Why is FrontPage not part of office 2003

[Guest]

FrontPage should be part of office 2003. Why not???

 

[Tom Pepper Willett]

Microsoft considers it part of the Office Family of Products, but chose not
to include it in the suite. Previous versions of Office also did not
include FrontPage.
--
===
Tom "Pepper" Willett
Microsoft MVP - FrontPage
---
About FrontPage 2003:
http://office.microsoft.com/home/office.aspx?assetid=FX01085802
FrontPage 2003 Product Information:
http://www.microsoft.com/office/frontpage/prodinfo/default.mspx
Understanding FrontPage:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/office/understanding/frontpage/
FrontPage 2002 Server Extensions Support Center:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh;en-us;fp10se
===
<htgolf03> wrote in message
| FrontPage should be part of office 2003. Why not???
| --
| htolf03

 

[Kevin Spencer]

Whoa, hold on there. A conclusion without a single premise? Perhaps you
should provide some evidence that FrontPage "should" be a part of office
2003. Some of us are of differing opinions about that. And since the
conclusion is in question, the question "why not" is moot, at least until we
can determine the validity of the conclusion
--
;-),

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.
..

 

[Murray]

We need to complete the syllogism. Remember, it goes

A relates to B
B relates to C
therefore A relates to C

8)

 

[Kevin Spencer]

Well, now, Murray, that's close. However, the term "relates" is not specific
enough. Try:

A is a subset of B
B is a subset of C
Therefore A is a subset of C

--
;-),

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.

 

[Murray]

Wait - I have Aristotle on the line now....

--
Murray
============

Well, now, Murray, that's close. However, the term "relates" is not
specific enough. Try:

A is a subset of B
B is a subset of C
Therefore A is a subset of C

--
;-),

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.

 

[Windsun]

Because.

 

[Chuck Davis]

FrontPage should be part of office 2003. Why not???

The millions that buy Office 2003 and don't want FrontPage would cry out. I
personally wouldn't have wanted to pay the extra price for Office that is on
my second computer.

Think of the corporate buyers of Office 2003 that don't want their 40,000
employees building web sites on the job. They also don't want the higher
price that would be placed on all 40,000 copies.

I understand your personal desire, but don't force it on me.

 

[Kevin Spencer]

Wait - I have Aristotle on the line now....

Actually, now that I think of it, your logic wasn't actually flawed,
depending upon the meaning of "relates to." If you simply take the term
generically, it is true, but lacks qualification (i.e. "in what way" they
"relate").

As Uncle Chutney would say, in the context of Subway everything is either
Subway or Non_Subway. So, there is a realtionship between everything (in the
context of Subway). ;-)

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.

 

[David Baxter]

That's some troll named Aristotle Shifkowitz. He's been warned about
posing as the real Aristotle before. I have the real Aristotle as a
house guest... Aristotle LaPlante.

 

[Andrew Murray]

because I'm not gonna spend $1500 on MS Office just to get frontpage! Why
not just get it on its own?

 

[David Baxter]

Because it would add cost to the Office Suite which most purchasers of
Office don't want or need. Our Office Manager uses and upgrades Office
for Word, PowerPoint, and perhaps occasionally Excel. She wouldn't know
what to do with FrontPage if it came with the suite and has no need to
know anything about FP. Why would the company want to pay the added cost
for something she doesn't need or want?

It's actually more of a bargain this way: I upgraded to FP2003 for the
added features. However, I'm happy with my earlier version of MS Office
and didn't feel the need to upgrade the entire suite.

 

[Murray]

LOL - I'm still trying to figure out your inner (table) conflict. In
between syllogistic proofs, that is.

 

[Guest]

If you've got this much free time Murray, I'm not giving you enough work! hehe