FP 2000 vs 2003

  • Thread starter Thread starter John and Agnes Mayo
  • Start date Start date
J

John and Agnes Mayo

I have FP 2000. Is it worth upgrading to 2003 or is there a 2005 version
about to come out. For a casual, only my website person, is the upgrade
worth it and easier to use?
 
FP 2003 is the latest and will be for a while....probably there won't be any
further releases before Windows Longhorn

So say late 2006/2007 and not before.

For FP2003 you need Windows XP or Windows 2000.
 
Hi,

I'd say FP 2000 is easier, and the interface is clean.

The "big deal" with FP 2003 is "Dynamic web Templates", but we now find
out these only work properly with Windows Server 2003, so that kind of
cancels out the gain, unless you have access to Sharepoint on a Windows
2003 Server box.
 
"probably there won't be any further releases before Windows Longhorn"

Can you cite this information?
--
===
Tom "Pepper" Willett
Microsoft MVP - FrontPage
---
About FrontPage 2003:
http://office.microsoft.com/home/office.aspx?assetid=FX01085802
===
| FP 2003 is the latest and will be for a while....probably there won't be
any
| further releases before Windows Longhorn
|
| So say late 2006/2007 and not before.
|
| For FP2003 you need Windows XP or Windows 2000.
|
|
|
| | >I have FP 2000. Is it worth upgrading to 2003 or is there a 2005 version
| >about to come out. For a casual, only my website person, is the upgrade
| >worth it and easier to use?
| >
|
|
 
There are other things besides dwt's. The quick-tag editor, the class/ID
dropdowns, and the find and replace make my life much easier. I don't see
where the interface in 2000 was any better, not to mention that you have the
split view in 2003. If you don't use CSS or get into the HTML, then there
may not be much difference, but if you do then I found it well worth the
price of the upgrade..

Wally S
 
Hi Wally,
There are other things besides dwt's. The quick-tag editor, the class/ID
dropdowns, and the find and replace make my life much easier. I don't see
where the interface in 2000 was any better, not to mention that you have the
split view in 2003. If you don't use CSS or get into the HTML, then there
may not be much difference, but if you do then I found it well worth the
price of the upgrade..
Click to expand...

But surely these features you mention are only of interest to the
novice, as experts will type class/ID and CSS manually? To really cash
in on inheritance in CSS, and make it work in all browsers, you _must_
do it manually anyway...
 
I pretty much agree with this. I've been using 2003 for some months and find
the interface less intuitive than 2000. 2003 also has the table bug :-(
 
Brett... said:
I pretty much agree with this. I've been using 2003 for some months and find
the interface less intuitive than 2000. 2003 also has the table bug :-(
Click to expand...

The problem is that Microsoft are obsessed by the color of the buttons,
but forget some people actually want to get some work done. This release
is all gloss and no action.
 
and what table bug would that be?

Gerry Hickman said:
The problem is that Microsoft are obsessed by the color of the buttons,
but forget some people actually want to get some work done. This release
is all gloss and no action.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks.....obviously I haven't had any problem with it, or have never come
across it before.
 
Back
Top