 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussionsAccessExcelInfoPathOutlookPowerPointPublisherWordDirectoryUser Groups Related Topics Outlook ExpressInternet ExplorerWindowsMS Server ProductsMore Topics ... |
MS Office Forum / Publisher / Web Design / August 2004Pub 2003 Web Site Size again.
Ok, I was getting a little excited with the service pak 2 and it's ability to take pictures in your web site creation and quickly bring them down to 96 dpi or web friendly. But it's no real help. As I recreated a site I am working on which consists of 46 pages I noticed that after setting up the 46 blank pages with a background selection the site was already around 70 megs in size .. and I haven't entered any content ! Is there anything else that can be done ... cause it isn't so much the pictures that is making Pub 2003 web sites so large ! Thanks Turn off PNG and VML in Options. and use image optimizer in SP1. That's all there is. Publisher is what Publisher is.  SignatureDavid Bartosik - MS MVP for Publisher help: www.davidbartosik.com enter to win Pub 2003: www.davidbartosik.com/giveaway.aspx > Ok, I was getting a little excited with the service pak 2 and it's ability > to take pictures in your web site creation and quickly bring them down to 96 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Thanks Indeed, it is what it is, and it is crap! Fix it M$! Actually Publisher 2000 is quite usable for websites, but it is feature limited, still buggy, and becoming obsolete. >Turn off PNG and VML in Options. >and use image optimizer in SP1. >That's all there is. >Publisher is what Publisher is. YES ... what value is it if when someone goes to your site and they can't see it all. Pictures won't load up ... takes forever etc. Check it out for yourself at: www.lhaywardcollection.com Point out all the bugs you get > Indeed, it is what it is, and it is crap! > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >That's all there is. > >Publisher is what Publisher is. || YES ... what value is it if when someone goes to your site and they || can't see it all. Pictures won't load up ... takes forever etc. || Check it out for yourself at: www.lhaywardcollection.com || || Point out all the bugs you get Site loaded and looks good to me. I am using broadband however. The pricing page took a couple seconds to load do to all the pictures, but it loaded like any normal site for me. I have seen some bad ones though out there on the web! SignatureBrian Kvalheim Microsoft Publisher MVP http://www.publishermvps.com ~pay it forward~ This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. The site is crisp and clean in terms of apprearance, but the graphics load painfully slowly at my present 24K connection speed (it never gets over 26.4K). The site would load much faster if you built it in Publisher 2000, and optimized the graphics for online display with a good graphics program (we use Adobe Photoshop Elements - Picture It sucks badly). A much better idea would be to leave Publisher and use something decent before the site gets much bigger and the time required to change programs becomes too daunting. Good luck. >YES ... what value is it if when someone goes to your site and they can't >see it all. Pictures won't load up ... takes forever etc. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> >That's all there is. >> >Publisher is what Publisher is. Sucks badly? Hmm, is it possible to suck in any other way? ;-) SignatureJoAnn Paules MVP Microsoft [Publisher] > The site is crisp and clean in terms of apprearance, but the graphics load > painfully slowly at my present 24K connection speed (it never gets over [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >>> >That's all there is. >>> >Publisher is what Publisher is. Heh, of course it is... >Sucks badly? Hmm, is it possible to suck in any other way? ;-) You know, after I sent that I had a feeling *someone* would twist that question....................... ;-) SignatureJoAnn Paules MVP Microsoft [Publisher] > Heh, of course it is... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >>Sucks badly? Hmm, is it possible to suck in any other way? ;-) I recommend FrontPage or Dreamweaver for creating a website as opposed to ANY version of Publisher. SignatureBrian Kvalheim Microsoft Publisher MVP http://www.publishermvps.com ~pay it forward~ This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. > The site is crisp and clean in terms of apprearance, but the graphics load > painfully slowly at my present 24K connection speed (it never gets over 26.4K). > The site would load much faster if you built it in Publisher 2000, and optimized > the graphics for online display with a good graphics program (we use Adobe > Photoshop Elements - Picture It sucks badly). As should any rational individual. So why does M$ continue to tout publisher as being suitable for small business use for web site creation? And why are we here talking about it? M$ should either fix it or give up on this silly pretense. In any event, they need to devise a conversion utility to get us fools with websites stuck in Publisher into Front Page without it taking countless hours to patch the resultant code. It is not asking too much, dernit. >I recommend FrontPage or Dreamweaver for creating a website as opposed to >ANY version of Publisher. So .... can I just copy each page over into Publisher 2000 ... how much will this reduce the size of my website? www.lhaywardcollection.com > As should any rational individual. So why does M$ continue to tout publisher as > being suitable for small business use for web site creation? And why are we [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >I recommend FrontPage or Dreamweaver for creating a website as opposed to > >ANY version of Publisher. Hi analog@logwell.com (analog@logwell.com), in the newsgroups you posted: || As should any rational individual. So why does M$ continue to tout || publisher as being suitable for small business use for web site [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] || in Publisher into Front Page without it taking countless hours to || patch the resultant code. It is not asking too much, dernit. I personally believe that Publisher is excellent for the creation of webpages, and much easier than FrontPage and Dreamweaver for a small business looking for a few pages of presence on the web. However, due to it's footprint with 2003, I too believe it needs to be addressed. David Bartosik has voiced his opinion very strongly to the Publisher team when we were in Redmond meeting with them in April. We will still continue to push for improved web output. SignatureBrian Kvalheim Microsoft Publisher MVP http://www.publishermvps.com ~pay it forward~ This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. Make up your mind. This speaking out of both sides of your mouth is disingenuous. >Hi analog@logwell.com (analog@logwell.com), >in the newsgroups [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >were in Redmond meeting with them in April. We will still continue to push >for improved web output. Hi analog@logwell.com (analog@logwell.com), in the newsgroups you posted: || Make up your mind. This speaking out of both sides of your mouth is || disingenuous. Huh? Because I recommend FrontPage or Dreamweaver over Publisher, but say that Publisher is easier (but it's downfall is it's large footprint). How about you THINK before you post. And READ before you post. Then you wouldn't come across as being so unprepared in snappish. SignatureBrian Kvalheim Microsoft Publisher MVP http://www.publishermvps.com ~pay it forward~ This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. >Hi analog@logwell.com (analog@logwell.com), >in the newsgroups [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >How about you THINK before you post. And READ before you post. Then you >wouldn't come across as being so unprepared in snappish. Oh. OK. That position is clear as mud. I sure don't want to be "unprepared in snappish" whatever that means. Is Publisher satisfactory for websites for small business or not? Easier is great, but not worth much if the program works like a piece of crap for websites. The fact that Publisher 2003 explicitly excludes all browsers except IE by design is indictment enough! || Oh. OK. That position is clear as mud. I sure don't want to be || "unprepared in snappish" whatever that means. Should have said unprepared AND snappish. It's called a typo. || Is Publisher satisfactory for websites for small business or not? For a few pages, it's fine. I recommend using the prebuilt templates and not really adding anything more. || Easier is great, but not worth much if the program works like a || piece of crap for websites. Publisher can work fine in some instances, such as small website and when you using the existing web templates. I have tested and uploaded the existing web templates and have not had a problem with load times. The biggest problem I have seen is with word wrap. || The fact that Publisher 2003 explicitly || excludes all browsers except IE by design is indictment enough! Correct me if I am wrong, but it was my understanding that disabling VML/PNG options makes Publisher 2003 compatible with other browsers. If that is true, then Publisher isn't "explicitly" excluding other browsers. But I won't argue the fact that MS avoids 3rd party apps like the plague in many instances. SignatureBrian Kvalheim Microsoft Publisher MVP http://www.publishermvps.com ~pay it forward~ This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. >Should have said unprepared AND snappish. It's called a typo. *Gee, my sarcasm just isn't appreciated. Of course it was a typo, but wtf does it mean? I don't think unprepared is what you really mean to call me... >|| Is Publisher satisfactory for websites for small business or not? > >For a few pages, it's fine. I recommend using the prebuilt templates and not >really adding anything more. *You keep adding more and more qualifications to your evaluation of Publisher. Next you will be saying it works OK as long as you use it only on Tuesdays when there is a full moon. >|| Easier is great, but not worth much if the program works like a >|| piece of crap for websites. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >existing web templates and have not had a problem with load times. The >biggest problem I have seen is with word wrap. *Gosh, I sure do not remember seeing those caveats on the retail package. >|| The fact that Publisher 2003 explicitly >|| excludes all browsers except IE by design is indictment enough! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >won't argue the fact that MS avoids 3rd party apps like the plague in many >instances. *I cannot correct you since I only have the word of MVPs in here that Publisher 2003 does not support other browsers. However, disabling the VML/PNG thingy still results in bloated code as far as I know. perhaps just not as bloated as with that feature turned on. ||| Should have said unprepared AND snappish. It's called a typo. || || *Gee, my sarcasm just isn't appreciated. Of course it was a typo, || but wtf does it mean? I don't think unprepared is what you really || mean to call me... Yes, unprepared. Not rehearsed. Lack of research. Haven't read through everything. || *You keep adding more and more qualifications to your evaluation of || Publisher. Next you will be saying it works OK as long as you use it || only on Tuesdays when there is a full moon. And I could keep going and going. I don't have time to write a novel. David Bartosik has already done that. || *Gosh, I sure do not remember seeing those caveats on the retail || package. I don't remember anything in my owners manual stating that owning my 4x4 SUV would cost me an arm and leg in gas, but fortunately I did the research. And indeed, it costs me a fortune :-) || *I cannot correct you since I only have the word of MVPs in here || that Publisher 2003 does not support other browsers. However, || disabling the VML/PNG thingy still results in bloated code as far as || I know. perhaps just not as bloated as with that feature turned on. That is my understanding, is that the VML is IE 6 only, the PNG option is IE5 and 6 only. And that when those are disabled, pages should be rendered in competing browsers. Maybe David B can correct me if I am wrong, but that is my understanding from internal discussions at MS. SignatureBrian Kvalheim Microsoft Publisher MVP http://www.publishermvps.com ~pay it forward~ This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. >||| Should have said unprepared AND snappish. It's called a typo. >|| [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Yes, unprepared. Not rehearsed. Lack of research. Haven't read through >everything. **Yep, you are certainly the rehearsed one. And it is a bad and over rehearsed act. >|| *You keep adding more and more qualifications to your evaluation of >|| Publisher. Next you will be saying it works OK as long as you use it >|| only on Tuesdays when there is a full moon. > >And I could keep going and going. I don't have time to write a novel. David >Bartosik has already done that. **Instead of going and going (on), how about ceasing your lame defense of a horrible Program (for websites, anyhow)? It is tiresome and transparent. Give you an honorary title, and you are ready to defend M$ to your death. >|| *Gosh, I sure do not remember seeing those caveats on the retail >|| package. > >I don't remember anything in my owners manual stating that owning my 4x4 SUV >would cost me an arm and leg in gas, but fortunately I did the research. And >indeed, it costs me a fortune :-) **Aren't you the bright one to figure out that a gas guzzler will cost allot to fuel? And what does that silly analogy have to do with what M$ has done to its customers with respect to Publisher and its use for websites? **A better analogy would be that you discover your SUV can only drive on certain roads built by its manufacturer. Or that it will not run properly when you haul certain types of cargo. Hope that isn't too deep for you. Your desperate analogies reveal much more than you realize. >|| *I cannot correct you since I only have the word of MVPs in here >|| that Publisher 2003 does not support other browsers. However, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >in competing browsers. Maybe David B can correct me if I am wrong, but that >is my understanding from internal discussions at MS. || **Yep, you are certainly the rehearsed one. And it is a bad and || over rehearsed act. Oh? How is that? Let me ask. Have you ever used Publisher 2003? Have you ever used the compress pictures features in Publisher 2003 SP1? Have you ever used/disabled PNG/VML features in Publisher 2003? Have you ever tried to create a website in Publisher 2003 and view it in a competing browser? Have you ever read David's work arounds? || **Instead of going and going (on), how about ceasing your lame || defense of a horrible Program (for websites, anyhow)? It is || tiresome and transparent. Give you an honorary title, and you are || ready to defend M$ to your death. Nope. Not defending MS. Again, defending software companies. Let me repeat and slow down for you. D e f e n d i n g s o f t w a r e c o m p a n i e s. What part of "every piece of software isn't for everyone" don't you understand? What seems to be working just fine for millions of others, may not work fine for you. And when someone buys a DTP (desktop publishing program) program for the sole purpose of building websites, that should raise a red flag on their lack of research. This holds true for all software companies. And when companies hear feedback from consumers, they may or may not supply patches or fixes to satisfy these complaints. But unfortunately, there can be *regression* when attempting to fix software. What does this mean to you? I will spell it out. If they go through and spend hours and dollars trying to fix a known issue for some consumer issues, it could in fact break something else in the program. Then, it will take again more and more hours and more and more testing and more money. So they either release a fix that might break something else, so they do the best they can with what they have to work with....funds, programmers, timing, etc. Service Pack 1 was released which I would like to add, ***substantially*** reduced the pictures sizes. That was done because of David B speaking up for the newsgroups and consumers such as yourself. I have a hint for you. Think *outside* the box. || **Aren't you the bright one to figure out that a gas guzzler will || cost allot to fuel? And what does that silly analogy have to do || with what M$ has done to its customers with respect to Publisher and || its use for websites? lol. || **A better analogy would be that you discover your SUV can only || drive on certain roads built by its manufacturer. Or that it will || not run properly when you haul certain types of cargo. Hope that || isn't too deep for you. Your desperate analogies reveal much more || than you realize. What ever makes it easier for you to understand :-) And I quote Don in the earlier thread "Reviewing the thread, you are the cause of the yellow flag. 15 yard penalty!" Sounds like I am not the only that is sick of your pedantic b.s. I have no problem with you sharing your feelings about Publisher, but I will not sit back and just watch you post NON publisher related spam in a publisher webdesign assistance newsgroup. SignatureBrian Kvalheim Microsoft Publisher MVP http://www.publishermvps.com ~pay it forward~ This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. You are just dense, that is all there is to it. Debating with you is like debating with my house cats. I especially like the bit about it being my fault that I was stupid enough to use Publisher for a website. And that it was my fault for believing what M$ said it would do. Screw you and the horse you rode in on, as we say here in Kentucky. You act like an immature bully in your inexcusable defense of M$. The gist of your argument is that software companies have no duty to deliver reasonably bug free products because it is such a daunting job. You further argue that M$ should not be held accountable since all software publishers do the same thing. Didn't your mother ever give you the speech about sticking your head in an oven just because everybody else is doing it? >|| **A better analogy would be that you discover your SUV can only >|| drive on certain roads built by its manufacturer. Or that it will [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >15 yard >penalty!" ***Clueless you are young Jedi. >Sounds like I am not the only that is sick of your pedantic b.s. I have no >problem with you sharing your feelings about Publisher, but I will not sit >back and just watch you post NON publisher related spam in a publisher >webdesign assistance newsgroup. What non-Publisher related spam? Everything I have posted in here has related to my unpleasant journey with Publisher, and its use to create a rather large website. And information about litigation involving M$ software is certainly of interest to folks that frequent this forum. Keep up the good work for your fearless leader as it just galvanizes the will not to let this nonsense slide (and that is precisely what I meant when I said M$ id doing itself no favor with the likes of you as MVP). || You are just dense, that is all there is to it. Debating with you || is like debating with my house cats. I especially like the bit || about it being my fault that I was stupid enough to use Publisher || for a website. And that it was my fault for believing what M$ said || it would do. Screw you and the horse you rode in on, as we say here || in Kentucky. I see we have someone that has taken over the David A throne :) ROFLMAO SignatureBrian Kvalheim Microsoft Publisher MVP http://www.publishermvps.com ~pay it forward~ This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. But I like the part about debating with the cats. That was rather clever. ;-) (Now I'm going back under cover.) SignatureJoAnn Paules MVP Microsoft [Publisher] > || You are just dense, that is all there is to it. Debating with you > || is like debating with my house cats. I especially like the bit [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I see we have someone that has taken over the David A throne :) ROFLMAO Is the charming JoAnn a cat person in addition to her other attributes? >But I like the part about debating with the cats. That was rather clever. >;-) > >(Now I'm going back under cover.) Yes I am - or rather I am housekeeper to two feline occupants of this abode. And the second ranking female here. SignatureJoAnn Paules MVP Microsoft [Publisher] > Is the charming JoAnn a cat person in addition to her other attributes? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> >>(Now I'm going back under cover.) || Yes I am - or rather I am housekeeper to two feline occupants of || this abode. And the second ranking female here. I too love my little cat, Mirage. SignatureBrian Kvalheim Microsoft Publisher MVP http://www.publishermvps.com ~pay it forward~ This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. But she probably doesn't make you feel like a servant the way Topaz does me. =^..^= SignatureJoAnn Paules MVP Microsoft [Publisher] > || Yes I am - or rather I am housekeeper to two feline occupants of > || this abode. And the second ranking female here. > > I too love my little cat, Mirage. David A? >|| You are just dense, that is all there is to it. Debating with you >|| is like debating with my house cats. I especially like the bit [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >I see we have someone that has taken over the David A throne :) ROFLMAO David is to me what you have been to Brian - chief antagonist. ;-) SignatureJoAnn Paules MVP Microsoft [Publisher] > David A? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> >>I see we have someone that has taken over the David A throne :) ROFLMAO Ohhhh, I know who that jerk is. Big difference though...Brian deserves it; you don't. However, a guy that likes cats can't be all bad, so maybe I have been too harsh on the lad. I have a dozen or more outside cats here, and two inside cats, Yummie and Peanut, both female. Yummie is named after the female cat in the "Cat Who" mystery novel series. >David is to me what you have been to Brian - chief antagonist. ;-) Brian's a good guy. You guys may not agree on some things but he's a really sharp cookie when it comes to Publisher. Consider giving him a little break. And Brian, the same goes for you! Syd here seems like an okay guy. Do you think the two of you can at least agree to disagree? And I am very familiar with YumYum and Koko. I'm a huge Lillian Jackson Braun fan!! SignatureJoAnn Paules MVP Microsoft [Publisher] > Ohhhh, I know who that jerk is. Big difference though...Brian deserves > it; you [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >>David is to me what you have been to Brian - chief antagonist. ;-) || Brian's a good guy. You guys may not agree on some things but he's a || really sharp cookie when it comes to Publisher. Consider giving him || a little break. || || And Brian, the same goes for you! Syd here seems like an okay guy. || Do you think the two of you can at least agree to disagree? I can agree to disagree, no problem. And there is no question that analog knows Publisher. SignatureBrian Kvalheim Microsoft Publisher MVP http://www.publishermvps.com ~pay it forward~ This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. We have a start here............Syd, you're next. SignatureJoAnn Paules MVP Microsoft [Publisher] > || Brian's a good guy. You guys may not agree on some things but he's a > || really sharp cookie when it comes to Publisher. Consider giving him [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I can agree to disagree, no problem. And there is no question that analog > knows Publisher. My sig other loves those books, hence the use of the name. Yum Yum is actually Yummy II, having lost the original to feline leukemia (she had it when she was given to us). Yummy I was a full blooded Siamese, but Yummy II is a Himalayan (1/2 Siamese and 1/2 Persian), and a cat straight from hell... Sure, I will agree to disagree. Life is too short to spend it bickering. But I sure wish you guys could tell me what to do about this dern website stuck in Publisher 2000. I actually like Publisher, but not being able to upgrade is frustrating as 2000 approaches EOL. I simply do not have the time or patience to face moving the site to Front Page or Dreamweaver, a truly daunting task. >We have a start here............Syd, you're next. Let's talk web first then kitties ALthough it's daunting, you know as well as I do that it's time to change programs. I know, that sucks, but so do a lot of things in life. I'm spoiled. I've had FrontPage from the beginning because I honestly didn't know (at that time) that I could have used Publisher to create a site. Sometimes ignorance is a VERY good thing. I've never tried to convert a Publlisher site to FrontPage so I haven't the slightest idea just how big the job is. I visited your site once - big site. And now for the off-topic stuff. Topaz was a resident of the local SPCA. I adopted her when she was about 6 to 8 months old. She'd just had a litter but I don't know what became of her babies. It makes me said to think of her losing her kittens. She's now a little over 3 years old and spoiled rotten. She's the alpha female in this house and she knows it. Sh'e the typical jealous red-haired (tabby) woman. ;-) She scared the bejeebers out of me on Monday. I was out filling my bird feeders off of the deck. It's about an 8 ft + drop to the ground. I knew she came out on the deck with me. She likes to wait until we aren't looking and then slips thru the railing and walks the edge of the deck. Well, I glanced over at her just in time to see her land in the yard below. I yelped and made a mad dash back inside yelling for Keith. I ran around the house and found her in the same spot where she landed. Normally if she escapes outside, she runs for the neighbors - not this day. She doesn't seem to be hurt but I think it rattled her a bit. Phil, short for Phileas Fogg, is a grey tabby. He's almost two years old now but still thinks he's the little kitten he was when we adopted him. He was only about 8 weeks old and as soft as a bunny. Now he's a tad bit bigger than Topaz but defers to her at almost every turn. He's very loveable - when he wants it - and enjoys watching the birds outside at my feeders. What Phil doesn't like is other people and noise. The doorbell scared the hell out of him. And you don't want to scare him - he tends to have a flatulence problem. PHEW!!! Okay, enough rambling about my babies...........back to my newsletter's mailing list. I'm glad you guys can try to make some peace. How can we get nations to do the same? SignatureJoAnn Paules MVP Microsoft [Publisher] > My sig other loves those books, hence the use of the name. Yum Yum is > actually [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >>We have a start here............Syd, you're next. Our two house cats do not go outside either. The Yumpster used to sneak out from time to time, but finally lost interest in it (she is 8 years old now). Peanut does not try to go out; she was born to one of the normally outside cats named Wuzzie a/k/a Wuzzette on the front porch, and thinks the front porch is the edge of the world. She is only about 6 months old, and will stand looking out the storm door like, "whoa, wut's that about out there?" She sleeps under the sheets with us every night. I can't get over the notion that this problem is not of my making. I relied on representations made by M$ as to the suitability of Publisher for the website I created with it. Further, the ability to use the same material for hard copy presentations is a highly desirable feature. If there is ultimately no choice but to move the site to Front Page (if M$ continues on the present illogical path with Publisher and the bloated code problem), then I expect a relatively painless way to do it. I tried once before to migrate to Front Page 2002, and it was a nightmare. So much so, that the case got escalated twice, and ultimately M$ gave my money back and a bunch of additional presents. That does not solve my problem, however, and the escalation team promised an eventual solution to the problems. And so I wait for a way to solve this problem that will not require scores and scores of hours tediously fixing 300 pages of material (some VERY long). And that is my story, and I'm sticking to it... >Let's talk web first then kitties > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >I'm glad you guys can try to make some peace. How can we get nations to do >the same? I think it is a wonderful feature. Try to think of it as a "Swiss Army Knife" kind of thing. It is not a replacement for complete toolbox, but it is readily available. It is a quick way to put a newsletter or brochure up on the web. I think the general expectations of use of this feature are simply too high on this news group. If you bought Publisher to do web sites, you made a mistake. If you bought Publisher to do publishing, you cannot go wrong. By the way, it also can publish to the web. I like FrontPage too. Dreamweaver is priced out of my reach. Any body want to publish a paper newsletter with either one of them? On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 17:17:35 -0500, "Brian Kvalheim - [MSFT MVP]" <bkvalheim@publishermvps.com> wrote: >I recommend FrontPage or Dreamweaver for creating a website as opposed to >ANY version of Publisher. That would all be just peachy if M$ were honest about the limitations. >I think it is a wonderful feature. Try to think of it as a "Swiss Army >Knife" kind of thing. It is not a replacement for complete toolbox, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >>I recommend FrontPage or Dreamweaver for creating a website as opposed to >>ANY version of Publisher. So .... can I just copy each page over into Publisher 2000 ... how much will this reduce the size of my website? www.lhaywardcollection.com > That would all be just peachy if M$ were honest about the limitations. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >>I recommend FrontPage or Dreamweaver for creating a website as opposed to > >>ANY version of Publisher. >So .... can I just copy each page over into Publisher 2000 ... how much will >this reduce the size of my website? > >www.lhaywardcollection.com Maybe; the experts in here might know about backwards compatibility. If you are willing to just take the time to build it in Publisher 2000, you can certainly do that. It will reduce the size dramatically, but there is a big problem. You will be stranding yourself in a soon to be obsolete version. I am in that boat with a 300 page website, and that is a boat you do not want to be in. Think about bailing out of Publisher now. Front Page is not supposed to be too difficult to learn. In addition to what David said you might want to check out what is in your Design Gallery. Though the following applies to Publisher 2000, I believe that I have read here or in the main newsgroup that 2003 can have the same problem with graphics and other design gallery objects: SYMPTOMS When you delete pages in a catalog, Web page, or newsletter publication created by Microsoft Publisher, the size of your publication may not decrease as expected. For example, if you delete a page containing a graphic that is 3 megabytes (MB) in size, the publication file size will not decrease by 3 MB. CAUSE Pictures from deleted publications are stored for further use in the Microsoft Publisher Design Gallery. This behavior only occurs with catalog, Web page, or newsletter publications. RESOLUTION 1.. If the Wizard is not displayed, click Show Wizard in the lower-left corner of the Microsoft Publisher window. 2.. Click Extra Content. 3.. Click Delete All to delete all content not used in the current publication. Alternatively, click Delete to remove individual objects. > Ok, I was getting a little excited with the service pak 2 and it's ability > to take pictures in your web site creation and quickly bring them down to 96 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Thanks |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.