| DavidF 2006-05-20, 6:42 pm |
| John,
You might start by reading David Bartosik's discussion of the different
versions. Read "Using Publisher for web sites", "Web Publication Changes
Made in Version 2002 of Publisher", and "Publisher 2003 - What's new in web
design for this version" on this page:
http://msmvps.com/blogs/dbartosik/a...egory/1922.aspx
Personally I am biased, and prefer Pub 2000 to 2003 for my web design work.
Pub 2003 uses a different coding engine and I prefer the smaller, faster
loading pages produced by Pub 2000, better cross browser compatibility, and
better images. The limitation of ten pages in the navbar wizard is one of
the downsides of Pub 2000, but I use a third party program to produce my
navbars and built my site with multiple Publisher docs, so that isn't a deal
breaker for me. You can email from Pub 2003...not 2000, and there are other
differences...
You can run Pub 2000 and 2003 on the same machine and perhaps use 2000 for
your web documents and 2003 for print if you like. 2003 does offer features
that you don't get with 2000, so that might be the best of both worlds. I
have been told that the best way to install both is to install the oldest
first, and then the newest, using a custom install and not overwriting the
old version. But I have also heard that as long as you choose/create a
different folder to install to, you can install Pub 2000 with Pub 2003
already installed on the machine.
That's my two cents worth....
DavidF
"John Ahern" <john@johnahern.net> wrote in message
news:446e970d$1@news.esc.net.au...
> I am thinking of going back to Publisher 2000 - what are the
dis-advantages
> over Publisher 2003. The web publishing was much easier with pub Pub 2000,
> particulary for me without too much knowledge. Any opinions appreciated
> please.
>
> Thanks, John
>
>
|