There is also an update for Office 2007 that has to be installed for both of them to work. In fact I thought I read that if you had the update installed you did not have to removed Office 2007.

That's possible; I installed it out of the reseller action pack and might not have the latest version of beta 2.

But I'm more concerned whether any or all of these products (expressions, sharepoint) will work on Apache and UNIX because we don't (and won't) use IIS.

(I've been using FP for years, just because I like the way the code view works)

They all work just fine, but of course you can't use the ASP.NET functions.

I am using the Expressions Beta and it is way better than FP

I am a #*$!e web designer though......

David

They all work just fine, but of course you can't use the ASP.NET functions

Thanks!

after years of being a frontpage fan, i switched to open source cms this year. its the wave of the future and its all free. I can make any type of site amazingly fast. MS is dead, don't hold on, let it go. It's time for FP to die, it can't compete.

It's time for FP to die, it can't compete....

Of course not, it is dead.

However, Expression Web WILL be some serious competition for DW.

Even in it's still beta1 form, it has about a 99% approval rating, and the majority of DW users I have talked to prefer it over DW.

However, since I tend not to inhabit DW sites, that is probably biased.

I think that ASP.Net might be able to run on Linux/apache servers. If that's true, then you could get the functionality of the navigation tools which is one thing I REALLY need. (can't stand the thought of having to hand code all the navigation)

I'm not sure if I can mention the name of the app so I won't but I did some searching for linux asp.net and found that there is a way to enable asp.net (with about 90-95% functionality) on linux/apache boxes.

I'm going out to the hosts I use now to see if they plan on implementing this. I figure I can probably still use frontpage for perhaps a year. However I need to start thinking about migration and expressions web looks fairly decent.

Again, running it on a linux box will depend on the host installing the app to run asp.net (I'm talking about shared hosting. Those who have their own server should be able to do the install)

Anyway, that made me a little happier finding out about it.

cg

My feelings are that even though MS has promised to support FP for quite a while, over the next few months you will see a lot of hosts dropping FP supports and extensions because they are such a hassle for them.

I installed it; it looks like it's still using the FP Extensions, though.

It will use them ONLY if you have hava an old FP website.

You cannot edit them or add new ones.

I say again, FP extensions are going away soon.

[edited by: Wlauzon at 8:54 pm (utc) on Oct. 12, 2006]

I say again, FP extensions are going away soon.

I think it will depend on user demand, just like anything else. If hosts can make money by continuing to offer the server extensions to site owners who are still using FrontPage, they'll do it. (Some hosts, such as mine, have automated the process of installing or removing the FP server extensions, so why wouldn't they continue to offer those extensions--along with their many other options--as long as FP users are willing to pay for them?)

I don't think you will see many hosts actually taking them off for a while, what I do think is that you will see a lot fewer installing them on new setups.

But like you say, with some hosts, like with cPanel, it is no big deal anyway.

I do expect to see a lot more hosts offering asp.net sites though after it comes out.

I think a lot of existing FP users will rush out to buy Expression Web in the (mistaken) belief that it is just an upgrade to FP. But once they find out that all the existing standards breaking bots are gone they will go back to FP or move to some other simple to use editor.

And it is possible that a 3rd party might come out with an FP replacement.

I'm no computer/technical geek. I have a number of sites, all built with FrontPage. When I want a new site, I can put it together pretty fast with FrontPage.

My sites aren't very complex, but each serves it's purpose well and I provide information and services to people in a number of different white collar professions. In other words, to the visitor they don't look like they were put together with crayons and construction paper.

I don't mean to pick on you guys who build websites for others for a living, but the discussions about FrontPage all seem to follow a similar pattern.

There are some other forums I visit from time to time where people who build sites for others discuss their problems in obtaining clients, getting paid, dealing with difficult clients, etc. If someone asks a FP related question, FP gets a thorough bashing.

My FP sites earn money by selling products, selling ads, etc. - enough that I spend most of the hours in a day doing what I want to do instead of working for someone else.

I suppose if I wanted sites to perform complex functions or if I built sites for others, I might not like FP.

FarmBoy

I think it will depend on user demand, just like anything else. If hosts can make money by continuing to offer the server extensions to site owners who are still using FrontPage, they'll do it.

I contacted my host to ask what the future holds as far as their supporting FrontPage.

The response was that they haven't yet developed an official policy. The customer support rep did say that due to the volume of FrontPage sites, business considerations will probably dictate they continue to support FrontPage even if future technical considerations discourage it.

FarmBoy

Farmboy

I'm pretty much in the same boat as you, I think. I like FP because I can get sites organized and deployed quickly. For the most part, except for the quirkiness of the .htaccess interactions, FP works well.

Ideally, I would like to be able to easily migrate my sites to whatever new tool will work. Expressions Web will probably have the best importing ability (MS to MS). The Asp.net thing seemed to be a major stumbling block.

possible solution:
However, there is at least one solution that is available under a GNU license. The project is called MONO. It appears that can be deployed on Apache servers to allow you to run asp.net applications. There may be other solutions as well that will work in a similar fashion.

If this works it would be an ideal solution for me. I would be able to migrate to expression web and still remain on linux hosting.

There are probably additional vulnerabilities for your site when you are running something like mono, just like FP extensions, php and cgi have/hadvulnerabilities
Cg

Farmboy

I'm pretty much in the same boat as you, I think. I like FP because I can get sites organized and deployed quickly. For the most part, except for the quirkiness of the .htaccess interactions, FP works well.

Ideally, I would like to be able to easily migrate my sites to whatever new tool will work. Expressions Web will probably have the best importing ability (MS to MS). The Asp.net thing seemed to be a major stumbling block.

possible solution:
However, there is at least one solution that is available under a GNU license. The project is called MONO. It appears that can be deployed on Apache servers to allow you to run asp.net applications. There may be other solutions as well that will work in a similar fashion.

If this works it would be an ideal solution for me. I would be able to migrate to expression web and still remain on linux hosting.

There are probably additional vulnerabilities for your site when you are running something like mono, just like FP extensions, php and cgi have/hadvulnerabilities
Cg

MONO does indeed look like it might help but as yet does not (its in the pipeline though) support ASP.net 2.0 which is a requirement for EWD.

Chris

Ideally, I would like to be able to easily migrate my sites to whatever new tool will work. Expressions Web will probably have the best importing ability (MS to MS). ** The Asp.net thing seemed to be a major stumbling block....

You do NOT have to use the ASP.NET stuff. In fact you can totally ignore it if you don't want to use it.

In fact, without the ASP.NET, EW works very similar to FP except of course that the old FP bots etc can no longer be added or edited.

And EW has much better CSS tools.

You do NOT have to use the ASP.NET stuff. In fact you can totally ignore it if you don't want to use it

I guess I really need to play with the beta. One thing I liked about frontpage was the navigation. IOW, if I have a site about different color widgets, I could add orange widgets and the Navigation would handle adding orange widgets to the various navigation bars depending on child, parent, same relationships.

I suspect that the same functionality will require asp.net. If so, then I still have the same issues with finding a way to make asp work on linux or move to windows hosting. (or just build all the menus by hand)..

cmendla, to save you some time if you set it up, what you are looking for in EWD is called Mater Pages.

(Master)

I expect we'll continue to use Front Page Extensions for those of our hosting clients who want it; asp.net is not an option because we are a UNIX only company.

Indeed it was announced earlier and here was a trhead about it but afterall Frontpage wasnt that bad tool,especially for new users

I think we might see a migration of the newbie web makers, especially those for small hobby and personal sites, move to another platform, such as the Coffee Cup editor.

No other current editor has the stuff like navigation and other web bots,but neither does EW - so there is really not much reason to buy an (estimated) $300 program when a $40 will do.