Software for Writers: Windows Live Writer

You may also like...

6 Responses

  1. Jay Ehret says:

    I blog in Blogger and use WLW. I found that it is much easier to handle pictures and tables. Also with WLW you can look at the entire page at once rather than having to scroll through an editing window.

  2. Chris says:

    I love WLW! A couple of things though, if you strive to get valid XTHML code. Make sure and set XHTML as your mark up language. WLW tries to figure it out, but sometimes misses. If you use the Insert Flickr image plug-in, for some reason validators don’t like its code. I end up saving images to my desktop and using the WP insert media to clean up the code.

    Otherwise, a nice program with some great features like inserting a link to a previous post of yours. Nice!

  3. Tom Colvin says:

    Similar to you, I don’t especially like the WordPress posting facility, though I too use it occasionally.

    I tried out WLW over a year ago and found it frustrating to use. At that time, it seemed to make each paragraph a separate block. And I found it difficult to work with. Maybe newer versions are better. I’ll check out the recent version.

    I use ECTO for my off-line blogging, which has worked just fine. EXCEPT the retrieve foto from Flickr facility seems broken now.

  4. Martin says:

    “despite it’s Microsoft ancestry” – spoils a great post.

    I’m no MS fanboy by any means, but it’s a rubbish line. You’re better than that.

  5. Dustin says:

    Martin: I use a great many MS products, including Windows (XP and the less-pleasing Vista) and Office 2007 (which I’ve written about extensively). I think it’s fair to say that, in general, MS products tend to be overpowered for most users, and strangely unrefined — there is more emphasis placed on adding new features to put the “Wow!” in than on polishing older features. So it *is* surprising, to me, that WLW is very polished — much more so, in my opinion, than many of its paid competitors — and as far as I can tell ahs no “catches”. It’s free, it produces fairly elegant code (a HUGE surprise to anyone who remembers the Bad Ol’ Days of FrontPage or who has the unfortunate job — as I do — of working with the HTML output from MS Word), it’s quite stable, and it’s pretty open. None of these are MS hallmarks, which makes WLW a real treat.

  6. Martin says:

    Okay Dustin, I’ll give you that. 🙂

    1) Using MS Word for HTML … yep, those where painful times 🙂

    2) Old FrontPage had a mind of its own when viewing the code. FP 03 is much better.

    3) Vista, I’m still on the fence on – 3 months in. Lots of tweaking to get rid of the bloat and associated crap.

    4) Word 2007 – Yuk. I’m sticking to 2003 for now.

    And yep, WLW is near perfection – it’s really a competition killer in the desktop blog posting/editing market, imho.