201–210 of 218 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Netscape never charged users. Perhaps you’re thinking of Opera. The reasons IE won over Netscape are many, but bundling with dominant OS and embracing/extending standards such that sites only worked in IE was a big part of it. Heck, there was a whole antitrust case about just that.
> Netscape never charged users. Perhaps you’re thinking of Opera. No Netscape would officially cost you US$49 until 1998.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really? While I developed many sites in FrontPage, it was always looked down on by most people I knew. Many hosts outright refused to do full integration with it or run its extensions. The Generated HTML was far better than Word would generate, but it still was wonky unless you really knew what to avoid or were doing something incredibly simple.
Not running its extensions was mostly a result of the fact that that required running IIS on Windows NT. IIS had a number of high profile problems, and Windows NT 3.51/4.0 (remember, bare metal not VMs) really wasn't ready for running at that scale or in that context. Compared to putting in a SPARC-based machine running Solaris, it just didn't make sense - much harder to manage, less efficient use of resources etc.
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/202198/how-to-insta...
FrontPage 97 was the first WYSIWYG tool I ever used, since graduating from the humble text editors. IIRC, I got a free upgrade to FrontPage98. Coupled with Visual InterDev, it formed the core of my webdev workflow. At the time Macromedia was making terrific advances in this space. Ca. 1999-2000 I moved to Dreamweaver, Ultradev, Flash and Paint Shop Pro(liked it better than Fireworks; story for another day).
isn't that back to front? you were supposed to graduate from WYSIWYG tools like FrontPage, which generated utterly awful markup, to writing proper HTML yourself in a text editor
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was pretty amazing to me that you could do WYSIWYG (wow, that's an anachronism itself!) valid HTML development, and then hand-manipulate the HTML and it let you put any invalid shit in there without complaining.
I remeber messing HTML stuff with HotDog
Still have not found anything that makes design as easy, and visual, like netobjects fusion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many, many "drag and drop" web based alternatives. Webflow,ukit, even Adobe edge on the desktop.
NetObjects Fusion! In 1996-7, I worked on AT&T's small business web hosting service, and it supported FrontPage and NetObjects Fusion.
I recently found this thing called 'pinegrove editor' (I think that's' what it's called. looks the closest to something like it and modern.
maybe blue griffon.
Sadly drop and drop widgets with wordpress themes is probably the most widely used that is similar.
Although it's just a footnote on this page, Microsoft GIF Animator is still the easiest and most useful GIF animation tool out there. I have yet to find anything quite as easy to make animated GIFs. I haven't used it in years though, not sure if it's still floating around and if it runs on a modern OS.
I'm wondering how many of the complaints here are to do with FrontPage itself, or the very idea of WYSIWYG web design. To me, it seems that web design is a visual thing. And if so, then a WYSIWYG editor is the appropriate thing to use. I'm suspicious that some people here don't think visually, and don't see the value in thinking visually. I don't know what people mean when they say "bad markup". I imagine it might in…
Then using tables for layouts was better. Cutting graphics for rounded corners worked. The web purists kept posting how bad it was, web visitors never cared.
Once monitors were less standardized (more than just 800 px wide and 1024) - and mobile became a thing- the web purists really pushed to do layout with css only - and they spend years posting about hacks and recreating.. table layout called something else.
Either way lots of extra code that is certainly not needed if using the modern grid css tagging...
I still preferred the table layouts of years past, though I like the new tiny code that is needed for grid, the bloated code of the 90s and 00s is nothing compared to all the hi rez images, video and javascript bloat these days.
You know, good design principles weren't invented in 2006. There was plenty of good design in the 90s in other industries (publishing, newspapers, magazines, advertising, academia, ...), but apparently fucking nothing of that filtered down to webdesign. I mean: yes, technology was limited. I get that you couldn't have free range with things like typography and that CSS wasn't a thing yet. But for the love of god: a t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The server interaction features also worked on Linux! https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/202198/how-to-insta...
And BSD. Early on, we ran the first and largest MS FrontPage 'certified' web hosting provider, we enabled it on BSD with content in the same Unix home directories we gave our dialup clients. Folks who made web sites in those days and paid $20/month to host them provided a pretty compelling library of content compared to today's pay-per-click 'blogosphere'. I liked the "put up or shut up" pay-to-host model, driven by…
Man, look at that site. Unimaginably fast, works perfect on mobile, no clutter and readable. It truly has gone downhill since then.
> Unimaginably fast From the article: > I also like the load time estimation found in the bottom right corner -- that's a constant reminder how long it will take the page you're working on to load for your visitors. My resume page is pretty good on wait time -- 14 seconds and that includes a graphic in addition to a massive HTML file! His "unimaginably fast" website took 14 seconds to load. Compare that to today's "b…
Yes, technology at the time did limit the kind of bloat that would be tolerated. Is that an excuse to go all in now just because we can?