Google debuts WYSIWYG site creator

Discussion in 'General Mac Discussion' started by Daveway, Feb 22, 2006.

  1. Daveway macrumors 68040

    Daveway

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Location:
    New Orleans / Lafayette, La
    #1
    pages.google.com

    Check it out guys, looks great. I think this is an example of how powerful technologies like AJAX can be.
     
  2. dejo Moderator

    dejo

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Location:
    The Centennial State
  3. Daveway thread starter macrumors 68040

    Daveway

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Location:
    New Orleans / Lafayette, La
    #3
    Runs great in Firefox.;)

    Its no surprise, remember Google Earth support?
     
  4. ITASOR macrumors 601

    ITASOR

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2005
    Location:
    Oneida, NY
    #4
    It's "down" now....no new sign ups until they expand.
     
  5. mduser63 macrumors 68040

    mduser63

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2004
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    #5
    Of course I'm seeing the standard "OMG< I luv google!!!1!1!!!" response to this. The templates look awful. Seriously, I could have come up with something up that looks better and I suck at graphic design. I really don't see what the big deal here is. They only support IE and Firefox. I don't use Firefox, so if I want to use Google Pages, I have to start up Firefox. I'm better off just using iWeb, Rapidweaver or Sandvox instead. All three have way more features, are just as easy to use and have excellent looking templates.

    Once again, Google disappoints.
     
  6. Laser macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    #6

    It's free
     
  7. Josh macrumors 68000

    Josh

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Location:
    State College, PA
    #7
    Bingo. It's hard to complain about something that is free.

    Besides, Google hosts the site you make, all for free.

    Can rapidweaver do that? iWeb?


    Google has a leg-up here.
     
  8. mduser63 macrumors 68040

    mduser63

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2004
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    #8
    Free garbage is still garbage.
     
  9. Josh macrumors 68000

    Josh

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Location:
    State College, PA
    #9
    I'd say it's far from garbage.

    iWeb is no better, nor is RapidWeaver.

    The benefit of this is that a) it's free b) you can edit your site from any computer, not just your own that has a certain app installed.

    Of course if the same features + an over-priced and under-featured .Mac account is appealing, then opting for the other "garbage" would make more sense...
     
  10. andiwm2003 macrumors 601

    andiwm2003

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #10
    it's not free. it just costs no money. but you have to sign up for a google account what means you have to care about another login/account. and it's made to lock you in even more into the google world. down the road they will start charging money for "premium services" and spam you. on top the sniff through your data and create and sell your user profile.

    with iweb i have more control and integration in my system. google of course is not integrated into the ilfe suite.

    so i prefer the iweb, ilfe, .mac combination. it's hassle free. it also costs no extra money (assuming that you have ilfe and .mac anyway).
     
  11. Josh macrumors 68000

    Josh

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Location:
    State College, PA
    #11
    Google Pages is free in both senses of the word. It costs no money, and you can also edit the HTML any way you like.

    iWeb does cost more additional money, since it requires .Mac, which is indeed not free. .Mac is $99 a year.

    In comparison to Google's service, that can hardley be seen as equal.

    iLife integration is definitely a plus, no doubt about that.

    But no reason to pay for iLive 06 (79) and .Mac (99) - almost $200, when you can do the very same thing for free (albeit a different method of doing it).

    All I'm trying to say is that Google's tool is not garbage. Just because Apple didn't make it does not mean it's worthless.
     
  12. cycocelica macrumors 68000

    cycocelica

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Location:
    Redmond, WA
    #12
  13. Roy Hobbs macrumors 68000

    Roy Hobbs

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2005
    #13

    "iWeb does cost more additional money, since it requires .Mac, which is indeed not free. .Mac is $99 a year."




    iWeb does NOT require .Mac, you can publish to a folder and upload to any webserver. Please read through the iWeb posting before making such claims.
     
  14. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #14
    its down for now....

    i need to work on my site. i'm not so sure that i want to use Rapidweaver. there are just some restrictions that i can't get past. iWeb lets me be a bit more creative with what i want to do. i can almost get a totally blank template out of it. i need to look into wordpress, but i'm not sure how to get started with that. this would've been an interesting option to look at. at least as a starting point perhaps.
     
  15. Roy Hobbs macrumors 68000

    Roy Hobbs

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2005
    #15
    iWeb is pretty slick but the pages tend to open very slow.
     
  16. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #16
    yeah thats because it makes just about everything an image. i think the trick would be to make your pictures as small as possible or whatever you're putting on there so iWeb can't bloat them too much. and if you're not useing iWeb on .Mac the pages load much faster.
     
  17. Josh macrumors 68000

    Josh

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Location:
    State College, PA
    #17
    Doesn't change the fact that it is still a part of a $79 suite. The point still reimains: iWeb is not free.
     
  18. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #18
    no its not free. but considering that it comes in a bundle of apps its not that expensive either. its what $20 of the iLife suite?
     
  19. Josh macrumors 68000

    Josh

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Location:
    State College, PA
    #19
    True, but that dosn't really matter, since you can't buy just part of an iLife suite.

    You either need to purchase a new mac which comes with iLife 06, or purchase iLife 06 on it's own. The latter being the cheaper, it is still infitely more expensive than Google Page creator, which is free.

    iWeb is something that not only costs money, but is a system-specific software. Google Page Creator on the other hand is 100% free, can be used by anyone, and does a good job at what it does.

    I just don't understand what all the negative complains towards Google's tool are about; they're certainly not deserved.
     
  20. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #20
    i'm not complaining. i haven't seen google's templates just yet.
    and i wonder how thier code is?
     
  21. mduser63 macrumors 68040

    mduser63

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2004
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    #21
    My biggest complaints with Google's new service is that the templates don't look good. They look amateurish and outdated. I guess I went a little overboard. Google Pages may not be garbage, but it's certainly not extraordinary. However, like most everything else Google does, it's being hailed by many as the greatest thing ever.

    I think Google is starting to do too many things while not doing many things well. Do a few things, but do them well is a good motto, and it's why Google got so big. They're straying from that now.
     
  22. vniow macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    I accidentally my whole location.
    #22
    WYSIWYG has to be the most tongue-twisting acronym ever.
     
  23. Josh macrumors 68000

    Josh

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Location:
    State College, PA
    #23
    To be honest, even though I like Google (can you tell? :)), I was pleasantly surprised by their code.

    I expected tables, and was pleased to see that they use 100% CSS-based design and good code.

    Given, hand-coded sites will always be better to accomplish something specific, I think Google's code is quite good.
     

Share This Page