Comments on: 7 Reasons Why You Should Try Out Windows Live Writer 2009

By: Marthinus Raath

Marthinus Raath — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 12:30:18 +0000

I also like Windows Live Writer especially since I blog to my blog using it. It’s so easy to blog to multiple blogs. They have so many feature rich add-ins. I would like to use the “post to many at once” add-in, but it doesnt seem to work. I really like your website and all the great articles. Keep them coming!

By: Nicole

Nicole — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 08:49:44 +0000

Actually Scribefire matured quite alot over the last year, you can see a few screenshots and a fairly recent review here:
http://bub.blicio.us/fire-up-your-blogging-with-scribefire/

By: Rosie

Rosie — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 04:28:25 +0000

Thanks for your post James. After reading it, I downloaded Live Writer to try. I absolutely love it! I spent ages fiddling with pictures etc in WordPress’ online editor. I can see that this will be much easier.

By: James Yeang

James Yeang — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 01:21:13 +0000

@Simple: Not many are better, I can’t think of one really. If you run Windows that is

By: Simple Country Physicist

Simple Country Physicist — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 15:48:13 +0000

WLW is about middle of the pack as blog editors go, so it nay be better than half. Unfortunately it only works on Windows which is not good. That is, Windows is not good.

By: Krisditya

Krisditya — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 04:56:29 +0000

Perhaps this is only for my personal course, is more comfortable using the previous version. This article is interesting for me to try the latest version. Thanks

Sincerely

By: James Yeang

James Yeang — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:03:59 +0000

@Everyone: Thanks for the great comments.
@Nicole: Scribefire is great for mini-blogging, but for more heavy duty stuff it fell short for me (Been a long time since I tried it).
@Rarst: Never noticed the image sizes – thanks for pointing that out. Image quality is still great though.
@Joe: Add WordPress Custom Fields Support please

By: Rarst

Rarst — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 19:36:56 +0000

It means that if I take my image (I use PNG mostly but same with JPG I think), drop it in WLW, set it to original size, without using any tweaks, set to FTP upload.

Then image uploaded to FTP won’t be binary equal to original image. It will retain original type and dimensions but size will be different (usually larger).

I’ve seen it mentioned by other people (for example here http://www.webtechdaily.com/2008/10/01/top-10-reasons-to-use-windows-live-writer-for-writing-your-blog-posts/ ).

Thanks in advance, I know I should’ve probably made formal bug report but hoped for fix in new version, then kinda forgot.

By: Joe Cheng [MSFT]

Joe Cheng [MSFT] — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:10:18 +0000

Hi Rarst,

Can you elaborate on what you mean by “recompress image”? We aren’t aware of any image quality problems right now (except perhaps with transparent/animated GIF images, where we sacrifice quality to maintain the transparency or animation).

Thanks!

By: Rarst

Rarst — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:17:45 +0000

I use WLW and hadn’t seen anything on par with it but its habit to recompress image is ugly. And judging by it surviving version change it isn’t getting fixed.