Microsoft FrontPage 2002 [OLD VERSION]

Other products by Microsoft

Product Details

• Shipping Weight: 1.2 pounds
• Shipping: Currently, item can be shipped only within the U.S.
• Note: Gift-wrapping is not available for this item.
• ASIN: B00005AFI2
• Item model number: 392-01099
• Date first available at Amazon.com: February 19, 2001
• Average Customer Review: 3.3 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (88 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #1,727 in Software (See Bestsellers in Software)

  Popular in this category: (What's this?)

  #6 in

  Software > Web Development > Web Page Editors > WYSIWYG

• Discontinued by manufacturer: Yes

Product Description

Amazon.com Review

Convergence seems to be the watchword for the Microsoft FrontPage 2002 Web authoring system. Every new edition becomes a bit more like the other components of the Office suite, while also increasingly tying in to related Microsoft products and services. This is vaguely threatening to users who want greater freedom to edit HTML and other code directly or who want to call all the shots on their sites' designs, but for most users the expediency of FrontPage makes these sacrifices worthwhile or even unnoticeable.

With new templates and smart tools ("bots") to help create a wide range of intranet and Internet pages, version 2002 is even simpler and faster to use than its predecessors. Users can draw with PowerPoint tools, drag and drop live content, and create photo galleries with a few mouse clicks. Publishing is incredibly easy. Beginners will love the wizards, and will find Web authoring much easier than expected.

Why do so many people have problems with FrontPage? The main complaint is that the output, which tends to be flabby and difficult to parse, can't be edited by the user and is difficult to run on non-Microsoft servers. This is a problem for those who've gone beyond using wizards and templates to create their pages, but many other users are content with the results. The automatic direction to Microsoft-related services is also somewhat troubling--it would be nice, if unrealistic, for users to have easier access to the wide range of servers and e-commerce providers available.

Still, for Webbies with fairly simple needs and no desire to spend months learning the ins and outs of HTML and XML, FrontPage 2002 is most likely the way to go. --Rob Lightner

Amazon.com Product Description

Microsoft FrontPage 2002 is a Web site creation-and-management solution that gives you the tools you need to create and control professional-quality Web sites. FrontPage version 2002 has been designed so you can create exactly the site you want. You can use new PowerPoint-like drawing tools and automatic web content to make your Web site more exciting and dynamic. If you're familiar with HTML editing, you can also use FrontPage to save time with the new paste options smart tag, a new streamlined user interface, and new optional HTML and XML reformatting. You can also manage your Internet or intranet Web site more effectively by using the new usage-analysis tools, top 10 lists, and enhanced reporting capabilities. And you can use the new technology in the SharePoint Team Services team Web-site solution to create customized team Web sites to store, find, and communicate information.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

90 of 92 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Excellent Product!!!, July 26, 2001

By A Customer

For the non-web-heads, for those who don't have the time to eat, drink and sleep HTML code, for those who have a life - Frontpage 2002 is an excellent choice for quick and easy web page construction.

I have extensive experience in graphic design but have neither the time nor interest to learn HTML. With Frontpage, I not only got two now popular sites running but I'm getting freelance offers to do small business sites for other people.

Granted, this is not a software for professionals. As a graphic designer, you couldn't make me use Microsoft Publisher at gunpoint. I'd use professional softwares such as Quark or Pagemaker. So I understand the "disgust" for this product by hard core designers. But I say again, it's not for them. They'd be happier if they stop trying to use it. It's for the rest of us, the average folks in the world. I love it. It let's me do quickly and easily what I do best: page layout and design without the mess of HTML.

136 of 144 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Sooner or later you'll need Dreamweaver, August 11, 2001

By	TestMagic Inc. (San Francisco, CA USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

I bought FrontPage 98 a few years ago probably for the same reason you're at this page now--I wanted to start making my own web pages, but I was intimidated by all the stuff I would have to learn.

FrontPage is a great tool to get you started, but, if you talk to enough people, and you spend as time on the phone with tech support as I find I have to do because of problems related to FrontPage, you'll hear the same thing over and over again: FrontPage writes messy code, Dreamweaver does not.

Why? Well the answer is both simple and familiar: Microsoft, once again, has chosen to create its own set of standards rather than follow those 95% of the rest of the world uses. Consequently, all the "extra stuff" required behind the scenes to make FrontPage work is essentially incompatible with many other things.

In fact, I upgraded from FP 2000 because the latter had a major bug, a known issue, as they call it--it cannot upload large sites; it almost always gives some sort of error when doing so. Worse, you MUST use FP to upload; you cannot simply FTP your files as you can with other HTML generators.

So, I upgraded to FP 2002, and the upload problem was fixed, but more problems were created. My current web host and at least two other ones (two of which are the largest in the industry) have told me the same thing--they are not supporting FP 2002 yet because it is too buggy.

FP's whole approach of editing your site "live" presents a couple of other problems as well. You will notice that when you work in FP, you are actually working on "live" pages; i.e., you are editing the very page that is on your web site. No big deal, you're thinking, right? Wrong. As buggy as it is, FP often messes up its functions or crashes, and you're stuck with a crazy page live on your web site. Dreamweaver, on the other hand, essentially duplicates your entire web site on your hard drive, and all editing takes place on your hard drive first. If something goes awry, you don't need to upload the changed pages from your hard drive to your web site--if worse comes to worse, you can choose to overwrite your local pages with the ones that are live on your site.

After working for a long time in both editors, I have come to think of having TWO web sites when working with Dreamweaver; I can tinker with and tweak the one on my hard drive at will and, when it's just how I want it, I can upload it. In FP, I have no such option. I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but imagine you had an electronic billboard that was visible to the world--wouldn't you want to upload the new one all at once instead of little by little? Part of the reason I'm writing this review right now is that I now, as I write, have one of those so-called "known issues" plaguing my web site. FP 2002 has a bug that causes certain parts of the page to duplicate itself. So, now, as I type, visitors are seeing my page in double!! I am SO tired of the whole FP deal. I am now sure that I will convert my entire site to Dreamweaver so that I can be done with FP forever!!

Finally, FP uploads in a special way that is necessary for FP to function properly. From what I understand, FP uploads via the web while most editors do so via FTP. This may seem a small matter, but think of it this way--have you learned, the way I have, that you must save frequently? Probably. Do you hit CTRL+S (to save) between every other breath in most other programs? If so, you will quickly grow tired of FP. Each save takes from five to twenty minutes, no joke, and I have DSL. Dreamweaver, on the other hand, can upload a page in just a few seconds, always.

I now realize that I should have just learned Dreamweaver in the beginning, and have a purely Dreamweaver site. Trust me on this one.

52 of 52 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Right for some; disaster for me, March 19, 2003

By	SeaWalnut (US) - See all my reviews

Despite mixed reviews, I bought FP2002 mainly because HoTMeTaL had just become unavailable. I'm a heavy and long-term user of Office products, and am entirely comfortable with them. Purpose of this purchase was to draft look/feel and content of a new web site, which I would hand over to a professional designer for tweaking.

Took a very reasonable couple of weeks' effort making what I wanted. Two major issues were unexpected non-ease of importing formatted material from Office, and weird instability in text/graphics positioning: stuff jumps all over the place w/o warning. (I'm running WinXP Home, in case it matters.)

Then passed the saved files to a pro running DreamWeaver on Mac. He is completely unable to open many, and others all seem to have a bunch of Java in the HTML code. (Yes, I did turn off all those unneeded options first.) It doesn't seem to be possible to save as simple HTML files with common code.

It's going to cost me a great deal of time and money to repeat the whole exercise from scratch. Wish MS hadn't dropped their 30-day free trial, but I can see why.

Right for some, no doubt. But if you want compatible code, portable files, or any real idea of what's going on in there (a familiar story with MS?), run away fast.