New Developments?

[analog]

I have been absent from this forum for awhile. I was wondering if any progress
has been made to improve the performance of 2003, or is the consensus that 2000
is still the best version for websites of more than a few pages?

Also, has M$ ever come up with a way to get a large Publisher website into FP
without having to contemplate suicide?

Any other exciting developments I should know about?

Thanks.

Syd

 

[DavidF]

Hi Syd,

I read all the threads from the last times you were here, and understand
your issues with Pub 2003 and converting your Pub 2000 site into FrontPage,
but have always wondered what it is specifically that you want to do with
your site that you can't do with Pub 2000?

DavidF

 

[JoAnn Paules [MSFT MVP]]

So how ya been Syd?? I missed you.

 

[analog]

So how ya been Syd?? I missed you.

Hehe, I missed you too, darlink! Been good, just way too busy.

 

[analog]

My main concern is simply getting stuck with an orphaned program. M$ will
eventually quit supporting Pub 2000, and it may well not run in some future
version of Winblows. You are young, and do not look at this sort of thing like
us old fossils.

But to answer your question, it would be nice to have something able to deal
with varying screen resolutions. And it would be nice to have something that
manages the site a little better since my poor brain is becoming taxed with
several hundred pages to keep up with. And of course there are many bugs still
extant in even good ole Pub 2000 that one must learn to beat into submission
(spacination craziness when changing justification is one of my favorites,
argh).

It would be a fib to say I do not like Publisher 2000, but it is badly dated.
From my limited experience with Publisher 2003, there ain't much to like. So I
feel stranded in 2000, and am not happy with the eventual need to spend
countless hours moving to a new program like FP. I would move to Pub 2003 in a
heartbeat if they would make it behave, but it won't even deal with my existing
Publisher files (or at least it wouldn't back when I tried with the freebie
version M$ gave the company).

 

[DavidF]

Syd,

I may not be a fossil yet, but have been using computers in one form or the
other for over 30 years, and I am concerned about such things. When
Microsoft brought out XP, and though I do have Office, I was afraid that I
would not be able to run my old trusty Works 4.5, which I use almost daily
for a database with 15 years of data in it and the merge functions. Works is
one of those programs that MS started to dummy down each new version after
4.5, adding flash and fluff, and taking away function.

I also run Pub 2000, and understand your concern about how long we will be
able to use it. Especially since I use it for a lot of my print documents in
my business. However, I am not as concerned about the MS support as I run
behind good antivirus software and a firewall, and rarely install MS patches
which seem to break just about as many things as they cure. I am also not
that concerned about future operating systems. Besides this XP box, I still
use a machine with Win98 and one with WinME. I don't see myself even wanting
to switch to any new operating systems for many years. But then I subscribe
to the 'if it ain't broke, why fix it' philosophy, and the KISS principle.
Heck, I used a DOS machine for 9 years...and it never crashed.

I constantly toy with the idea of switching to a different app for my
website, but thus far have not found a good enough reason to do so. Dealing
with varying screen resolutions might be nice, but as David Bartosik has
pointed out many of the biggest and best sites on the internet used fixed
pages.

Most of my site, like yours is primarily informational and static vs.
interactive. I don't think I need or even should add a lot of flash and
fizzle. What you call bugs, I call reminders, to keep my site simple and
easy to use. Though I have broadband, I design and test my site with a slow
dial up modem and IE and Foxfire with the total internet neophyte with the
most basic computers in mind. Just because you CAN do something, doesn't
mean you should. Look at Pub 2003. I believe that MS was trying to add
function with XML, VML etc, but ended up with a product that probably should
not be used for website building. When one of the 'bugs' in Pub 2000 keeps
me from doing something on my site, then I usually find that I am trying to
get too fancy anyway. It forces me to ask whether what I am trying to do
really does add function or make my site easier to use. It forces me to
KISS. And I would ask you, don't you expect that FrontPage or other more
sophisticated web apps also have their own set of 'bugs'?

Early on I broke my site up into many sections of which most are static
pages. I use third party software to produce the nonstatic parts of my site
and learned how to import a javascript based navigation system to each page.
This makes it fairly easy to add sections, and links to my navigation bars
that are automatically imported to each page on my site. My plan is to
choose a new application such as FrontPage which is compatible with this
navigation system, and start building new sections and simply integrate
those sections with the old. I figure I have several years to make the
transition before I have to buy a new computer with a different operating
system that might not be compatible with Publisher 2000. At the least it
makes the idea of the work involved in a change over seem a lot less
intimidating. And who knows, maybe MS will listen to David Bartosik, you and
the rest of us, and produce a new KISS version of Publisher and I won't ever
make the change.

And finally, though I only manage a hundred or so pages, I can relate to the
oldererer brain problem of keeping everything organized. However, I suspect
that new software is not going to help me there. I guess what I am trying to
say Syd, is that I am just glad that I have Pub 2000, and thus far there is
nothing I want to do with my site that I can't with the help of some
javascript, minor code editing and a couple third party apps. And it sounds
like the same is true for you...that's why I asked what it was that you
couldn't do with Pub 2000. Life could be worse...

DavidF

 

[David Bartosik [MSFT MVP]]

It's interesting to see you back. I've been doing this a long time and I can
say that when one leaves they don't come back. Anywho, as far as your
inquiry no nothing is different. I did get a workaround to the fact that
2003 would create huge image files, that's a new tool on the picture
toolbar. That comes from Office 2003 SP1. But the tool was already present
in other Office apps. Publisher is limited in what it can do because of it's
dependence on the Office code base. The 2000 version and earlier, Pub was
it's own entity with it's own code base and ways of doing things. The next
release will have nice new things, as will Office across the board, but I'm
not expecting any radical change in the html area.
I think reality is that you have outgrown Publisher. I can appreciate that
being hard to accept and can appreciate the time restraints that come into
play. Not only have I rebuilt sites for clients but I've been there myself
with my own site (barvin.com) that outgrew Pub 2000 a few years back. So if
you ever need some advice feel free to ask. Now while FP is the obvious
solution to managing a site of your scope and of gaining flexibility and
features, I'd suggest you take a look at http://www.blogger.com
With a little customization you could do your site quite easily in their
system. Your site is mainly textual content, so you could get it all into
their system with simple copy/paste and managing it is pretty easy. I use it
myself for my site http://www.davidbartosik.com

David Bartosik - [MSFT MVP]
www.publishermvps.com
www.davidbartosik.com

 

[analog]

I can't disagree with much of what you say. We ran XT DOS machines here right
up until about 2000, but the point is the time comes for transition. We are now
running XP on 5 machines, and it is not always an orderly transition that
motivates changes (usually some kind of crash or other disaster).

I also use the trick of breaking my site up into dozens of smaller directories,
each its own Publisher file. I would actually miss doing that if I ever move
into a true site building / management tool.

You are more forgiving of MS calling bugs "reminders". Everything considered,
like you, I wish they would fix Pub 2003 or the subsequent version to come so
that I could just keep using Publisher for web work.

You are right, life could be much worse. It was much worse when briefly tried
to use Publisher 2003...

Syd

 

[analog]

I was just busy, but dropped in every once in awhile to see what you guys were
up to. Sorry for disappointing you and not just slinking off and ignoring the
problems M$ has created. And of course, how could I stay away from that lovely
MVP in here?

In truth, I came back in to ask what was new because I got an email from that
class action law firm I mentioned before.

Perhaps I have outgrown Publisher, but I don't see why that has to be true. If
Publisher 2003 had been the logical extension of Pub 2000, I would be happily
using it. But if it is true that I have outgrown Publisher, what possible
excuse can there be for no easy way to move into FP? You continue to make
excuses for the inexcusable!

It's interesting to see you back. I've been doing this a long time and I can
say that when one leaves they don't come back. Anywho, as far as your
inquiry no nothing is different. I did get a workaround to the fact that
2003 would create huge image files, that's a new tool on the picture
toolbar. That comes from Office 2003 SP1. But the tool was already present
in other Office apps. Publisher is limited in what it can do because of it's
dependence on the Office code base. The 2000 version and earlier, Pub was
it's own entity with it's own code base and ways of doing things. The next
release will have nice new things, as will Office across the board, but I'm
not expecting any radical change in the html area.
I think reality is that you have outgrown Publisher. I can appreciate that
being hard to accept and can appreciate the time restraints that come into
play. Not only have I rebuilt sites for clients but I've been there myself
with my own site (barvin.com) that outgrew Pub 2000 a few years back. So if
you ever need some advice feel free to ask. Now while FP is the obvious
solution to managing a site of your scope and of gaining flexibility and
features, I'd suggest you take a look at http://www.blogger.com
With a little customization you could do your site quite easily in their
system. Your site is mainly textual content, so you could get it all into
their system with simple copy/paste and managing it is pretty easy. I use it
myself for my site http://www.davidbartosik.com

David Bartosik - [MSFT MVP]
www.publishermvps.com
www.davidbartosik.com

My main concern is simply getting stuck with an orphaned program. M$ will
eventually quit supporting Pub 2000, and it may well not run in some
future
version of Winblows. You are young, and do not look at this sort of thing
like
us old fossils.

But to answer your question, it would be nice to have something able to
deal
with varying screen resolutions. And it would be nice to have something
that
manages the site a little better since my poor brain is becoming taxed
with
several hundred pages to keep up with. And of course there are many bugs
still
extant in even good ole Pub 2000 that one must learn to beat into
submission
(spacination craziness when changing justification is one of my favorites,
argh).

It would be a fib to say I do not like Publisher 2000, but it is badly
dated.
From my limited experience with Publisher 2003, there ain't much to like.
So I
feel stranded in 2000, and am not happy with the eventual need to spend
countless hours moving to a new program like FP. I would move to Pub 2003
in a
heartbeat if they would make it behave, but it won't even deal with my
existing
Publisher files (or at least it wouldn't back when I tried with the
freebie
version M$ gave the company).