Free Site builders

[NickFitz]

NickFitz is an uber-guru of such things, and currently on the bench

but probably costs a bit more than £20 for a template

[NickFitz]

I'll think I'll have a look at that, are there any product dependencies ?

Windows (XP or Vista only).

I haven't downloaded the 2008 edition yet (I still use 2005). Not sure what it's like for building pages though - I only use it for JavaScript debugging in Internet Explorer (and occasionally trying to work out what on earth IE thinks it's up to when constructing its DOM).

The JS debugger is very good, once one works out the tortuous procedure necessary to get it to attach to an IE process.

[Fred Bloggs]

Hmmmm, I downloaded and installed this web developer 2008 express malarky. It looks very posh. I'm used to hacking around my own simple-ish websites using frontpage 2003 and I havbe to say, the absence of a simple menu that does "insert > image > from file" etc... floored me. I've gone back to FP2003. My initial conclusion is that for us simple non IT souls the web developer 2008 express might as well come from Mars for the use it is to us! (Oh, and my ancient but trusty Athlon XP 1800 PC slows to a crawl running the web dev thingy too!).

[NickFitz]

Hmmmm, I downloaded and installed this web developer 2008 express malarky. It looks very posh. I'm used to hacking around my own simple-ish websites using frontpage 2003 and I havbe to say, the absence of a simple menu that does "insert > image > from file" etc... floored me. I've gone back to FP2003. My initial conclusion is that for us simple non IT souls the web developer 2008 express might as well come from Mars for the use it is to us! (Oh, and my ancient but trusty Athlon XP 1800 PC slows to a crawl running the web dev thingy too!).

Its primary purpose is for developing ASP.NET applications. It's overkill if you just want to hack a bit of HTML together.

I've never used FP2003, but earlier versions produced some of the most badly-structured, bloated and invalid markup ever known to man. It also had a habit of producing pages that would only display as intended in Internet Explorer, which isn't a good idea now that IE's market share is generally considered to be down to around the 75% mark.

But I suppose it's possible that the 2003 version was better...

[Fred Bloggs]

Thanks for the insight. If you turn off all the MS specific widgets I find FP2003 fine for quickly hacking together a few HTML pages. Often I tweak the HTML by hand after though