Front Page 2003 vs. Dreamweaver MX or 2004

@EDRDec 16.2003

Hi Folks!

I’m brand new to this forum and did a search up front. Every time I searched with long phrases, quotes (and no quotes), I got over 20,000 available entries. Seems odd.

Therefore, if this question has already been asked, please forgive me. I would just like to know if anyone has had a chance to use FP 2003 and how FP now compares to DW MX or 2004?

I’ve always been told that DW was the superior program (FP easier and for novices), but I’ve heard the new FP 2003 is alot more like DW, uses layers and has “nice HTML” code, and looks like MS finally got it right?

I don’t know. Haven’t seen it. Any professional comments out there? As an old notepad kinda guy, I’m now finally ready to take the plunge into learning a WYSIWYG editor, however, while I’ve been told FP used to be “easier” to learn, DW was worth the time investment, as it was far superior, but now the new FP 2003 has some great reviews?

Any comments would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you. EDR ?

to post a comment

Full-stack Developer

82 Comments(s) _↴

@spufiDec 16.2003 — #Does "nice HTML" mean that MS was finally smart enough to not fill a web page full of IE only code? If not, go with DW MX 2K4.

@Dark_DragonDec 16.2003 — #I thought DW 2004 was the same as DW MX......

@EDRauthorDec 16.2003 — #As far as I know, MX was the 2003 model (trying to copying the XP type of labelling, or so it seems).

The latest versions of Flash, Fireworks and Dreamweaver supposedly have some serious improvements over MX (2003). In fact, Flash was 6.0 (in MX), but is now 7.0, etc.

EDR

@Dark_DragonDec 16.2003 — #Hmm..I wonder how one would go about deciphering whether it is a 2003 or 2004 version?

@Paul_JrDec 16.2003 — #I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the subject of this thread.

Dreamweaver is better than any version of FP, in my opinion, hands down. Now, I can't factually say this, because I've never used FP, and I don't ever want to, you couldn't get me to touch FP with a 20 foot poll attached to a 10 foot pole.

@Aronya1Dec 16.2003 — #I think you're going to have a tough time finding anybody who uses DW that has also tried FP, new & improved or not. FP's reputation for writing bloated code is deserved, so why would you want to try it if you're already using DW? I think Paul Jr's reaction is going to be pretty typical.

I started with FP & switched. DW's interface is a little intimidating, compared with FP, but it's not at all hard to learn. The difference betweent the two is like the difference between AOL & well, just about every other ISP. AOL looks good, all flashy & full of graphics. But it's slow, buggy, intrusive & cumbersome. That's OK for somebody new to the Internet, because it's also pretty easy to use for basic stuff. But if you want speed & utility, go with a simple dialup (if you don't have some kind of broadband) and a browser.

If you're trying to choose between the two, go DW. It's not worth the risk that Microsoft has (finally) decided to play well with others.

@pyroDec 16.2003 — #First, Dreamweaver MX and Dreamwearver MX 2004 are two different programs. MX 2k4 is, in my opinion, a good deal better than MX, though I do not use the WYSIWYG aspects of it much (honestly, I only used it when testing out it's standards compliance a bit when I first bought it). I highly, highly doubt that Front Page 2003 could even compair to Dreamweaver MX 2004, though as they say, the proof is in the pudding. Guess we can wait until we some some of the FP 2003 generated code to judge it.

@EDRauthorDec 17.2003 — #Hi!

Thank you all for your time and input. Good stuff. However, while I'm definitely not an MS advocate, it seems prudent for us to not make ASSumptions ....

http://www.microsoft.com/office/frontpage/prodinfo/demo.mspx

http://www.microsoft.com/office/frontpage/prodinfo/compare.mspx

Check out the Flash demo and the previous version comparisons. There's no question this is the best version of FP ever made, and it certainly does try to compare to the industry standard, Dreamweaver. It uses alot of DW stuff like split view, data connectivity, and new Jscript behaviors (as you would get from Fireworks or have to purchase third-party plug-ins for DW).

Since I have Office 2000 Premium which came with FP (never used it though), I can upgrade for $109, versus some $350+ for DW, and then if I want Fireworks or any pre-made rollovers or other behaviors I have to pay for them or spend hundreds more on Fireworks. So, as any intelligent consumer, I'm naturally looking at "price" and "ease of use" as factors in the decision-making process. If FP is now "very close" to DW in terms of functionality and code, yet less than HALF the price, with no more penny pinching thereafter for rollover buttons, drop menus, flyout menus and other, then it might be a wise decision?

I guess I'll continue to read this thread to see if anyone has actually used FP 2003 and can see what kind of code it writes, and it's comparison to MX 2k4.

Also, Paul Jr., it's "pole", not "poll." Thanks to all. EDR ?

@PeOfEoDec 17.2003 — #But at the bottom of each is say, why wait? Get dream weaver today! I am a ms fan, I like their stuff, but I do feel that front page, and internet explorer make a mockery of the w3 standards :o . I still love windows server 2003, asp.net and sql server (other .net and server products by ms) , don't get me wrong, but those two products I reguard to be just short of failiors.

@Paul_JrDec 17.2003 — #[i]Originally posted by EDR [/i]

decision-making process. If FP is now "very close" to DW in terms of functionality and code, yet less than HALF the price, with no more penny pinching thereafter for rollover buttons, drop menus, flyout menus and other, then it might be a wise decision? [/quote]
If you are not ready to sift through, and fix, FP's funky code, I wouldn't buy it.

[i]Originally posted by EDR [/i]

Also, Paul Jr., it's "pole", not "poll." Thanks to all. EDR ? [/B][/QUOTE]

Heh, thanks, I am plagued with brain-farts right and left. ?

@Aronya1Dec 17.2003 — #[i]Originally posted by Paul Jr [/i]

[B]Heh, thanks, I am plagued with brain-farts right and left. ? [/B][/QUOTE]

[B]That's [/B] what that smell is! ?

@Paul_JrDec 17.2003 — #[i]Originally posted by Aronya1 [/i]

[B][B]That's [/B] what that smell is! ? [/B][/QUOTE]

Lol... ?

@spufiDec 17.2003 — #[i]Originally posted by EDR [/i]

[B]It uses alot of DW stuff like split view, data connectivity, and new Jscript behaviors[/B][/QUOTE]

Maybe I misread you, but why would FP be promoting something like JScript when it should be pushing the DOM?

@EDRauthorDec 17.2003 — #Spufi, don't know? Maybe I misread MS, but I've already posted the links. See the demo and the other. This is what I mean, FP 2003 is a completely different program than it used to be, thus I'm curious to see if anyone's used it that has also tried later versions of DW. That's all. ?

@Jeff_MottDec 17.2003 — #For FrontPage 2003 I can speak for only what I've seen in the flash demo and thus only what MS chose for me to see.

I did not see any IE specific code. There were deprecated elements and attributes, but then again I don't think I've ever seen a WYSIWYG editor without them. They appeared to have built-it functions for checking accessibility and browser compatability. They also seemed to make the intelligent distinction between JavaScript and JScript. The auto generated (Java)scripting seemed bloated, but so does Dreamweaver's (last I saw, anyway).

And so, though I cannot speak difinitively, this latest FP does appear to be up to par. Not necessarily better, but at least on the same playing field.

Though given the choice I would still choose Notepad over either. You can achieve the same effects far more efficiently than you ever could with any editor. And I personally find the more efficient way far simpler to handle and less time consuming than an editor.Dreamweaver is better than any version of FP, in my opinion, hands down[/quote]That's a rather strong statement for someone who has [i]never[/i] used FrontPage before.and I don't ever want to, you couldn't get me to touch FP with a 20 foot poll attached to a 10 foot pole[/quote]Even though I may agree with the popular opinion regarding FrontPage, I would argue that it is important for each person to come to their own conclusion. Otherwise your opinion is not actually your own, it is whatever popular opinion happens to be at the time.

[Edit] Saw Dreamweaver 2004's JavaScript code snippets: they are no longer bloated. In fact they appeared very simple and straight to the point.

@Jeff_MottDec 17.2003 — #Went to remind myself of each program. In Dreamweaver MX 2004 I see the option to indent text. One might think that it would be advanced enough to use CSS margins or padding, but instead I look at the generated code to find the text enclosed in a blockquote. ?

FrontPage, version 2002 mind you, used CSS margins, but in an IE specific way. To be specific it left off the px unit leaving a bare number. Only in IE, and only when in quirks mode, is a bare number interpreted as pixels. Hopefully the latest version would have changed this.

So in conslusion and to reiterate, I recommend none of the above. ?

@TomDenverDec 17.2003 — #There were deprecated elements and attributes, but then again I don't think I've ever seen a WYSIWYG editor without them.[/QUOTE]

Dreamweaver has a validator built in. You can set it up to test your code against HTML 4.01 standards as well as other standards, and it will list any warnings or errors, including such things as <font> tag being deprecated, and will warn against using things like that. Plus it has a built in browser check which you can configure yourself to test against the browsers you want, including Netscape, Mozilla, IE and Opera, and you can set the version of each browser to test, for example 4 and higher on Netscape, 5.0 and higher on IE. It automatically tests for the one listed, plus later versions of that one.

I used the free month trial of DW MX 2004 (highly recommend this trial). Like Pyro, I don't use the WYSIWYG part of Dreamweaver either. I hand code all my stuff. It's the other tools in Dreamweaver that make it a great program. If I had the cash, I'd upgrade my DW 4 to MX 2004 in a heartbeat. It's a great program.

Unfortunately I have never used any version of FP, so I can't comment on it. I have seen code generated from previous versions of FP, and it's more than a little ugly. Tables within tables, within tables, within tables, etc.

@EDRauthorDec 17.2003 — #[i]Originally posted by TomDenver [/i]

[B]Unfortunately I have never used any version of FP, so I can't comment on it. I have seen code generated from previous versions of FP, and it's more than a little ugly. Tables within tables, within tables, within tables, etc. [/B][/QUOTE]

Hi Tom:

I don't think anyone disagrees that previous versions of FP have "gnarly" and "bloated" code. In fact, it's well known. I think the issue now is to determine if the 2003 code output is at least comparable to what DW outputs. That may be a deciding factor for many. While testing to various HTML standards or browser versions is certainly a plus, I'm not sure if it's worth the SEVERAL HUNDRED dollars extra to pay for DW, if FP 2003 does everything else DW does.

Just keeping this thread going, because hopefully someone who has actually "used" FP 2003 and DW may have some great input for all of us. Thanks. EDR ?

@Jeff_MottDec 17.2003 — #I have seen code generated from previous versions of FP, and it's more than a little ugly. Tables within tables, within tables, within tables, etc.[/quote]Your example is more the result of the user rather than the program. You could end up with tables within tables within tables in Dreamweaver just as easily.because hopefully someone who has actually "used" FP 2003 and DW may have some great input for all of us.[/quote]Should be getting it within a few days if you don't mind waiting. I'd be able to give you better information then.

@Dark_DragonDec 17.2003 — #Okay..I am a bit confused.

So far I am told DreamWeaver MX and DreamWeaver 2004 are different programs...

I was on the Macromedia site and they were debuting the MX 2004..is this the 2004 version Pyro was speaking of?

By the way I also tried FrontPage 2003 and I found it very difficult to use..too many menu and sub menus to sift through. I had a hard time figuring out where to save images for my site....at least DW is too the point.

I do not understand how DW layout can be called "[I]intimidating[/I]" though. Just me I guess....

@EDRauthorDec 17.2003 — #[i]Originally posted by Jeff Mott [/i]

[B]Should be getting it within a few days if you don't mind waiting. I'd be able to give you better information then. [/B][/QUOTE]
Hi Jeff!

Yes, thank you very much, that would be very kind of you.

With regard to the other comment about DW being "easier" or "less intimidating" than FP, of all the comments I've read over the years from various users on a variety of forums, historically, the consensus is that DW is much tougher to use, but it *was* a much superior program as well.

It's like trying to use Paint Shop Pro versus Photoshop. There's no doubt that Photoshop is tougher to learn (I have both), and even though Paint Shop Pro is 1/9th the cost, Photoshop is still a far superior program, although PS Pro, like FP, has been gaining substantial ground with each new version, yet the cost for FP and PS Pro have remained pretty constant despite massive gains in functionality.

And yes, MX (2003) is definitely different than MX 2k4. Both have similar interfaces, but MX 2004 certainly cleaned up and improved the brand new UI and functionality introduced in the original MX (2003).

Jeff, your comments are some of the more intelligent ones made on this thread to date, so I would certainly trust your judgement on your evaluation of FP 2003 versus DW MX or MX 2k4. Thanks so much! EDR ?

@TomDenverDec 17.2003 — #When people say Dreamweaver 2004, they actually mean Dreamweaver MX 2004. People just shorten the name I guess. When people say Dreamweaver MX though, they usually mean the previous version, not Dreamweaver MX 2004. Confusing, huh?

@Paul_JrDec 18.2003 — #[i]Originally posted by Jeff Mott [/i]

[B]That's a rather strong statement for someone who has [i]never[/i] used FrontPage before.[/B][/QUOTE]

Yes, I do realize this, but I have seen a good many sites that have been built with FP, and it's pretty ugly...

I have also only used Dreamweaver MX once, I didn't like it at all. I personally wouldn't recomend either of them, as I virtually hate them both -- I would suggest Notepad. But if I had to recomend one, I would have to say Dreamweaver.

Probably the only reason I have not used FP at all, is because off the top of my head, I believe you have to pay for it. And since I've heard such bad things about it, I'd rather not shell out one cent for it.

@EDRauthorDec 18.2003 — #[i]Originally posted by Paul Jr [/i]

[B]Yes, I do realize this, but I have seen a good many sites that have been built with FP, and it's pretty ugly...

[/B][/QUOTE]
Paul, Jr.:

Agreed, but as I keep trying to reiterate in this thread, forget about past versions of FP. No one is questioning how horrid the code *was*. Now the question is, is it still as horrid, or is it equivalent to DW's output?

While true "die-hard" notepad geeks (me included) will always yell "NOTEPAD!", as many others have stated there are many benefits, including big time savers with some of these editors. Even if DW's code is not "perfect", as per the notepad HTML purist, as long as the new FP outputs much better code than previous versions, and is equivalent to DW's code, then I think FP might be the better choice for those who want to use a WYSIWYG editor with split view.

With such an editor, you can have certain built-ins write major chunks of code instantly, and in split view, the code-geek can edit appropriately in the event they don't like certain pieces of code. This approach does seem superior (and is why I'm considering making this change) as writing in notepad is certainly time consuming especially for large projects, and will save me time from having to write every line of code by hand, or trying to cut certain modules out of old code to paste into the new and then edit.

More importantly, while I'm a notepad geek, the fact of the matter is, even if there are better ways to write code, most web sites are not true "robust applications", in the sense of some major software project, and therefore, the size of code or execution speed is not as important. Thus, if it works, it works!

I think it's counter productive to be such a perfectionist that if the output is the same, even if there's a superior way to write the code, who cares? Who cares if DW writes 5 extra lines of code that isn't needed, if the web site functions the way the client wants it to? In all honesty, does it really matter if there are tables inside of tables, as long as the site "looks" and "functions" right, and the client approves the output in the browsers?

Again, 5 or even 50 lines of unecessary code (that isn't hurting anything) is peanuts in the grand scheme of things for web design. It's only when you're writing a major application that has, let's say 200 thousand lines of code, that would have been written better with 100 thousand lines, that "bulk" or "execution speed" makes a big difference. My two cents. EDR

@Paul_JrDec 18.2003 — #[i]Originally posted by EDR [/i]

[B]Paul, Jr.:

No one is questioning how horrid the code *was*.[/B][/QUOTE]

True, but untill I see otherwise, I shall continue to believe that FP's output still sucks.

@Dark_DragonDec 18.2003 — #[B]TomDenver:[/B]

Thanks for clearing that up for me. ?

Now I understand...

@jeff_archer7Dec 18.2003 — #Retracted..... due to poor wording..... misunderstanding..... and possible headaches from un-named OS developers....

@EDRauthorDec 18.2003 — #[i]Originally posted by jeff_archer7 [/i]

[B]If FP is so good why don't microsoft use it to do their site.... [/B][/QUOTE]

I never believe "rumors" especially kinds of these sorts, unless I knew for sure. It's very easy for a DW advocate (or an FP hater) to make such a blanket statement. As far as I would speculate, it's a general rule of thumb for any company's employees (Microsoft included) to use their own products "in house" that *can* do the job, to demonstrate what the product is capable of.

Besides if Macromedia "knew" that MS was licensing copies of their Dreamweaver for the MS Corp, unless some sort of confidentiality agreement was made (unlikely), I would bet Macromedia would use that information to the maximum to sell DW, i.e., "Even Microsoft uses Dreamweaver to develop its own web site."

EDR

@jeff_archer7Dec 18.2003 — #[i]Originally posted by EDR [/i]

[B]"Even Microsoft uses Dreamweaver to develop its own web site."

EDR [/B][/QUOTE]

This is not what I meant or implied........

@EDRauthorDec 18.2003 — #[i]Originally posted by jeff_archer7 [/i]

[B]This is not what I meant or implied........ [/B][/QUOTE]

OK. No problem. Other than the Visual Studio .NET platform (which is most likely and contains css and the ability to build sites) what else would they use use? It would most likely be either Dreamweaver or FP (and as previously stated I doubt DW), as those are really the only two industry standard WYSIWYG editors. Please clarify. What did your source say they were using, if not FP? EDR ?

@pyroDec 18.2003 — #I've said this over and over again, and I believe you (EDR) also realize this, but Notepad is no where near as good a program to use as would be Dreamweaver or another capable editor. As I previously stated, I do not use Dreamweaver for it's WYSIWYG capabilities. I hard code my sites, and use it rather for it's intelliText and syntax highlighting (especially in regard to PHP). Notepad does not have line numbers that flank the code, nor does it have auto-indent, or the ability to indent block's of code easily. Also, with no syntax highlighting, it is not inherently easy to see if one leaves off a closing > or }.

When I see someone plugging notepad, I see someone who likes to make things harder on themselves than is necessary.

@AdamBrillDec 18.2003 — #[i]Originally posted by Paul Jr [/i]

[B]I personally wouldn't recomend either of them, as I virtually hate them both -- I would suggest Notepad.[/B][/QUOTE]Man, that is sad. There are so many helpful tools out there, yet you refuse to let them assist you. The plain truth is that they really do help, whether or not you will deny that I don't know...

I personally use Homesite, which I really like, and it is infinitely better than Notepad. I realize that most good editors aren't free, but I will say that Homesite was worth every cent I spent on it. You should look into Homesite, since it is a very simple, yet very helpful, development tool.

@Jeff_MottDec 18.2003 — #Notepad is no where near as good a program to use as would be Dreamweaver or another capable editor. As I previously stated, I do not use Dreamweaver for it's WYSIWYG capabilities. I hard code my sites, and use it rather for it's intelliText and syntax highlighting (especially in regard to PHP).[/quote]When I say use Notepad, I actually simply mean to hard code the page, whatever the text editor you use. The two products are generally compared by how well they generate code (the WYSIWYG portion) rather than which one has the best syntax highlighting or things of that nature (the IDE portion).

Though personally, I use ActiveState's Komodo for all the needed IDE features. Automatically alerts you to errors and warnings in (X)HTML as you type. For both Perl and PHP it will alert you to compilation errors as you type, assuming you have the interpreter for each installed on your system. And supports a wide variety of other open source languages. The Find (And Replace) allows you to enter regular expressions into the search field if a plain text search won't suffice. And all the other usually goodies that goes along with IDEs.

@Paul_JrDec 18.2003 — #[i]Originally posted by pyro [/i]

[B]As I previously stated, I do not use Dreamweaver for it's WYSIWYG capabilities. I hard code my sites, and use it rather for it's intelliText and syntax highlighting (especially in regard to PHP). [/b]
[/quote]
[i]Originally posted by AdamBrill [/i]

[b]

Man, that is sad. There are so many helpful tools out there, yet you refuse to let them assist you. The plain truth is that they really do help, whether or not you will deny that I don't know... [/b][/quote]

Mmm, I'd rather not go out and spend a few hundred bucks for some colored text and numbered lines. I'm perfectly happy with Notepad, thank you very much.

@pyroDec 18.2003 — #[i]Originally posted by Paul Jr [/i]

[B]I'm perfectly happy with Notepad, thank you very much. [/B][/QUOTE]Whatever floats your boat, dude.

[SIZE=1]Hmm... must not know about [url=http://www.chami.com/html-kit/]HTML-Kit[/url].[/SIZE]

@AdamBrillDec 18.2003 — #[i]Originally posted by Paul Jr [/i]

[B]Mmm, I'd rather not go out and spend a few hundred bucks for some colored text and numbered lines. I'm perfectly happy with Notepad, thank you very much. [/B][/QUOTE]I'm sorry your left in the dark...

[b]EDIT:[/b] BTW, Jeff, I agree that the pages should be hard-coded, just not with Notepad. ?

@EDRauthorDec 18.2003 — #[i]Originally posted by pyro [/i]

[B]When I see someone plugging notepad, I see someone who likes to make things harder on themselves than is necessary. [/B][/QUOTE]
AGREED! I wasn't plugging Notepad (actually I use Ultra Edit, which has the coloring and numbered lines), but to avoid coding everything by hand, I do want to invest in a WYSIWYG editor, and I dont mind spending "a few hundred bucks" on the right one.

Again, however, as per one of my previous posts, if FP's code is "up to par", and it's "J" Behaviors are included for $109, that beats having to buy DW, Fireworks (or the entire MX 2004 package), plus third-party plug-ins to get some of that "block code" written for $900+. My point all along. EDR ?

@Paul_JrDec 18.2003 — #[i]Originally posted by pyro [/i]

[B]Whatever floats your boat, dude.

[SIZE=1]Hmm... must not know about [url=http://www.chami.com/html-kit/]HTML-Kit[/url].[/SIZE] [/B][/QUOTE]
Yes, thank you, my boat floats fine. I know about HTML-Kit, yes, but I don't like that either.

[i]Originally posted by AdamBrill [/i][b]

I'm sorry your left in the dark...[/b]
[/quote]
On the contrary, I am in the light! The big, bright, glorious light of Hard-Coding in Notepad!

@Aronya1Dec 18.2003 — #[i]Originally posted by Paul Jr [/i]

[B]On the contrary, I am in the light! The big, bright, glorious light of Hard-Coding in Notepad! [/B][/QUOTE]

You're getting dangerously close to forcing us to do an intervention...

@AdamBrillDec 18.2003 — #[i]Originally posted by Paul Jr [/i]

[B]On the contrary, I am in the light! The big, bright, glorious light of Hard-Coding in Notepad! [/B][/QUOTE]The "light" has made you blind. :rolleyes:

Soon enough you will realize the benefits of these helpful programs, but until then, I'm not going to argue it with you, so have fun with Notepad.

@Paul_JrDec 18.2003 — #[i]Originally posted by Aronya1 [/i]

[B]You're getting dangerously close to forcing us to do an intervention... [/B][/QUOTE]
Lol... ?

[i]Originally posted by AdamBrill [/i]

[b]The "light" has made you blind.

Soon enough you will realize the benefits of these helpful programs, but until then, I'm not going to argue it with you, so have fun with Notepad.[/b][/quote]

Look, I really don't see why using Notepad is bad. The so-called "good features" of DW are out-weighed by all the things I *don't need*, and *don't want*. I really haven't seen any editor or WYSIWYG that I'd like to use. They're all just crammed full of annoying stuff I *don't want*, and *don't want* to have to pay for. Yes, I know, there are free ones out there, but they, too, are filled with a whole crap load of junk that I *don't* want, and I *don't need*.

@AdamBrillDec 18.2003 — #My guess is you haven't ever used an editor long enough to actually find out what the benefits are. Using DW for an hour or however long you used it probably isn't enough time to really give it a try. If you ask any professional programmer if they use an editor when they are programming, you will get some really weird looks, trust me. Using Notepad is approximately the equivelant of using a hand saw when you could be using a chain saw... Until you use one, you might not realize the benefits, but afterward you won't ever go back.

@chestertbDec 18.2003 — #I installed MX, and uninstalled it about a week later. Simple... it fired up a whole raft of resource consuming, memory hogging apps on my rather tired old machine at start-up that I could not switch off. I don't need a program to hog 25% of my available 256mb of memory before I've even loaded it.

At least FP has the courtesy to wait until I ask for it before it starts sucking resources quicker than an American oil company let loose in the Persian Gulf!

What I'd really like is something with all the power and simplicity of Raining Data's Omnis Studio, but without the need for client side plug-ins.

For what it's worth, and I might be just a little off topic, here's my wish list;

I want to be able to create and manipulate a data library without the need to learn a langauge like PHP (which seems to set programming back 10 years).

I want to be able to write code in English, using real words that actually have some meaning to describe built-in functions that do what I want them to do. That means I also want to be able to read that code in English, so that when I read someone elses code, what they're trying to do is instantly obvious.

I want to be able to write that code with syntax-error proof editor capability.

I don't want to have to run an HTML editor, a client side scripting editor, a server side scripting editor, an XML editor, an XSL editor, a CSS editor and an SQL editor. If that's the technology platform on which all this has to be built, then I just want one app that takes care of it all for me. I don't need to know how the final app brings these elements together... I just want the app. (Sometimes, we get so carried away with the technology that we forget the objective.)

I want to be able to create windows in a WYSIWYG environment that incorporates that data, graphics and sensible navigation systems, and then I want to be able to deploy the resulting application on a web server that will send those pretty windows to my visitor's browser on demand.

I want to design my visitor interface with point and click simplicity, and then write code behind each element/object on the screen so that it does what i want it to do, or more to the point, what my site visitor expects it to do, without redrawing the entire window each time a single element on a page changes.

And I don't want to learn unix... i have enough things to do.

I'm not asking for a lot here... I just want to be able to create web sites in the same way that I used to be able to create database driven applications when Win95 was just a nightmare in Bill Gates' night.

And so far, nothing I've found will do any of this. FP, MX, and a raft of others, as "powerful" as they are, fall well short.

Then again, if anyone has any suggestions (that don't involve notepad)...

Chester T Bear.

@Paul_JrDec 18.2003 — #[i]Originally posted by AdamBrill [/i]

[B]My guess is you haven't ever used an editor long enough to actually find out what the benefits are. Using DW for an hour or however long you used it probably isn't enough time to really give it a try. If you ask any professional programmer if they use an editor when they are programming, you will get some really weird looks, trust me. Using Notepad is approximately the equivelant of using a hand saw when you could be using a chain saw... Until you use one, you might not realize the benefits, but afterward you won't ever go back. [/B][/QUOTE]

Since we are using analogies here, I suppose the reason I haven't had the need for the superfluous "tools" DW provides me, is because I've only been dealing in saplings here, I haven't had the need for a chainsaw. ?

@AdamBrillDec 18.2003 — #[i]Originally posted by chestertb [/i]

[B]I want to be able to write code in English, using real words that actually have some meaning to describe built-in functions that do what I want them to do. That means I also want to be able to read that code in English, so that when I read someone elses code, what they're trying to do is instantly obvious.

I want to be able to write that code with syntax-error proof editor capability.[/B][/QUOTE]Ah, yes... if only it were that easy. ? Actually, the truth of the matter is that is why they made comments. While they won't help you write the code, they will help you read someone elses' code. If someone has well commented code, you will know immediately what they are trying to do just by reading the comments. ?

Paul Jr, if you are dealing with saplings, then get a brush cutter(ie. Homesite). :p I would not call programming "saplings," though, since most of what I do is far from "saplings." ? But I'm going to stick to this:Soon enough you will realize the benefits of these helpful programs, but until then, I'm not going to argue it with you, so have fun with Notepad.[/quote]

@Paul_JrDec 18.2003 — #[i]Originally posted by AdamBrill [/i]

[B]Paul Jr, if you are dealing with saplings, then get a brush cutter(ie. Homesite).[/b][/quote]
Homesite, eh? Maybe I should check it out...
[b]

:p I would not call programming "saplings," though, since most of what I do is far from "saplings." ? [/B][/QUOTE]

Programming? Whoever said anything about programming? ?

Heheh, all these analogies are getting me confused :p.

@TomDenverDec 18.2003 — #[b]that beats having to buy DW, Fireworks (or the entire MX 2004 package), plus third-party plug-ins to get some of that "block code" written for $900+[/b]

Why would you need Fireworks or the entire MX package? Dreamweaver MX 2004 alone is more than enough. I use Photoshop for my image editing anyway, not Fireworks, and I don't use Flash at all, though I do know the basics of the program. I don't know anything about the block code you refer to.

@EDRauthorDec 18.2003 — #[i]Why would you need Fireworks or the entire MX package? Dreamweaver MX 2004 alone is more than enough. I use Photoshop for my image editing anyway, not Fireworks, and I don't use Flash at all, though I do know the basics of the program. I don't know anything about the block code you refer to. [/B][/QUOTE]

As you know Photoshop is raster, and Illustrator and Flash are vector-based, which are far superior for text (logos) and a vareity of other things.

In any case, what I mean by "block" code, for example, if I want to avoid writing a complicated layered, flyout navigation system by hand (and I'm not that great in Jscript anyway) I can use either Fireworks to create such "rollovers" or other "nav buttons", or Flash if I want more sophisticated button graphics. As far as I know Dreamweaver does not do the image editing and "block code" creations that Fireworks or Flash does. Also, I do know for sure that there are companies that provide extensive "pre-made" and highly accurate blocks of code for layered menus, and other such items - such as:

http://www.projectseven.com/

They have amazing menu products. Rated #1 on Macromedia's site.

Either you pay for such extensions for "finished code", or you buy Flash and Fireworks (or both). Again, you're looking at $900+ when you're all said and done (or you pay for Photoshop, as you did). I would rather have an integrated product line like Studio MX, with vector (for web design) than DW and Photoshop.

In any case, I wonder what kind of layered menus and other nav button, rollover and flyout choices FP 2003 provides as built-ins, hence my continued inquiries about FP 2003 before I make the plunge into WYSIWYG editors.

And price and functionality are important factors. If I can pay $109 versus $900+ and get "almost" the same thing, I might do so.

@Dark_DragonDec 18.2003 — #[i]Originally posted by chestertb [/i]

[B]I installed MX, and uninstalled it about a week later. Simple... it fired up a whole raft of resource consuming, memory hogging apps on my rather tired old machine at start-up that I could not switch off. I don't need a program to hog 25% of my available 256mb of memory before I've even loaded it.[/B][/QUOTE]

[COLOR=darkblue]Yeah..When I visited the Macromedia site I was rather disenchanted when I read that the minimum requirements of the DW Studio included 512 mb of RAM and a 600mhz or better processor.

Gee whiz already! :mad:

That means I have to upgrade my computer..it has 384 mb of RAM and a 500mhz processor...it might be okay but I often have Photoshop running at the same time DW is open so I don't have to keep re-opening up Photoshop to make changes to a graphic...[SIZE=1]Anyways I digress[/SIZE]

I like DW for its ease of use ([I]at least for me anyways[/I]), but if it is going to eat up [B]THAT[/B] much of my comps resources then I may have to look into Adobe GoLive or something[/COLOR]

@pyroDec 18.2003 — #The minimum requirements 256 MB of RAM (512 is recommended). It runs fine on my notebook, which has 256 MB of RAM.

@soccer362001Dec 18.2003 — #I've tried FP and DW but they dont help me any they are confusing. I much prefer typing it all out by hand.

@Paul_JrDec 18.2003 — #Incase anyone is interested, I've found my brush cutter (hehe :p). Adam, I believe, said I should try Homesite. Well, I downloaded the free trial, and whadda ya know? I'm hooked. ?

@TomDenverDec 18.2003 — #[b]I much prefer typing it all out by hand.[/b]

So do I, but I use Dreamweaver to type it out by hand. I think this is getting lost in this discussion. Just because some of us use WYSIWYG editors, doesn't mean we don't type in our code by hand. I don't even know how to use the tools in DW that write HTML for you, and I don't care to.

@pyroDec 18.2003 — #Amen, brother.

@Paul_JrDec 18.2003 — #[i]Originally posted by TomDenver [/i]

[B]So do I, but I use Dreamweaver to type it out by hand. I think this is getting lost in this discussion. Just because some of us use WYSIWYG editors, doesn't mean we don't type in our code by hand. I don't even know how to use the tools in DW that write HTML for you, and I don't care to. [/B][/QUOTE]

Alright, but why spend the bucks for the stuff you don't even use?

Also, I've heard Pyro talk about DW's IntelliText, could anyone possibly clue me in on what that actually is?

@AdamBrillDec 19.2003 — #[i]Originally posted by Paul Jr [/i]

[B]Incase anyone is interested, I've found my brush cutter (hehe :p). Adam, I believe, said I should try Homesite. Well, I downloaded the free trial, and whadda ya know? I'm hooked. ? [/B][/QUOTE]I knew you would see the benefits eventually. ?

@Paul_JrDec 19.2003 — #[i]Originally posted by AdamBrill [/i]

[B]I knew you would see the benefits eventually. ? [/B][/QUOTE]

Heh, yeah. I still wouldn't use Dreamweaver. I wouldn't even if I someone was to give it to me for free...

@pyroDec 19.2003 — #Yes, it's basically code hints. When I'm working in PHP, for example, if I type strpos( a box will popup with this in it:

strpos(string haystack, string needle [, int offset])

So I can see what arguments the function takes, and it what order. Very nice.

@pyroDec 19.2003 — #[i]Originally posted by Paul Jr [/i]

[B]Heh, yeah. I still wouldn't use Dreamweaver. I wouldn't even if I someone was to give it to me for free... [/B][/QUOTE]Download the demo, only look at the code view, and then see what you think. ?

@Paul_JrDec 19.2003 — #Ooo, I get it. It's sorta like "TagInsight" in Homesite (least, that's what it looks like...).

@Dark_DragonDec 19.2003 — #[B][COLOR=teal]I don't even know how to use the tools in DW that write HTML for you, [/COLOR][/B][/QUOTE]

[COLOR=indigo]DW generates the code automatically as you do things like use a CSS Style Sheet, add graphics and so on..however you can copy and paste code from NotePad into the "[I]Code View[/I]" of DW or type it in if you want something more specific.

However I am hoping the new version of DW codes in a more compliant language..if not then I suppose I will have to find a similar program that does.[/COLOR]

[B]P.S[/B]...Is it just me or do I sense a lot of subtle and not-so subtle hostility towards web programs like DW and FP???? :p

@Paul_JrDec 19.2003 — #[i]Originally posted by Dark Dragon [/i]

[B]P.S...Is it just me or do I sense a lot of subtle and not-so subtle hostility towards web programs like DW and FP???? :p [/B][/QUOTE]

Maybe just a [i]tad[/i] toward DW, but [i]tons[/i] toward FP!!!!

@Dark_DragonDec 19.2003 — #[COLOR=indigo]Well.. a few times I really tried to make use of FP 2003 but I disliked that I couldn't figure out where to store the images used on my site.

Secondly I really detested having to go through several menus just to make some bold text. Typing the particular tags by hand took less time then going through menus.

I also tried using some JavaScript effects on a page..which worked fine in FP test but in IE it didn't work!

Of course I also find FP uses sloppy coding too.

DW is easy for me to use yet I still cannot make the Stylesheet tool work.....also it using old code isn't helpful either.

If DW and HTML Kit could be combined then it would be very nice indeed![/COLOR]

@Paul_JrDec 19.2003 — #Hey, I love hard-coding, and I hate things I can't figure out without much hassle, and I hate things I don't need. That's why I don't particularly like DW. But I like Homesite! So far, it's got all I need, and not much more.

@Dark_DragonDec 19.2003 — #[COLOR=darkblue]That's cool.

Some people really like to get into it and start from the bottom up.

Myself I am not good with coding nor do I really like typing it all in by hand and not having an immediate visual result of what I am doing.

However if some of these web programs did what they were supposed to do in the first place then I wouldn't have to keep such a big collection of codes handy to paste in.

HTML Kit is good but beyond basic HTML, I am not good at figuring out how or what to put in tags. So sometimes I have DW open then I use HTML Kit to make a tag for say, an image, then I copy and paste the tag and its content into DW.

I know it sounds like a pain to you but it works for me.

I just hope DW 2004 will do a better job than DW 4....maybe.[/COLOR]

@Dark_DragonDec 19.2003 — #[COLOR=darkblue]Y'know I was just thinking it would be very nice, at least for me, if one could move images, text and so on around a web page as easily as one moces a layer.

This way you aren't restricted by moving line by line or restricted to "left, right or center" alignment.

Naturally you could use layers but not all browsers read them...it's just a thought.[/COLOR] ?

@TomDenverDec 19.2003 — #The CSS tool in DW MX 2004 is vastly superior to the one in DW version 4. I use version 4, and have set it to always open .css files with Notepad as a result of how horrible the built in CSS editor is in that version. It's all menu based, doesn't allow you to type anything in by hand in most cases.

The editor in DW MX 2004 does allow you to hand code everything in CSS, and offers hints on most things. Like if you type in ".sample {text-align:" it will pop up a little menu displaying the options you have for setting this attribute. You can of course ignore this menu and just type in what you want, or click the option in the menu and it will type it in for you.

@Dark_DragonDec 19.2003 — #[COLOR=darkblue]Really?? That would be great!

You see...unlike brilliant people like Pyro, PeOfeO and others..I am lousy at raw hand coding. I just cannot remember what to put in all those tags..of course it is also not something I wanna persue either so I copy and paste what I need..so tips and hints along the way would be so helpful...especially if it offers compliant code.

Anyways I may just download the trial version of DW 2004 and see how I like it! Thanks for the info!![/COLOR] ?

@EDRauthorDec 24.2003 — #[i]Should be getting it [FP 2003] within a few days if you don't mind waiting. I'd be able to give you better information then. [/B][/QUOTE]

Hi Folks. Don't mean to keep this thread going, but still very interested to see if anyone has tried FP 2003? Jeff, any luck?

I'm glad Khalid closed that other thread, thank you. I suppose these forums are *supposed to be* for helping people with web development issues, not bashing or non-bashing.

No hard feelings to anyone. Jeff, I'll gracefully walk away from all of these related threads, if you or anyone else can give some real bona-fide commentary on FP 2003, from actual usage.

Thanks so much! ? ? ?

@Jeff_MottJan 09.2004 — #I apologize for not responding when I said I would, I did not get FP 2003 when I thought I would. Hopefully you havn't made your purchase decision yet :p

In both programs (DW MX 2004 and FP 2003) I performed simple operations and compared the code generated by each. Several of those comparisons are shown below. Note that the this evaluation focuses on the WYSIWYG aspect of each program (design view) rather than any IDE features (code view).

indent left 10px, wrap content around the right side of selection

[size=2][i]FP by means of Format -&gt; Paragraph
 * perfect :)[/i]
 
 &lt;div style="float: left"&gt;
 &lt;p style="margin-left: 10px"&gt;Hello, World!&lt;/div&gt;
 
 [i]FP by means of formatting toolbar -&gt; Increase Indent
 * unable to specify width of indent
 * BLOCKQUOTE misused[/i]
 
 &lt;div style="float: left"&gt;
 &lt;blockquote&gt;
 &lt;p&gt;Hello, World!&lt;/p&gt;
 &lt;/blockquote&gt;
 &lt;/div&gt;
 
 [i]DW
 * unable to specify width of indent
 * BLOCKQUOTE misused
 * no option to wrap content (that I could find)[/i]
 
 &lt;blockquote&gt;
 &lt;p&gt;Hello, World! 
 &lt;/p&gt;
 &lt;/blockquote&gt;[/size]

change font to arial

[size=2][i]FP
 * deprecated FONT used[/i]
 
 &lt;p&gt;&lt;font face="Arial"&gt;Hello, World!&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 
 [i]DW
 * perfect :)[/i]
 
 &lt;style type="text/css"&gt;
 &lt;!--
 .style1 {font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif}
 --&gt;
 &lt;/style&gt;
 
 .
 .
 .
 
 &lt;p class="style1"&gt;Hello, World!&lt;/p&gt;[/size]

unordered list with square bullet

[size=2][i]FP
 * deprecated TYPE used[/i]
 
 &lt;ul type="square"&gt;
 &lt;li&gt;Hello, World!&lt;/li&gt;
 &lt;/ul&gt;
 
 [i]DW
 * deprecated TYPE used[/i]
 
 &lt;ul type="square"&gt;
 &lt;li&gt;Hello, World!&lt;/li&gt;
 &lt;/ul&gt;[/size]

table (default options)

[size=2][i]FP
 * deprecated BORDER and WIDTH used[/i]
 
 &lt;table border="1" width="100%"&gt;
 .
 .
 .
 
 [i]DW
 * deprecated BORDER and WIDTH used[/i]
 
 &lt;table width="200" border="1"&gt;
 .
 .
 .[/size]

e-mail hyperlink to (syntactically correct) address: "user"@site.com

[size=2][i]FP
 * perfect :)[/i]
 
 &lt;a href="mailto:%22user%[email protected]"&gt;Hello, World!&lt;/a&gt;
 
 [i]DW
 * just wrong[/i]
 
 &lt;a href="mailto:"site"@domain.com"&gt;Hello, World!&lt;/a&gt;[/size]

Although I checked many other areas, the general pattern seemed the same as above: FP occasional better, and DW occasional better, but majority of the time producing similar, if not identicle, code. FP gives you similar control over layout as Word using valid and (most of the time) up-to-date coding techniques. DW's design features don't seem very different from past versions, which becomes very obvious if you go looking for any CSS styling features. FP has done a much better job at integrating CSS.

Ultimately I would say FP 2003 has surpassed DW MX 2004. Though I still would not recommend either ?

@ramon_marettJan 09.2004 — #DW is excellent in my opinion. I've not used FP so can't really comment on it, but the fact that DW is so good means I'd never pick up a copy of FP and never use it.

Another thing also, Dreamweaver comes with some excellent tutorials and you can pick up the basics within a week of using it, then you learn more as you go on. Take this forum for example, there are a lot of people that will selflessly help you. I've asked a couple of questions before and the response was fantastic (thanks to all).

So, my advice, learn DW it'll be the industry standard (if not already) so learning it will put you in a better position for employment. Like art programs, what's the one program people will recommend.....Photoshop. Same with web design....Dreamweaver.

@AdamBrillJan 09.2004 — #[i]Originally posted by ramon_marett [/i]

[B]DW is excellent in my opinion. I've not used FP so can't really comment on it, but the fact that DW is so good means I'd never pick up a copy of FP and never use it.

Another thing also, Dreamweaver comes with some excellent tutorials and you can pick up the basics within a week of using it, then you learn more as you go on. Take this forum for example, there are a lot of people that will selflessly help you. I've asked a couple of questions before and the response was fantastic (thanks to all).

So, my advice, learn DW it'll be the industry standard (if not already) so learning it will put you in a better position for employment. Like art programs, what's the one program people will recommend.....Photoshop. Same with web design....Dreamweaver. [/B][/QUOTE]At this time, DW is the industry standard, but if FP 2003 is as good or maybe even better than DW, then DW may not be the industry standard for long. It appears that companies will now have two good choices for an editor, so it really depends on what each company decides to use. So with this comment I cannot agree:

"Like art programs, what's the one program people will recommend.....Photoshop. Same with web design....Dreamweaver."

It is impossible for you, or anyone else, to know what is going to happen to FP or DW. Your saying that DW "is going to be the program people will recommend" is going way past the facts. That comment is purely your opinion, although you stated it very much like it was fact.

@EDRauthorJan 09.2004 — #Jeff, you rock! Thanks for taking the time and for the professional evaluation!

Ramon, I agree with everything Adam Brill stated. And, in fact, Dreamweaver has always "been" the industry choice, just as Photoshop. There's no question about that. The purpose of this post was to determine the potential "future" of FP2003 as it compares to that industry leader. Looks like Jeff basically proved what I have been reading about and commenting about, although he still doesn't recommend either. The point is, however, FP2003 has clearly made leaps and bounds over previous versions, to the point that it's close, if not equal to DW.

So, for those of you who keep writing that you'd "never ever" even check out FP, even future versions, you are demonstrating overly biased opinions based on other people's views and you publicly undermine your own intelligence. I keep seeing people write in this thread that they would "never" touch FP, yet there are open minded people, such as Jeff who at least want to "check it out" and give it a fair chance.

Ramon, I agree with Adam that your future predictions are based on opinion, and not fact. Would you have kept using a huge brick cell phone from 1991 forward, just because the brick was the "best" of the time? In 1991, would you have been naive enough at that time to predict that the "big brick" would be the "future of cell phones?"

Thanks again to all! Have a great day. ?

@Aronya1Jan 09.2004 — #"Standards" do not change overnight. FP has long been regarded as inferior, and that image will be difficult to overcome, just as the term "Made in Japan" was ridiculed (for good reason) for so long. Businesses who have a large financial investment in DW are unlikely to switch just because FP, or any other app, does a slightly better job with, for example, <html> syntax. I don't know what a corporate license for either program costs, but the ticket on that type of thing is usually in the 10s of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands (depends on the product, of course.), so few companies are going to change horses in the middle of that stream. It just doesn't make economic sense to do so.

@TomDenverJan 09.2004 — #[i]Originally posted by Jeff Mott [/i]

[B]DW's design features don't seem very different from past versions, which becomes very obvious if you go looking for any CSS styling features. [/B][/QUOTE]

Do you mean inline styling as opposed to the CSS file editor? Because I found DW MX 2004 CSS editor to be vastly superior to DW version 4. It's completely different, too. DW 4 uses a menu system with drop down and input boxes for editing CSS (very bad). But MX 2004 lets you hand edit the CSS file, and offers code hints (good). Plus it has syntax coloring for CSS (I assume FP also has that).

I'm not saying one's better than the other, I just found MX 2004's CSS editing to be much better than the previous version 4. Maybe you are only comparing MX 2004 to DW MX, and not to version 4. I have not used that version, so I can't comment.

@EDRauthorJan 09.2004 — #[i]Originally posted by Aronya1 [/i]

[B]"Standards" do not change overnight. [/B][/QUOTE]

Absolutely correct! No dispute whatsoever. However, my goal in inquiring was for me to invest personally in a WYSIWYG editor. I'm not an agent on behalf of a large company looking to spend thousands on multiple licenses. As it took several years for the brick phone to become phased out, it may take several years for FP 2003 to be recognized for its vast improvements, and if Macromedia stays with it, it may take even longer.

In any case, us folks who like to be "on top of things" or "leaders in our field" have every right to be some of the first to make the initial shift to something new when we "see the talent before the masses." Again, I'm looking at $109 cost, versus 900+ for MX Studio Suite and additional plug ins, so I'm trying to get something "really good" without paying unecessary monies.

@TomDenverJan 10.2004 — #[i]Originally posted by EDR [/i]

[B] Again, I'm looking at $109 cost, versus 900+ for MX Studio Suite and additional plug ins[/B][/QUOTE]

I still think this is a misleading statement. DW MX 2004 is around $400 I think. You don't [b]have[/b] to get the full suite with Flash MX and Fireworks MX to use DW. I realize that FP comes with many scripts and DW forces you to pay extra for some (not all). But why you include Flash and Fireworks in your price is confusing to me.

To me it's comparable to saying that DW MX 2004 is cheaper than buying Frontpage 2003, Microsoft Office 2003 and Windows XP combined.

@EDRauthorJan 10.2004 — #[i]Originally posted by TomDenver [/i]

[B]I still think this is a misleading statement. DW MX 2004 is around $400 I think. You don't [b]have[/b] to get the full suite with Flash MX and Fireworks MX to use DW. I realize that FP comes with many scripts and DW forces you to pay extra for some (not all). But why you include Flash and Fireworks in your price is confusing to me.

To me it's comparable to saying that DW MX 2004 is cheaper than buying Frontpage 2003, Microsoft Office 2003 and Windows XP combined. [/B][/QUOTE]

No need to say that I disagree. I believe in a previous post on this very long thread (somewhere), I addressed why Fireworks and/or Flash cover alot of the pre-written scripts and/or graphic ease with buttons and navigations systems. It is sold as a "suite" and is integrated. Flash "could be" left out, but Fireworks is an integral part of nav/button/rollover/graphic EASE, if you don't want to code everything by hand.

But, now that I think about it, you are somewhat correct. I could EITHER go that route, or just purchase DW and a bunch of plug ins to do alot of the Fireworks and Flash type of nav/button stuff (also previously referenced in this thread under PVII and others) for about $200 or perhaps more.

At minimum, however, you're comparing $600 for DW + plug-ins versus $109 FP 2003 upgrade (which means I've already got Windows).

No offense, but I think your analogy of comparing FP, Office and XP together is really far-fetched, and I think anyone would agree. Macromedia MX is packaged together as a "Studio" and sold together, while the other three are not. And, the Macromedia MX line is mostly "web development" related, while Office 2003 and Windows XP are not. :p

@TomDenverJan 10.2004 — #The analogy was intentionally far fetched.

@Aronya1Jan 10.2004 — #$109 FP 2003 upgrade [/QUOTE]
What version of FP do you need to already be running to upgrade to the current?

@EDRauthorJan 10.2004 — #It's actually better than I thought. All the way back to the first version of FP, and even if you don't own FP, but have Office XP or Office 2000. Pretty cool.

From MS Site:

http://www.microsoft.com/office/frontpage/howtobuy/default.mspx#XSLTsection127121120120

Upgrade Eligibility

Determine whether your current version of Microsoft FrontPage qualifies you for the $109 US upgrade price. The following products qualify:

• Microsoft FrontPage

FrontPage version 2002, FrontPage 2000, FrontPage 98, FrontPage 97

• Microsoft Office XP

Office XP Developer, Office XP Professional with FrontPage, Office XP Professional Special Edition

• Microsoft Office 2000

Office 2000 Developer, Office 2000 Premium

@Jeff_MottJan 10.2004 — #Do you mean inline styling as opposed to the CSS file editor?[/quote]Yes.Because I found DW MX 2004 CSS editor to be vastly superior to DW version 4.[/quote]I did not evaluate that portion of the program. As I said in my reviewing post, I compared only the WYSIWYG aspects of each app. And DW's CSS editor, requiring the user to know and manually type CSS code, does not fall into that category. The features that make a good IDE are not the same as those that make a good WYSIWYG editor, and so should probably be evaluated separately.