Publisher 2003 vs 2000 problem

[jerry a]

Well, i installed publisher 2003 and it boggles me how
microsoft can make an updated version of a product, and
make it harder to figure out than the previous version.
To me, it's like Microsoft turned Publisher 2003
into "The Extreme Beginner's Program," which makes it
harder on the "beginner to somewhat advanced" web site
builders. Why is it that you can only make ".htm"?

Meh, the real problem is this: Everytime i go to publish
my page, i publish it to a folder on my hard drive, and
the stupid program makes a folder called index_files. I
found how to keep it from making that folder, but when i
do that, it adds "index_" (example: "about.htm"
becomes "index_about.htm.") to the beggining of each page
name. It totally screws up the targets that my links
point to. Is there a way to fix this? Help is greatly
appreciated.

[analog@logwell.com]

A few of us are peeved about problems with Publisher 2003. Unbelievably, the
MVPs in here often recommend that web site users of Publisher stick with the old
Publisher 2000 version. One hopes that M$ eventually addresses the problems it
has created, but they do not seem to understand there is a problem. The common
admonition is that you are using the wrong tool for the job (you should be using
Front Page or some such).

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 01:20:09 -0700, "jerry a"
<anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Well, i installed publisher 2003 and it boggles me how
>microsoft can make an updated version of a product, and
>make it harder to figure out than the previous version.
>To me, it's like Microsoft turned Publisher 2003
>into "The Extreme Beginner's Program," which makes it
>harder on the "beginner to somewhat advanced" web site
>builders. Why is it that you can only make ".htm"?
>
>Meh, the real problem is this: Everytime i go to publish
>my page, i publish it to a folder on my hard drive, and
>the stupid program makes a folder called index_files. I
>found how to keep it from making that folder, but when i
>do that, it adds "index_" (example: "about.htm"
>becomes "index_about.htm.") to the beggining of each page
>name. It totally screws up the targets that my links
>point to. Is there a way to fix this? Help is greatly
>appreciated.

[David Bartosik - MS MVP]

Yes 2003 has a sub folder and yes 2003 has a different naming convention.
I'd recommend reviewing [url]http://www.davidbartosik.com/pub11.htm[/url]
Also most of the changes you see (coming from 2000) actually where
introduced in the 2002 version so you should review
[url]http://www.davidbartosik.com/pub2002/pub2002_2.htm[/url]
and
[url]http://www.davidbartosik.com/pub2002/pub2002_issues.htm[/url]
as well.

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


"jerry a" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1af4b01c44f8c$e8a63940$a301280a@phx.gbl...

> Well, i installed publisher 2003 and it boggles me how
> microsoft can make an updated version of a product, and
> make it harder to figure out than the previous version.
> To me, it's like Microsoft turned Publisher 2003
> into "The Extreme Beginner's Program," which makes it
> harder on the "beginner to somewhat advanced" web site
> builders. Why is it that you can only make ".htm"?
>
> Meh, the real problem is this: Everytime i go to publish
> my page, i publish it to a folder on my hard drive, and
> the stupid program makes a folder called index_files. I
> found how to keep it from making that folder, but when i
> do that, it adds "index_" (example: "about.htm"
> becomes "index_about.htm.") to the beggining of each page
> name. It totally screws up the targets that my links
> point to. Is there a way to fix this? Help is greatly
> appreciated.

[David Bartosik - MS MVP]

Actually there aren't really "problems" with 2003. It is working as
designed. It was simply designed to function differently then 2000. I try to
provide that info in my article [url]http://www.davidbartosik.com/pub11.htm[/url] where
I state it is up to the customer to decide for themselves if the changes are
a good thing (or not) for them.
I know of lots of customers running pub 2003 sites that are very happy with
it.
I've seen lots of posters making analogies in responses to your numerous
negative posts and yet another one comes to my mind. How many times has
Honda changed the design of the Accord. I've heard lots of people say they
love the new design and lots of people that say they hate the new design. If
you are an owner of an older Accord and hate the new design, well you can
choose to keep using it, or get something else. Certainly choosing to spend
your time unproductively whining indefinitely to Honda about the new design
and how they are making you keep running your old Accord would be a poor
choice.

In my professional opinion, as a software developer and web site developer,
I recommend to you specifically that you move to Asp.net. I mentioned this
before to you and can only hope you've spent as much time looking into that
as you have answering old threads with negativaity.
I suggest taking a good look at [url]www.dotnetnuke.com[/url], it's a pre-built asp.net
site that can be loaded onto a asp.net ready web server and customized with
your content via the front-end interface.
Your customers and you would benefit from that. And that's a good thing.

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



<analog@logwell.com> wrote in message
news:u6fjc0dpgqgj21phgisva1iip7iee735lf@4ax.com...

> A few of us are peeved about problems with Publisher 2003. Unbelievably,

the

> MVPs in here often recommend that web site users of Publisher stick with

the old

> Publisher 2000 version. One hopes that M$ eventually addresses the

problems it

> has created, but they do not seem to understand there is a problem. The

common

> admonition is that you are using the wrong tool for the job (you should be

using

> Front Page or some such).
>
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 01:20:09 -0700, "jerry a"
> <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>

> >Well, i installed publisher 2003 and it boggles me how
> >microsoft can make an updated version of a product, and
> >make it harder to figure out than the previous version.
> >To me, it's like Microsoft turned Publisher 2003
> >into "The Extreme Beginner's Program," which makes it
> >harder on the "beginner to somewhat advanced" web site
> >builders. Why is it that you can only make ".htm"?
> >
> >Meh, the real problem is this: Everytime i go to publish
> >my page, i publish it to a folder on my hard drive, and
> >the stupid program makes a folder called index_files. I
> >found how to keep it from making that folder, but when i
> >do that, it adds "index_" (example: "about.htm"
> >becomes "index_about.htm.") to the beggining of each page
> >name. It totally screws up the targets that my links
> >point to. Is there a way to fix this? Help is greatly
> >appreciated.

>

[analog@logwell.com]

Your analogy does not hold water. If I do not like the new Honda design, I can
buy any car, then take my stuff out of my old Honda, and put it in any new car,
and off I go. One does not buy a given car because no other car works the same
way. Software is a bit different; we buy upgrades of software to get new
features and to take advantages of advances in technology, while being able to
continue to use our existing work product (files). How many folks are still
using Word for dos? M$ has been very careful users of Word can easily
transition into each new version of Word (with a few little hiccups along the
way). Why have they treated Publisher so differently?

I have not spent a fraction of the time on posts in here that a transition to
Publisher 2003 or Front Page or your .asp would take, and that is the real
issue. And if I was willing to fight the transition to Publisher 2003, even you
say the .htm files would be of staggeringly large size. As you know, I already
tried the transition to Front Page 2002, and gave up after many hours of work.
Based on comments, the transition to Front Page 2003 would be a hassle at best,
and quite time consuming. It is nothing short of bizarre that html generated by
one Office suite member is not compatible with other members of the Office
family (and I am not talking about native file formats here). At the very
least, M$ should have a conversion utility to get folks out of Publisher and
into Front Page, where the victims stupidly believed what M$ says about
Publisher being suitable for commercial small business websites.

I suggest you give up on the metaphors / analogies since you love of M$ seems to
cloud you ability to see the forest for the trees. M$ has seriously screwed up
on Publisher, and they need to fix the problem for the sake of their customers.
And if that is insufficient motivation, perhaps a costly class action lawsuit
will move them, because it surely is coming based on what I have been told.

Somebody has to say this in public forums if there is to be any chance M$ will
address the problem. You MVPs, while claiming to criticize M$, are in truth the
biggest bunch of ass-kissers on the planet. I have yet to see any of the MVPs
in here say that the problems I have described are anything but the user's fault
for picking the wrong program for the job. Give me a break...


On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:54:00 -0500, "David Bartosik - MS MVP"
<forums@davidbartosik.com> wrote:

>Actually there aren't really "problems" with 2003. It is working as
>designed. It was simply designed to function differently then 2000. I try to
>provide that info in my article [url]http://www.davidbartosik.com/pub11.htm[/url] where
>I state it is up to the customer to decide for themselves if the changes are
>a good thing (or not) for them.
>I know of lots of customers running pub 2003 sites that are very happy with
>it.
>I've seen lots of posters making analogies in responses to your numerous
>negative posts and yet another one comes to my mind. How many times has
>Honda changed the design of the Accord. I've heard lots of people say they
>love the new design and lots of people that say they hate the new design. If
>you are an owner of an older Accord and hate the new design, well you can
>choose to keep using it, or get something else. Certainly choosing to spend
>your time unproductively whining indefinitely to Honda about the new design
>and how they are making you keep running your old Accord would be a poor
>choice.
>
>In my professional opinion, as a software developer and web site developer,
>I recommend to you specifically that you move to Asp.net. I mentioned this
>before to you and can only hope you've spent as much time looking into that
>as you have answering old threads with negativaity.
>I suggest taking a good look at [url]www.dotnetnuke.com[/url], it's a pre-built asp.net
>site that can be loaded onto a asp.net ready web server and customized with
>your content via the front-end interface.
>Your customers and you would benefit from that. And that's a good thing.

[Brian Kvalheim - [MSFT MVP]]

Hi [email]analog@logwell.com[/email] (analog@logwell.com),
in the newsgroups
you posted:
|| Somebody has to say this in public forums if there is to be any
|| chance M$ will address the problem. You MVPs, while claiming to
|| criticize M$, are in truth the biggest bunch of ass-kissers on the
|| planet. I have yet to see any of the MVPs in here say that the
|| problems I have described are anything but the user's fault for
|| picking the wrong program for the job. Give me a break...

I think someone didn't get to sit on Santa Clauses' lap this year!
--
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.

[Brian Kvalheim - [MSFT MVP]]

Hi [email]analog@logwell.com[/email] (analog@logwell.com),
in the newsgroups
you posted:

|| Your analogy does not hold water.

Actually I thought it was pretty good.

|| If I do not like the new Honda
|| design, I can buy any car, then take my stuff out of my old Honda,
|| and put it in any new car, and off I go.

No you can't. The new Honda accord has increased its wheelbase and width to
accommodate larger interior volume, and creating wider seats. These wider
seats have new hardware for their tracks that connect to the floor board.
The seats in the old Honda will not fit in the new Honda (if you wanted to
take your old seats out cuz you liked them so much). So if you like the
seats from the old Honda, you will either have to stick with your old Honda,
or you will have to find a work around to putting the old seats in the newer
build. Secondly, if you liked the engine in the old Honda better than the
new one, you could bring the new engine over, but you would also need to get
new engine mounts, new exhaust and catty converter.

|| One does not buy a given
|| car because no other car works the same way.

Yeah they do.

|| Software is a bit
|| different; we buy upgrades of software to get new features and to
|| take advantages of advances in technology, while being able to
|| continue to use our existing work product (files).

People buy new versions of their car for the same reason. Someone who
upgrades their Accord to the latest version is doing so because the new
Accord generally has more features, improved gas mileage, more power,
advances in technology while still being able to use their existing family
to drive around with. A 92 Cavalier didn't have ABS brakes, but a 93
Cavalier did. That would be an advance in technology.

|| Why have they treated Publisher so
|| differently?

They haven't.
--
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]

You are just being an insensitive jackass. I, and many others, have real
problems with what M$ has done with Publisher with regard to website
applications. You want to play semantics games rather that offer any
constructive advice, or even any sympathy. Do you think it is funny that folks
are having problems? Your attitude is shameful; M$ has made a mistake making
you an MVP.


On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 15:56:11 -0500, "Brian Kvalheim - [MSFT MVP]"
<bkvalheim@publishermvps.com> wrote:

>Hi [email]analog@logwell.com[/email] (analog@logwell.com),
>in the newsgroups
>you posted:
>
>|| Your analogy does not hold water.
>
>Actually I thought it was pretty good.
>
>|| If I do not like the new Honda
>|| design, I can buy any car, then take my stuff out of my old Honda,
>|| and put it in any new car, and off I go.
>
>No you can't. The new Honda accord has increased its wheelbase and width to
>accommodate larger interior volume, and creating wider seats. These wider
>seats have new hardware for their tracks that connect to the floor board.
>The seats in the old Honda will not fit in the new Honda (if you wanted to
>take your old seats out cuz you liked them so much). So if you like the
>seats from the old Honda, you will either have to stick with your old Honda,
>or you will have to find a work around to putting the old seats in the newer
>build. Secondly, if you liked the engine in the old Honda better than the
>new one, you could bring the new engine over, but you would also need to get
>new engine mounts, new exhaust and catty converter.
>
>|| One does not buy a given
>|| car because no other car works the same way.
>
>Yeah they do.
>
>|| Software is a bit
>|| different; we buy upgrades of software to get new features and to
>|| take advantages of advances in technology, while being able to
>|| continue to use our existing work product (files).
>
>People buy new versions of their car for the same reason. Someone who
>upgrades their Accord to the latest version is doing so because the new
>Accord generally has more features, improved gas mileage, more power,
>advances in technology while still being able to use their existing family
>to drive around with. A 92 Cavalier didn't have ABS brakes, but a 93
>Cavalier did. That would be an advance in technology.
>
>|| Why have they treated Publisher so
>|| differently?
>
>They haven't.

[analog@logwell.com]

A real helpful rsponse. Imbecile.

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 15:38:39 -0500, "Brian Kvalheim - [MSFT MVP]"
<bkvalheim@publishermvps.com> wrote:

>Hi [email]analog@logwell.com[/email] (analog@logwell.com),
>in the newsgroups
>you posted:
>|| Somebody has to say this in public forums if there is to be any
>|| chance M$ will address the problem. You MVPs, while claiming to
>|| criticize M$, are in truth the biggest bunch of ass-kissers on the
>|| planet. I have yet to see any of the MVPs in here say that the
>|| problems I have described are anything but the user's fault for
>|| picking the wrong program for the job. Give me a break...
>
>I think someone didn't get to sit on Santa Clauses' lap this year!

[analog@logwell.com]

Oh? I have been using Word since back in the dos days. It has always been
possible to upgrade to each new version of Word fairly easily. It is not only
difficult to move from Publisher 2000 to 2002 or 2003, but the newer versions
create huge files if used for web publishing. They have indeed treated
Publisher differently than Word of Excel. You should be ashamed of yourself;
rather than being an ambassador of goodwill for M$, you just worsen the bad
impression many of us have of that company.

>|| Why have they treated Publisher so
>|| differently?
>
>They haven't.

[Brian Kvalheim - [MS MVP]]

In news:ha8lc0dfv29rp9n14mrj94q934abekoqte@4ax.com,
[email]analog@logwell.com[/email] <analog@logwell.com> posted:

>You should be ashamed of yourself; rather than being an
> ambassador of goodwill for M$, you just worsen the bad impression
> many of us have of that company.

:-). Thanks for your feedback. Please feel free to submit your wishes for
Publisher improvements to [email]mswish@microsoft.com[/email] and put Publisher in the
Subject line.
--
Brian Kvalheim
Microsoft Publisher MVP
[url]http://www.publishermvps.com[/url]

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