Microsoft Office FrontPage 2003

8 out of 10 - Excellent
Frontpage 2003 is a definite improvement
I've owned every version of Frontpage since 2000 and several versions of Dreaweaver as well. And I can say ...
I've owned every version of Frontpage since 2000 and several versions of Dreaweaver as well. And I can say Frontpage 2003 is a definite improvement. For one, Flash movies are now much more easily integrated into your web pages with Frontpage 2003. I actually used to have to copy Dreamweaver's code for SWF (flash) files and paste it into my Frontpage code in order for my flash animations to play correctly in the Netscape browser. But no longer, since Frontpage finally recognizes that people use other programs too.
There is an interface for making interactive rollover buttons in Frontpage 2003 - this never existed before in earlier versions. There are split code/design view options now as well.
The long and the short of it is: Frontpage 2003 is now more like Dreamweaver, at least when compared to the earlier versions of FP. Read more
by Brightbelt (see profile) - September 2, 2005

10 out of 13 users found this user opinion helpful.
1 comment posted to this opinion

3 out of 10 - Poor
Get Dreamweaver Instead
Don't waste your money on FrontPage. Unlike the rest of Microsoft's software that is easy to use, this ...
Don't waste your money on FrontPage. Unlike the rest of Microsoft's software that is easy to use, this program is a mess. I designed business cards and letterhead on MS Publisher, have fooled around with graphics programs, am well versed in Word, etc, and had no problems figuring out those programs but this program sucks.

I use Network Solutions now for my website but it doesnt have the versatility I want. I am somewhat creative and their templates don't do it for me. Basically though, all I wanted to do was make a simple website, yet better than my options with NSs.

Unfortunately, I met a few website design people AFTER buying FrontPage. They said that FrontPage is terrible and that Dreamweaver is a much better product. Read more
by inmyopinion (see profile) - February 13, 2006

4 out of 6 users found this user opinion helpful.
1 comment posted to this opinion

2 out of 10 - Terrible
Waste of time and money!
Donâ??t use this program unless you donâ??t care about accessibility and open web standards and as I think ...
Donâ??t use this program unless you donâ??t care about accessibility and open web standards and as I think of it, it makes a lot of web designers lousy in web design so stay away from Microsoft FrontPage if you read my other review you might have thought that I liked it but several months on I have difficulties with the program I have been fooled and thanks to my school who taught me about FrontPage!. The code produced by this program is a mess and l wonder if CNET uses this crap program anyway I tried my best to get several good designs on my website but the code produced was appalling and each time I validated it failed, and isnâ??t much help when it comes to accessibility for deaf or blind people.

The CSS editor is a joke and all you can really do is make hyperlinks different colors, there is too much code in favor of Microsoft like in the code everything has to have â??ms-navigationâ?? for the navigation buttons and of course most code tags are odd and not standards compliant and unevenly spread out on a page and does NOT even automatically put a doctype on a page like the W3C intended. The templates that Microsoft FrontPage creates are lame and easily noticeable. The character encoding on each page by default is windows-1252 the standard Microsoft encoding in Windows when it should be UTF-8 Unicode NOT Windows. Even web components like last edited page are created using lousy proprietary Microsoft formatting and ONLY are designed for IE 5+. As far as I am concerned I am ditching this lousy program forever and will never buy any more Microsoft web building software ever again as I am sick of their monopoly it just sickens me. I would probably get Dreamweaver instead although more difficult it is the correct way of designing websites and would probably design far better web designs than FrontPage would. But I am afraid to say but Microsoft FrontPage uses old technology still back in the days of using <font> tags rather than CSS to implement styles.

Web designers are not learning the proper way of web building with this program but I think that this philosophy of just WYSIWYG editing is wrong web designers need to learn a bit of code at least and Microsoft isnâ??t pushing that, and if some people argue about my comments well this is what I have to say â??What do you expect web designing is not meant to be easyâ?? So donâ??t bother buying this program as it is a big con upon Microsoft Office try alternatives.

3 out of 4 users found this user opinion helpful.

9 out of 10 - Spectacular
The best Web site development program that I have ever seen for the price!
I happened to be referred to a page on Runaware (http://www.runaware.com) where I could try out Microsoft ...
I happened to be referred to a page on Runaware (http://www.runaware.com) where I could try out Microsoft Office FrontPage 2003. I was really impressed on my very first use, and bought and installed it at once on my 2003 server. The "Pros" section above say it all. Also, FrontPage may have the same business features from 2002, even if you are installing for the first time. It also has the new collaboration and SharePoint tools which were twice as good as the last version. I was disappointed with some of the cons, but I could find nothing else. Macromedia Dreamweaver was too expensive, and did not have many of the features that FrontPage has for half the price. It must be purchased separately from Office, but even so, the full version cost me about $199. All in all, Microsoft Office FrontPage 2003 is the best web program out there for the price, and nothing else, even Dreamweaver, fit for me, even despite CNET's own opinion. Read more
by giuliocesare (see profile) - August 10, 2007