And if you don't well it doesn't take long too learn. Its filled with alot of source codes php and alot of junk that you will need for making a website. I havn't tryed dreamweaver 2006 if its out yet.