Pub 2003 Web Site Size again.

[xeroid]

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

[David Bartosik - MS MVP]

Turn off PNG and VML in Options.
and use image optimizer in SP1.
That's all there is.
Publisher is what Publisher is.

--
David Bartosik - MS MVP
for Publisher help:
[url]www.davidbartosik.com[/url]
enter to win Pub 2003:
[url]www.davidbartosik.com/giveaway.aspx[/url]


"xeroid" <xeroid@kos.net> wrote in message
news:QNaUc.3602$0c.3174@read1.cgocable.net...

> 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
>
>

[analog@logwell.com]

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.

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 18:42:55 -0500, "David Bartosik - MS MVP"
<forums@davidbartosik.com> wrote:

>Turn off PNG and VML in Options.
>and use image optimizer in SP1.
>That's all there is.
>Publisher is what Publisher is.

[xeroid]

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: [url]www.lhaywardcollection.com[/url]

Point out all the bugs you get

> 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.
>
> On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 18:42:55 -0500, "David Bartosik - MS MVP"
> <forums@davidbartosik.com> wrote:
>

> >Turn off PNG and VML in Options.
> >and use image optimizer in SP1.
> >That's all there is.
> >Publisher is what Publisher is.

>

[Brian Kvalheim [MSFT MVP]]

In news:X%kUc.3996$0c.2017@read1.cgocable.net,
xeroid <xeroid@kos.net> posted:
|| 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: [url]www.lhaywardcollection.com[/url]
||
|| 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!
--
Brian Kvalheim
Microsoft Publisher MVP
[url]http://www.publishermvps.com[/url]
~pay it forward~

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers no rights.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system ([url]http://www.grisoft.com[/url]).
Version: 6.0.737 / Virus Database: 491 - Release Date: 8/11/2004

[DavidF]

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.

"xeroid" <xeroid@kos.net> wrote in message
news:QNaUc.3602$0c.3174@read1.cgocable.net...

> 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
>
>

[analog@logwell.com]

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.

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 06:23:02 -0400, "xeroid" <xeroid@kos.net> wrote:

>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: [url]www.lhaywardcollection.com[/url]
>
>Point out all the bugs you get
>
>
>
>

>> 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.
>>
>> On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 18:42:55 -0500, "David Bartosik - MS MVP"
>> <forums@davidbartosik.com> wrote:
>>

>> >Turn off PNG and VML in Options.
>> >and use image optimizer in SP1.
>> >That's all there is.
>> >Publisher is what Publisher is.

>>

>

[JoAnn Paules]

Sucks badly? Hmm, is it possible to suck in any other way? ;-)

--
JoAnn Paules
MVP Microsoft [Publisher]



<analog@logwell.com> wrote in message
news:lpp4i01oe7mkg9992rcpjkne9tr1mlhajk@4ax.com...

> 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.
>
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 06:23:02 -0400, "xeroid" <xeroid@kos.net> wrote:
>

>>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: [url]www.lhaywardcollection.com[/url]
>>
>>Point out all the bugs you get
>>
>>
>>
>>

>>> 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.
>>>
>>> On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 18:42:55 -0500, "David Bartosik - MS MVP"
>>> <forums@davidbartosik.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Turn off PNG and VML in Options.
>>> >and use image optimizer in SP1.
>>> >That's all there is.
>>> >Publisher is what Publisher is.
>>>

>>

>

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system ([url]http://www.grisoft.com[/url]).
Version: 6.0.737 / Virus Database: 491 - Release Date: 8/11/2004

[Brian Kvalheim - [MSFT MVP]]

I recommend FrontPage or Dreamweaver for creating a website as opposed to
ANY version of Publisher.
--
Brian Kvalheim
Microsoft Publisher MVP
[url]http://www.publishermvps.com[/url]
~pay it forward~

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers no rights.

<analog@logwell.com> wrote in message
news:lpp4i01oe7mkg9992rcpjkne9tr1mlhajk@4ax.com...

> 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).

[analog@logwell.com]

Heh, of course it is...

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 16:28:24 -0400, "JoAnn Paules" <jl_amerson@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Sucks badly? Hmm, is it possible to suck in any other way? ;-)

[analog@logwell.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
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.

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.

[JoAnn Paules]

You know, after I sent that I had a feeling *someone* would twist that
question....................... ;-)

--
JoAnn Paules
MVP Microsoft [Publisher]



<analog@logwell.com> wrote in message
news:no65i052cul79630dv0apal199cld7a8na@4ax.com...

> Heh, of course it is...
>
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 16:28:24 -0400, "JoAnn Paules"
> <jl_amerson@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>

>>Sucks badly? Hmm, is it possible to suck in any other way? ;-)

>

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system ([url]http://www.grisoft.com[/url]).
Version: 6.0.740 / Virus Database: 494 - Release Date: 8/16/2004

[xeroid]

So .... can I just copy each page over into Publisher 2000 ... how much will
this reduce the size of my website?

[url]www.lhaywardcollection.com[/url]


<analog@logwell.com> wrote in message
news:cq65i09llets6ck0fj83bhlp1vrv8okr05@4ax.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

> 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.

>
> 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.

>

[John Ferrell]

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.

[Brian Kvalheim - [MSFT MVP]]

Hi [email]analog@logwell.com[/email] (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
|| 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 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.

--
Brian Kvalheim
Microsoft Publisher MVP
[url]http://www.publishermvps.com[/url]
~pay it forward~

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers no rights.

[analog@logwell.com]

That would all be just peachy if M$ were honest about the limitations.

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 13:10:39 GMT, John Ferrell <johnferrell@sprintmail.com>
wrote:

>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.

[analog@logwell.com]

Make up your mind. This speaking out of both sides of your mouth is
disingenuous.

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 08:15:35 -0500, "Brian Kvalheim - [MSFT MVP]"
<bkvalheim@publishermvps.com> wrote:

>Hi [email]analog@logwell.com[/email] (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
>|| 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 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.

[Brian Kvalheim - [MSFT MVP]]

Hi [email]analog@logwell.com[/email] (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.
--
Brian Kvalheim
Microsoft Publisher MVP
[url]http://www.publishermvps.com[/url]
~pay it forward~

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers no rights.

[xeroid]

So .... can I just copy each page over into Publisher 2000 ... how much will
this reduce the size of my website?

[url]www.lhaywardcollection.com[/url]


<analog@logwell.com> wrote in message
news:n177i0phrst8i96i1vs4dhr3422rf2jui4@4ax.com...

> That would all be just peachy if M$ were honest about the limitations.
>
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 13:10:39 GMT, John Ferrell

<johnferrell@sprintmail.com>

> wrote:
>

> >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.

>

[analog@logwell.com]

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 19:25:11 -0400, "xeroid" <xeroid@kos.net> wrote:

>So .... can I just copy each page over into Publisher 2000 ... how much will
>this reduce the size of my website?
>
>[url]www.lhaywardcollection.com[/url]

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.