Can we see a list of fixes from NOF 12 that made it into NOF 2013

[kempe]

Hi,

I'm more than happy to part with money to upgrade, but only if I'm sure one of my reported bugs is fixed.

Is there a trail version so I can test it?

[driedeker]

I agree no update since ver 3 should not have to pay yet again

Hi,

I'm more than happy to part with money to upgrade, but only if I'm sure one of my reported bugs is fixed.

Is there a trail version so I can test it?

[Kitty]

You obviously don't own any Adobe products...
(not necessary being snarky here, just a fact. Otherwise these companies wouldn't make any money, they'd go out of business and there ya go.)

[Steve Raubenstine]

Hi there; the list is extensive. Now that we've released the product, we will circle back and document the most significant fixes. As you can tell from the results of GotFusion's torture test, we've been quite busy. Since you seem to have a favorite bug, let me know and we'll get you an answer.

Steve

[jinker]

You obviously don't own any Adobe products...
(not necessary being snarky here, just a fact. Otherwise these companies wouldn't make any money, they'd go out of business and there ya go.)

I agree it isn't unreasonable to pay for new versions of previously bought software if it's not just a bug fix, or the same version with a few bells 'n' whistles.

One of the problems I have at the moment in making up my mind to upgrade or not is the fact the last few versions were such a crock I need to know I'm not just throwing more good money away?

As someone who used NOF for many a year (since v4) I'm sure you were also dismayed at time with the lack of support and dare I say usability of NOF 11 and 12.
Yes, there were those that persevered to use these programmes but I'm sure there were also plenty like me who decided 'never again'.

I want to buy NOF2013 because of the enjoyment I had using the programme in yesteryear but do I hold off for now and see what the user feedback brings?

Lastly; I've never purchased an Adobe product yet which was ditched as unusable after a couple of months. I have with some of my NOF purchases and don't think I'm alone here.

Jinker

[gotFusion]

From what I can see in the limited time I have used it is that it is now up to date with the code it generates. HTML 5 and CSS 3 support internally is a big step forward since the program has to write the code and the code it writes has to "work". The entire software code base needed to be re-written to generate different code. Sure you can still generate table based sites but now you can use html 5 and css 3 functions natively within the software. This may not mean a lot to folks who don't have a clue what html or css actually is much less the difference between the various html and css libraries but to a developer or coder it is a massive leap forward for a code generator to be able to write the latest compliant code.

I look at user's sites all the time and I am never amazed at the massive inline html formatting they do without even realizing they are doing it. I teach them now to use css and how to clear off their inline formatting and they are amazed at how much faster their web sites display.

NetO can provide all the tools in the world within their products but the end user still needs to know how to use them.

what the average drag and drop click and plop user will notice is the speed increase with the program. Even site designs that are a total mess no longer bog it down. So I guess that even someone who hardly knows how to turn their computer on can make web sites now without running into the issues that were around in previous versions.

I do expect to find some bugs in the software when it is looked into deeper. I would be surprised to NOT find things that need to be fixed. Fusion is a pretty massive piece of kit. It is almost 200 meg of code in the download installer and over 15 meg in the running exe file. That is a lot of lines of code to not have conflicts somewhere within it.

[JKZimm]

Your post is encouraging. I'm one of those clueless people about HTML code (but then I only do websites as a hobby). I started in 2002 with Fusion MX and stayed with it until going over to the "Apple Dark Side" a few years ago. I returned to the world of Windows last fall, and really like Win 8. But NOFXII just wont run reliably on my Win 8 machine, in spite of heroic and very responsive efforts from NOF tech support.

I've been forced to move to another product that costs much less, is more feature rich and stable as a rock. But I have this nagging feeling about performance, as you have indicated. So I will be closely watching posts regarding NOF 13, and may take yet another plunge!

[jinker]

I've been forced to move to another product that costs much less, is more feature rich and stable as a rock. But I have this nagging feeling about performance, as you have indicated. So I will be closely watching posts regarding NOF 13, and may take yet another plunge!

Hi. Like a lot of NOF users I also moved away to another product from Serif Software which made it easy for a non coder like me to produce a half decent web site. However, for whatever reason I would like to use NOF and I was interested in your comment about performance. What are you referring to because I'm interested to know why that is so important to you? For what it's worth; I'm interested in NOF2013 if it's stable, handles forms well and has a good selection of templates I can play with.
The code it produces is the last of my worries as long as the sites it creates are quick and easily adapted.

Jinker

[JKZimm]

Hi Jinker -

You and I are probably using the same alternative product. On my development machine my sites are lightning fast. But I have a high end machine with a very fast internet connection and a cat 5 connection to my network. But I have been burned in the past (with different software) by creating sites, only to find that on lower end machines with slower internet connections they are slow to load. I have not done any extensive lately, but am sensitive to what sometimes is called "code clutter" that some HTML generators create.

Like you, for whatever reason, I really want to be able to use NOF. But after my experience with XII, 13 really will have to be very good to make me switch back.

John

[jinker]

Hi Jinker -

You and I are probably using the same alternative product. On my development machine my sites are lightning fast. But I have a high end machine with a very fast internet connection and a cat 5 connection to my network. But I have been burned in the past (with different software) by creating sites, only to find that on lower end machines with slower internet connections they are slow to load. I have not done any extensive lately, but am sensitive to what sometimes is called "code clutter" that some HTML generators create.

Like you, for whatever reason, I really want to be able to use NOF. But after my experience with XII, 13 really will have to be very good to make me switch back.

John

Hi John.

I've used a few web design packages and fully understand the issue with sites where the code is generated for you. I think the package we're both using is fairly decent at producing quick sites and having been disappointed with NOF since probably version 8 really, I'm hesitating to jump back in. Version 7 (now 7.5 I think?) was a joy to use in its day and amazed people how quickly sites were created. WPx6 has been out a year in May so it will be interesting to see what they've done in the next version as well.
I really hope NOF2013 gets me enthusiastic again because I really want to get it but time will tell.

Jim