...See response below...
> Kevin,
> No offense intended, but, in previous posts, I think you made a number of
> subjective comments about the differences. And since several people have
> said that they are watching this discussion, I would like to clear up the
> issue by making some objective comparisons based on the published data at
> both web sites.
>
> Some might argue that GoLive gives more precise control of graphic
> placement, but when you consider that ALL graphical editors must
ultimately
> reduce the file to HTML (which is a MARKUP language not a LAYOUT language)
> they ALL end up with a table of rows and columns. The only difference is
> that GL uses various sized blank gifs for padding where most systems use
the
> NBSP. In my mind, that small amount of extra precision is not worth the
> trade off. All those different sized blank gifs just add to the
complexity
> of the HTML code AND....blank or not, gifs take more time to download than
> four character text commands.
> I'm sorry Kevin, but I just didn't see anything that demonstrates GL is a
> superior product. In fact, it seems to have less features for a whole lot
> more money.
>
> Jim Meagher
Hi,
Well I must confess I have not researched the topic as much as you have but
go on my own experience and the experience of many of my fellow web
designers.
I do agree with you when you say that HTML is not a layout language, which
with the the web being what it is and what it is becomming its actually a
major problem for web designers and programmers. We however must make the
best of what we have got and we generally find that FrontPage does not
create code that works out in the real world, as a web designer once said "I
no longer put 'Best viewed at 800x600' but instead 'Best viewed on my PC' "
This simple idea illistrates the increddible frustration that web designers
have to deal with, my web sites always look & work wonderfully on my 21"
screen and PIII with IE5 take that web site, and look at it on a 14" screen
and 486 with Netscape 4 and it suddenly looks awful. However by
designing/programming the web site with GoLive or Dreamweaver there is a
much better chance of that web site working on the 486. Keep in mind that
GoLive/Dreamweaver alone wont do this, the HTML will have to be tweaked by
hand but with FP theres a good chance my tweaking will be re-tweaked by FP.
With our discussion however we have just illistarted the diversity of the
internet, I need my web sites to work on nearly every kind of internet
enabled device out there...which is becomming a major headache with
cell-phones, PDA's, Watches and TV's comming into mainstream use for
internet access (ok mabey not watches..yet)...
But mabey you do not need this, perhaps you need one package that gets a web
site up quickly and effciently on a "constant" platform (ie: You know that
everyone who is looking at it is using IE4 on a Pentium, or better).
For you perhaps buying GoLive or Dreamweaver is an overkill because you want
an all in one package whereas I buy those Editors as my design/layout
programs, then I have PhotoShop and Corel Draw for my graphics, then I have
a database program and then a Site Management program...I use different
programs beacuse they are more powerful and offer me a greater range of
features than a single all in one package can even hope to offer me.
If FP suits your needs then thats great, FP is a good product and has come a
long way since its early days (FP97 wasn't too good *grin*).
Cheers
Kevin Hains
_____________________________________________
Cape Town
South Africa
Http://users.lia.net/hains/
Never fight with a Dragon for thou art crunchy and goest well with cheese
PCSOFT maintains many useful files for download
visit our download web page at:
http://nospin.com/pc/files.html
|
