|
Convenient web based access to our favorite web design Usenet groups
|
 |
This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
| Author |
| Thread |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Publisher Web File Compatibility |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
 05-30-04 - 12:14 AM 
|
Greetings:
I have been a Publisher user for about five years, starting out with
Publisher 98, I believe. I do www.logwell.com, a commercial website,
with Publisher 2000. It has about 300 pages of content, some quite
long.
I am presently using Publisher 2000 with the latest service packs in
place. A couple of years back, I tried to migrate into Publisher
2002, but it was a disaster of epic proportions. The idea that
Publisher 2002 treats html as a native language is a fiction to say
the least. Further, Publisher 2002 could not even open the actual
Publisher 2000 native files properly (even before they were made into
html). After much aggravation, I gave up on Publisher 2002, and
dropped back to Publisher 2000 out of desperation. Microsoft did
refund my money and sent a few gifts, but that was little consolation
since I am orphaned in an old application without the ability to
update.
My question is whether Publisher 2003 is any better? Large file sizes
would be annoying, but that alone does not concern me all that much.
What does concern me is being able to work on the existing pages
without an act of congress! In all honesty, I have contemplated a
lawsuit over this matter, but hoped Microsoft would eventually issue a
newer version of Publisher capable of dealing with Publisher 2000
files. The thought of moving the entire www.logwell.com site into a
competeing product like Dreamweaver, is almost unbearable...
Syd H. Levine
AnaLog Services, Inc.
www.logwell.com
analog@logwell.com
|
|
|
| [
Post Follow-Up to this message ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Publisher Web File Compatibility |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-30-04 - 09:14 AM
|
I'm not sure what it is you are wanting to hear. I assume you've read my
article on the changes in 2003. Version 2002 is fundamentally different from
2000. And 2003 went yet further in new directions. So you can say that 2003
is similar to 2002 and both are radically different from 2000. That's not
going to change, you either accept or you don't.
I don't know what it is you are seeking and/or what you feel you are lacking
in 2000 that is making you hungry for a new version. I say 'new version'
rather than 'upgrade' because in my dictionary 2002/2003 are not upgrades of
2000, but rather 'new versions'.
I personally feel 2000 is the best version for a Publisher made web site.
I think that maybe the pain you are feeling is not really the itch for a new
version, but really is the pinch of hitting and surpassing the limitations
of Publisher webs.
Publisher, regardless of version, is not designed for a 300 page site. And
the Publisher product team will be the first to say that. FrontPage is
designed to fill the role of larger sites.
Perhaps you read my profile article on the MS Office site. I mention my site
barvin.com, I think you are in a place I was three years ago. The site was
way to big for Publisher despite my having broken it down into multiple pub
files for easier management.
And you know what, I bite the bullet and rebuilt it in FrontPage (2002 at
the time) totally from scratch and all new. Did it take time, hell yes. But
it was worth it. I ended up designing a better site and I site that was
easier to manage and saved me time in the long run.
I then out grew FP and now use ASP.NET. Having poked around your site a
little and from your size description my honest recommendation to you is to
move the content to databases and run an ASP.NET site.
If you moved to FP, or Dreamweaver, (staying in Pub is not a sound solution)
you would soon feel the pinch again. I hope you'll take my advice and review
ASP.NET. Find out if your host supports it and what it supports for
databases. And if you aren't interested in developing yourself there are
pre-built site models that can be installed by the host and then modified by
you on the client side (your browser). To find these visit www.asp.net and
look at starter kits. For example the community or portal kit site could be
loaded by your host and would support your modifying the design and creating
your content pages all via your browser.
think outside your box ;-)
--
David Bartosik - MS MVP
for Publisher help:
www.davidbartosik.com
enter to win Pub 2003:
www.davidbartosik.com/giveaway.aspx
<analog@logwell.com> wrote in message
news:9gmhb09e9v0bkhkbriu10krf2l213qchtt@4ax.com...
> Greetings:
>
> I have been a Publisher user for about five years, starting out with
> Publisher 98, I believe. I do www.logwell.com, a commercial website,
> with Publisher 2000. It has about 300 pages of content, some quite
> long.
>
> I am presently using Publisher 2000 with the latest service packs in
> place. A couple of years back, I tried to migrate into Publisher
> 2002, but it was a disaster of epic proportions. The idea that
> Publisher 2002 treats html as a native language is a fiction to say
> the least. Further, Publisher 2002 could not even open the actual
> Publisher 2000 native files properly (even before they were made into
> html). After much aggravation, I gave up on Publisher 2002, and
> dropped back to Publisher 2000 out of desperation. Microsoft did
> refund my money and sent a few gifts, but that was little consolation
> since I am orphaned in an old application without the ability to
> update.
>
> My question is whether Publisher 2003 is any better? Large file sizes
> would be annoying, but that alone does not concern me all that much.
> What does concern me is being able to work on the existing pages
> without an act of congress! In all honesty, I have contemplated a
> lawsuit over this matter, but hoped Microsoft would eventually issue a
> newer version of Publisher capable of dealing with Publisher 2000
> files. The thought of moving the entire www.logwell.com site into a
> competeing product like Dreamweaver, is almost unbearable...
>
> Syd H. Levine
> AnaLog Services, Inc.
> www.logwell.com
> analog@logwell.com
|
|
|
| [
Post Follow-Up to this message ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Publisher Web File Compatibility |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-31-04 - 12:14 AM
|
*Responses embedded below:
On Sat, 29 May 2004 22:51:06 -0500, "David Bartosik - MS MVP"
<forums@davidbartosik.com> wrote:
>I'm not sure what it is you are wanting to hear. I assume you've read my
>article on the changes in 2003. Version 2002 is fundamentally different fro
m
>2000. And 2003 went yet further in new directions. So you can say that 2003
>is similar to 2002 and both are radically different from 2000. That's not
>going to change, you either accept or you don't.
>I don't know what it is you are seeking and/or what you feel you are lackin
g
>in 2000 that is making you hungry for a new version. I say 'new version'
>rather than 'upgrade' because in my dictionary 2002/2003 are not upgrades o
f
>2000, but rather 'new versions'.
*What I was hoping to hear is that Publisher 2003 is the cat's meow,
but that does not seem to be the case. I did read your article about
2003, and that is what led me to this newsgroup. I have no choice but
to continue to use Publisher 2000 due to time constraints, but I am
not happy about the liklihood that it will soon be orphaned, and may
not even run in future versions of Windows.
>I personally feel 2000 is the best version for a Publisher made web site.
>I think that maybe the pain you are feeling is not really the itch for a ne
w
>version, but really is the pinch of hitting and surpassing the limitations
>of Publisher webs.
*Perhaps, but those limitations should be disclosed. Instead, M$ says
things like html is a "native language" in Publisher 2002, and that is
a bald faced lie. Publisher 2002 cannot even load html created by
Publisher 2000 without severe problems. The bloated html code
Publisher 2002 (and apparently Publisher 2003) produce renders them
unfit to do websites for all practical purposes.
>Publisher, regardless of version, is not designed for a 300 page site. And
>the Publisher product team will be the first to say that. FrontPage is
>designed to fill the role of larger sites.
* Duh, I know that NOW. But M$ should disclose that in bold print
everyplace they tout Publisher. I tried to migrate into FrontPage
2000 and 2002, but the html generated by Publisher is not compatible.
That is nothing short of bizzare! The idea that one can use a desktop
publishing program for printed material AND for a website is a fatally
attractive enticement. They sure got me.
>Perhaps you read my profile article on the MS Office site. I mention my sit
e
>barvin.com, I think you are in a place I was three years ago. The site was
>way to big for Publisher despite my having broken it down into multiple pub
>files for easier management.
*I discovered that trick back in 1999 while still using Publisher 98.
It allows for better site management, and allows different
backgrounds, meta tags, etc. Problem is, it makes it even harder to
migrate into another html design/generator program.
>
>And you know what, I bite the bullet and rebuilt it in FrontPage (2002 at
>the time) totally from scratch and all new. Did it take time, hell yes. But
>it was worth it. I ended up designing a better site and I site that was
>easier to manage and saved me time in the long run.
*But i do not have scores or hundreds of hours of free time to make
the transistion to FrointPage. Besides, hell would freeze over before
I used another M$ product to do my website. I bought a retail copy of
FrontPage 2002 (later M$ gave me my money back, and sent an additional
free copy like that helped), but I could not even get the simple
text-only home page at www.logwell.com to move into FrontPage! Other
pages with graphics were a total disaster.
>
>I then out grew FP and now use ASP.NET. Having poked around your site a
>little and from your size description my honest recommendation to you is to
>move the content to databases and run an ASP.NET site.
*Great, you gonna do the work? Is M$ gonna pay for it?
>
>If you moved to FP, or Dreamweaver, (staying in Pub is not a sound solution
)
>you would soon feel the pinch again. I hope you'll take my advice and revie
w
>ASP.NET. Find out if your host supports it and what it supports for
>databases. And if you aren't interested in developing yourself there are
>pre-built site models that can be installed by the host and then modified b
y
>you on the client side (your browser). To find these visit www.asp.net and
>look at starter kits. For example the community or portal kit site could be
>loaded by your host and would support your modifying the design and creatin
g
>your content pages all via your browser.
>
>think outside your box ;-)
*Think outside my box? I am in this box due to misrepresentations on
the part of M$. My site receives on average around 5,000 hits per
day, many from folks in parts of the world not using the latest and
greatest software. I want simple pages that render in just about any
browser, and I have learned to trick Publisher 2000 into doing that
iIt sounds like Publisher 2003 would be a problem in that regard).
Interestingly, not a single person at M$ has ever admitted that
staying in Publisher is not a sound solution. But stay I must due to
a lack of time to change.
|
|
|
| [
Post Follow-Up to this message ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:04 AM. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
