General discussion


Macromedia Dreamweaver vs. MS FrontPage

By cparcell ·
I know this is probably a no brainer, but does anyone have any input into the pros/cons of each. Our simple web site was developed a few years ago using FP and I would like to learn & switch to Dreamweaver. However -- I have to justify the cost. Any suggestions, input would be appreciated -- Thanks!

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -


by BFilmFan In reply to Macromedia Dreamweaver vs ...

Comparing Dreamweaver to Front Page is like comparing a '71 Pacifica SuperBee with a Hemi to a Toyota Sprinter 1200.

DreamWeaver is a professional level product. Front Page was designed for the average home user to allow them to set up web sites. It was never intended for commercial level work.

Collapse -

Same idea different spin

by jdmercha In reply to Dreamweaver

Dreamweaver produces cleaner code. FP is easier to use.

Collapse -

yay dreamweaver

by afram In reply to Macromedia Dreamweaver vs ...

Frontpage seems to be a simple program that can make quick and dirty website to display static data with a few effects that aren't really special and some basic templates that you can fill in. It tends to put a lot of garbage code into the webpages too. The webserver needs to support frontpage extensions to get some of the features.

Dreamweaver is great for static pages, but it's real feature set deals with manipulating/displaying dynamic content from databases. It has pre-defined "behaviors" to insert/delete/update records from databases and displaying them in a useful way. It is mostly used for web application development. You can use access, mssql, oracle, etc as the backend database. Other users develop "extensions' that add more features to the basic program all the time. Most of them are free, but a few you pay for (usually less than $20).

I think you can download the demo from macromedia's website and play around. It looks a little intimidating at first, but the manual comes with a tutorial that shows you how to build applications using all of the common features.

Collapse -


by Oz_Media In reply to Macromedia Dreamweaver vs ...

Well I am a HUGE Macromedia advocate.

But when you consider the cost of a package like Studio MX Professional, there is absolutely no argument that would make it a poor choice.

Macromedia has an integrated SUITE of software, these guys SET the standards for the web, they raised the bar beyond anyone's reach.

Note: An experienced webdeveloper will have a bit of a learning curve to become 'skilled' with Dreamweaver, but that is only because of it's extensive abilities. Yes you can create a basic page in very little time, but the high end features will be of use to you for years to come, it just dosn't become out dated.

Support is second to none, and not just for Web software but all software. The online Forums and Tutorials are incredible (this is the company that owns FLASH afterall), the cost in miniscule.

The graphics program alone, Fireworks, is worth the cost of the suite, you will use it for EVERYTHING, and you can even creat an entire active webpage in Fireworks and export it as Dreamweaver HTML. Fireworks, FLASH, Dreamweaver and Freehand all come with the MX Suite and they are so seamlessly integrated and tight it make life simple. You want to edit a grapohic in Dreamweaver and you just click the edit button, it wil then open up in Fireworks (with all your drawing tools) and when you're done, you just click 'DONE' and it is replaced in your Dreamweaver page, including the updated graphic saved to the correct web folder.

If you get into more collaborative work, the Check in/out feature of the FTP upload manager makes it simple to see what has been changed bu whome and when.

I could go on forever and have probably bored you by now, but this is the best investment I ever made. ANY company I have ever worked with/for over the last 8 years has been forced to immediately buy this suite when I take on a job.

Freehand for Print work, replaces Adobe Photoshop.
Fireworks for Web graphic work, replaces Photoshop AND GoLive AND Adobe Web effects.
FLASH, well FLASH is just FLASH!
Dreamweaver, replaces any other web software you can possibly find (all in one package) for a couple of hundred bucks?

It's a steal!

And I didn't even get into the hundred of free Extensions you can download using their nifty extension manager that distributes and controls all extensions for all software in the suite.

This is true integration as you haven't see before!

Good luck! If you need further selling tips, go to Macromedia's site, they'll have all the software and cost comparissons there. You will soon be laughing hysterically at the pathetic limitations and messy code of Front Page.

Front Page writes the ugliest and most search engine epusing code I've seen. Not a good way to get your business found on the web.

okay, I'll stop now, passionate subject.

Collapse -

Standardized code means

by jdclyde In reply to Macromedia Dreamweaver vs ...

more people can come to your site and throw money at you.

If you use all the wizards and templates in FP, most of the "features" will not show up when someone with AOL, Firefox or the many many many other browsers available.

How can anyone hope to say in business if they limit who can do business with them right up front?

There are a LOT of AOL users out there, and they are the ones with more money than brains. Just the people you want as a customer.

Collapse -

as much as I dislike

by Jaqui In reply to Macromedia Dreamweaver vs ...

I would say use Dreamweaver.
fp uses by default extentions to the ( now dead ) html standard, which requires a webserver to install extra module just for those extentions.
fp does not support the current standard of xhtml
fp is not meant for professional use.

dreamwaever is meant for professional use.
for a corporate site, you need the toolset that only a professional use application will give you.

Collapse -

FP will cost you more

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to Macromedia Dreamweaver vs ...

The pages are badly bloated, so are slower to load and 'cost' more to store. Use any of it's proprietry features and non IE browsers won't like it. Just say market presence, firefox and after the initial learning curve, performance and quality in both the your actual output and the cost of producing it will improve dramatically.

Collapse -

Not So Sure

by MATT Y In reply to FP will cost you more

If you have any experience programming you know that your code should conform to certain standards (CSS, XHTML etc...) and try to stay away from proprietry features from whatever editor your using. You also need to do some browser compatability testing to make sure your site comes across correctly to every visitor.

As far as which one is better. Use what your comfortable with. Quality & Performance come from good code and not your WYSIWYG editor.

Collapse -

WYSIWYG is SUPPOSED to write clean code

by Oz_Media In reply to Not So Sure

MM will fix a FrontPage scripted page to become industry complaint to W3C standards.
It will even write an IE complaint page too.

As far as CODE, there is NO question that Dreamweaver writes FAR cleaner, cross browser complaint code than FP. FP was intended to make code proprietary, fortunately that isn't possible where a need for global standards are imperative.

Just MS trying to stick another iron in the fire, not something viable or even useful for coding.

Collapse -


by MATT Y In reply to WYSIWYG is SUPPOSED to wr ...

I agree that FP needs to conform to W3C standards.
I was just trying to point out that MM,FP and any other editor write out code that doesn't need to be there and that's why you need to review your code. If your just relying on your graphic view of your WYSIWYG editor you have no clue how its making a table, row or input.

Related Discussions

Related Forums