Talk:Microsoft FrontPage/Archive 1

Article quality

I'm as fond of FrontPage as anyone--in fact, I'm currently writing a classroom textbook about it--but I don't think the subject is well served by either the sub-Slashdot MS-bashing that was on the page before last month, or the PR text that I just removed. (I also recognize the 131.107 class B block on sight, incidentally, having once worked for its owner.)

I'd prefer that this page and the Macromedia Dreamweaver page be approximately equal to one another in terms of balance between features and criticism. But this isn't the way to go about it. Paul 17:55, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My opinion is that MS FrontPage is stupid and should at least generate code readable by other browsers. This article is too complimentary of it. I know an NPOV is needed, but this is practically an advertisement for the thing. The criticism section is small and seems to have been written as if to say, "Well, these are problems, but they're minor and don't really matter." I added detail to those, but it still reads like an ad. I don't have time to fix more. Jesin 14:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note sure of your comment "readable by other browsers," MS Frontpage is not a web browser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.23.226 (talk) 06:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The writer, Jesin, meant browsers "other than Microsoft Internet Explorer". If the criticism section had been left in the article, the comment would have been self-explanatory. — Quicksilver^{T @} 21:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MoS says articles should be at the most common name

Which in this case is Microsoft FrontPage--ten times more common. Wp:mos#Article_titles/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Use_common_names_of_persons_and_things/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) 24.18.215.132 17:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms/cons edit

This paragraph:

Some web developers criticize this approach as producing HTML pages that are much larger than they should be and cause web browsers to perform poorly. In addition, some people criticize FrontPage specifically for producing code that often does not comply with W3C standards and sometimes does not display correctly in non-Microsoft web browsers. Some have even speculated that FrontPage's proprietary code intentionally interferes with the functionality of alternative browsers in an effort to pester users into using Internet Explorer, Microsoft's own browser.

Needs to be edited and sourced. I don't hold FP in particularly high regard but "some people" and "have speculated" are weasel phrases. Further, FP2003 has done a lot to be a more browser-agnostic tool.

This:

FrontPage templates also include proprietary FrontPage themes which can be used in place of cascading style sheets. FrontPage themes can quickly give a professional look to a site, but make subsequent website management difficult for non-FrontPage tools.

I don't have a problem with it insofar as this is how it used to work, but I believe FP2003 themes are CSS-based. In any case, even if the previous themes were not "standard" (whatever that means in this context) there is nothing else to compare them to since all other commercial CMS editors pretty much functioned the same way. --klaus 05:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Plus, not only do the pros for FP'03 sound like the marketing gimmicks on the box, but they far outweigh the cons. I'm kinda finding it difficult to vouch for the neutralty of this article.--The4sword 10:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the pros are basic; They should compare its benefits as opposed to another WYSISWYG editor. Instead, in general, they either state the pros of a WYSISWYG editor or are vague. I suggest that section be renamed to Pros and Cons as Compared to 2/3 Other Popular WYSISWYG Editors. --65.95.120.123 01:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lifesnadir

The content you added was non-encyclopedic, badly worded at best ("you can do X", "perfect for Y") and possibly POV. In addition, WP is not a how-to guide, so the "Troubleshooting" part also does not belong in the article.

Take a look at your revision and feel free to re-add your content following WP guidelines. Thanks. -- «klaus»

To Klaus

Possibly you could re-word your criticism so that it would be less attacking to a new person who is learning the ropes? Critisms need not be worded in such a way that causes embarrassment to new persons. Like other newbies who may not understand all the rules yet, I was simply not aware that trouble-shooting is not an acceptable part of topics. My intention was to inform about commonly encountered HTML Error Codes when using this specific program. I do not see how my little additions to pros and cons were not acceptable, however. And I apologize that my writing style was unacceptable. I'll look at POV. Thank you. User:Lifesnadir

My comment wasn't intended to be an attack at all - you might be new to WP but unless I go look at your contribution history it's difficult to tell. In any case, I apologize if I came across as wanting to "put you down" in any way. For the whole 'what Wikipedia is not' series, here's the policy. Your contributions must be 'neutral' in the sense that they don't 'lead' the reader to one side or the other of a discussion. For example, you included something like some people say in your edit - these are considered weasel words (though 'weasel' is an unfortunate term to say the least). Anyway, my apologies again and I hope you can continue to contribute. -- «klaus»

FrontPage Express

I found a version of frontpage on the net called frontpage express. Would it be possible to add some info on it? Thanks. RaviC

FrontPage Express is a simplified version of FrontPage, much like Outlook Express is to Outlook. I just found a page on Microsoft's site that confirms it's a Windows 98 component (it seems to be absent in the Second Edition): http://www.microsoft.com/windows98/usingwindows/internet/Articles/003Mar/FPExpress.asp. If anybody does add information on it, it will most likely have it's own article.

(edit) Also, why is "FrontPage Express" ("Frontpage Express", actually) redirecting to this page when they're two separate products? 68.125.68.247 03:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FrontPage Express

Frontpage Express is essentially a free version of Frontpage bundled with Internet Explorer 4, it offers little features or funcionality to create websites and is only good for adding some text and images and a few tables, that's all. Frontpage Express has a sneaky way of removing a doctype on a webpage that was inserted in and because doctypes are important and are located at the very top of a web page above the <html> tag, Frontpage express just removes them, I don't recommend this tool to anyone, it's useless —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StevenT1 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Actually, Express provided some very useful features and functionality. Its main limitation at the time was that it didn't handle frames -- it was strictly a single-document editor. If you wanted to use frames (which were very becoming very fashionable back then), you had to shell out for the full version of FrontPage.

Part of Microsoft's justification for bundling it was that you could supposedly use it for customising the way that Windows folders displayed, using HTML. The more likely explanation was that by giving it away, it destroyed the market for small, cheap HTML editors, hurting little companies whose products might eventually compete with Frontpage ("eliminate the competition when it's still small").

Microsoft eventually stopped bundling FPE (whether an antitrust lawsuit was involved or not, I don't know), and although it's still findable on the web, it's not supported by MS, and getting it to run on XP SP2 can be problematic -- The ability to run FPE might conceivably have been deliberately disabled as a security feature.

FPE wasn't perfect, but it did a very limited range of things rather well (as you say, text, image, and tables), and as a result its code was pretty clean. It loaded fast, and it wasn't bogged down with features. When you compared it to the other free options available at the time, it came out pretty well. I thought it was a sweet little program. Some of the more advanced programs have a habit of generating more and more "cruft" code the more you edit a file, and replacing general-purpose commands like <i>, </i> with more long-winded, problematic equivalents like <span> - FPE didn't really suffer from this, because the code it generated (and regenerated) was so simple. I'd never dare use a wordprocessor like MSWord or OpenOffice for HTML because the code they generate is so unstable, and Mozilla Seamonkey has a habit of "breeding" more junk code every time you edit. Obviously, FPE was no good for "advanced" coding, and it probably won't understand a lot of the modern HTML additions, but it filled a niche, and if I could reinstall it on my system, I probably would, just to use as an HTML version of "Notepad", for jotting down memos and the like with tables in an open file format without having to wait for a big clunky wordprocessor app to load. If anyone knows of anything else like FPE, that's free, I'm interested.

So yes, FPE ought to have its own section, or its own page. Even if it's no longer a recommended option (likely inability to understand some modern HTML coding), it was a notable program. ErkDemon 14:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV?

With a few minor exceptions this article looks to me like it breaks NPOV all over the place.

"making it possible for novices to easily create web pages and sites" should probably be "making it possible for novices to create web pages and sites",

"One of the notable features of FrontPage is its built in support for automated web templates. The main distinction between these templates and HTML templates generated by other products is that FrontPage templates include an automatic navigation system that creates animated buttons for pages that have been added by the user. It also creates an advanced multi-level navigation system on the fly using the buttons and the structure of the web site." sounds like marketing text; as does "providing server administrators with a tool to deliver rich web and intranet content in a package as easy to use as Microsoft Word."

I also noticed pros far outweigh cons.

--C — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.73.25 (talk) 18:51, November 15, 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does seem to be written as a marketting tool for FP...

One of the main criticisms of FP must be the amount of garbage and MS specific code it put in the source. Also the the extensions only work with servers that support scripting, which rules out most of the domestic ISPs. Since there are today excellent alternatives (NVU for small sites, Dreamweaver for the professionals) along with good non-WYSIWYG ones perhaps it is good that MS have discontinued it... Dsergeant 10:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that NVU is no longer being supported, so the excellent alternatives are now KompoZer for small sites and Dreamweaver for the professionals. HairyWombat (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added advertisement tag

Hey.

I added the advertisement tag to the "Pros and Cons" section.

KyleBrooks 16:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why I aded Cleanup-spam

Hi.

I believe this article has spam, as defined by the people who have discussed POV above, etc.

I feel that the spam should be removed.

GA

KyleBrooks 17:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a great fan of Front Page myself but the fact remains that it is a widely used and respected html editor. It may not be totally NPOV but it is hard to see how it is positively advertising the product. If so then virtually all other software articles could be considered the same. By no stretch of the imagination can it be seen as spam. Also the spam tag you have put in now dominates the opening screen. I will resist taking it out myself but will be surprised if it is still there tomorrow. Dsergeant 21:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unistalling Microsoft Front Page

Does any one know how to uninstall Microsoft Front Page?

Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.124.99.46 (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Vista

Should the screenshot be upgraded to Vista's?–Sidious1701_{(talk • email • todo)} 20:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited Sources

On the mention that "Vincent Gerbino ported Frontpage to the Linux OS in 1999", I can not find a source to prove this even after an extensive web search. Every site I go to has this same exact quote, but no sources to back it. I am starting to have doubts that such a version exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethmccauley (talk • contribs) 23:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:FrontPage98.png

Image:FrontPage98.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Prefer FrontPage

This article has a lot of criticism of FrontPage. The media also criticizes it a lot in favor of Expression and Dreamweaver. But I actually prefer it. The HTML it produces is more compact that Expression's. Expression also uses a lot of new code that I am unfamiliar with. I use a more-traditional HTML. I often paste tables from Word or Excel into FrontPage, and it seems to render them better than Expression and much better than Dreamweaver. Dreamweaver seems to remove all the formatting from pasted material.--Bluesages222222 (talk) 04:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frontpage is useful for quick and simple HTML editing. I'm currently reinstalling Office 2000 just to get access to it, since Office 2003 doesn't include it. Bastie (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do any non-Microsoft programs exist that are similar to FrontPage? Bastie (talk) 06:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section - removed a "fact"

I removed the following:

FrontPage is generally not well suited for administering medium to large corporate websites that require database interaction.

I removed it as FrontPage generally isn't used for this type of work, and isn't designed for anything but css/html as far as I know. Therefore, this is not a valid criticism, as you can say the same for Notepad, Microsoft Word, etc (as these also can be used to create and edit html-pages). Bjelleklang - talk 11:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This looks to me like an edit by Microsoft's PR team : "server extensions", Intellisense, ASP.NET, VBA, etc, are precisely "anything but css/html". On the other hand, I do administer a few "medium to large 'corporate' -- ?! -- websites that require database interaction" with a simple plain-text editor that just does syntax highlighting and code folding.
Imagine: Javscript ~= VBA; (SQL + PHP) ~= ('server extension' + ASP); what FrontPage claimed to have (source: "features" section of this article) is a tiny bit more than just a WYSIWYG for HTML/CSS (by the way, how did FrontPage do with CSS?)
Thus I feel it's a perfectly valid statement, or "fact".
In fact, Wikipedia is not about how people "generally [...] use" software, but about what they are and what they do. Microsoft marketed FrontPage 98 as "Web Site Creation and Management Tool" with "Professionnal Web Sites Without Programing" as tagline (one can find picture of its cover). Please, do not edit based on "as far as I know".
While I'll agree with you about MS-Word and MS-Notepad, you cannot generalize to all text-ediitor because this particular one can just read the content of a file without processing it a bit. But I understand why people say that. 80.119.71.189 (talk) 07:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need Reference to Charles H Ferguson

The history section does not mention the founder of Vermeer Charles H Ferguson [1]

His book "High Stakes No Prisoners" is a very detailed account of the 2 year development and sale of FrontPage to Microsoft. Very interesting in general and historically valuable book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.191.91.40 (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where did the "criticism" section go?

Also, the article is (again?) NPOV marketingo-laudatory. If the product was discontinued four years ago, after being left un-updated for three years, should'nt the intro use "was" instead of "is"? What is the point of the "features" section (which has absolutely no reference ; even funnier: 5 of the 8 items of the list formally refer to the software's latest version)? So, where is the criticism? 80.119.71.189 (talk) 06:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It looks like the article has been "sanitized". FrontPage is basically a piece of garbage and it has littered the World Wide Web with toxic waste that will be there for years to come. I regularly encounter pages that won't display properly or display extraneous junk in standards-compliant browsers, and when I examine the source code, it is frequently generated by Microsoft FrontPage. A fair and balanced approach to the subject should also describe some of the serious shortcomings of the program. As far as the choice of "is/was" goes, it's fair to write in the present tense, since computer programs continue to be used long after development and sales cease. — Quicksilver^{T @} 21:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images

There is no screencap of a rendered webpage: an "old-style" webpage such as this one that was generated with Microsoft FrontPage 4.0. NoToleranceForIntolerance (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]