Related
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
I'm very new to coding (having only taken Web Development 101 at university aka 'OMG CSS u guise'), and I'm just beginning to realize that knowing HTML/CSS alone isn't good enough. I've decided that it would be best for me to learn the hell out of one CMS, because I'm not keen on learning a full programming language. Mainly I just want to be able to create websites that load instantly (think Sproutcore home page) that happen to use some kind of templating system to make things easier to administer over time.
I've looked into WordPress, and I know that it's a super popular platform for a reason, but it seems like most sites running WordPress don't load very quickly. I've read around a bit and it seems like the opinion of a lot of coders out there is that WP is a "heavy" platform. And, besides, I just recently viewed source on wordpress.org and found that they're not even running WordPress there! I mean come on!
I've also looked into ExpressionEngine, and I'm very impressed with the way things are done. It seems like after the learning curve it should be simple to use and highly extensible, but at $300 per commercial site license + the cost of add-ons, I'd like to be a bit more convinced of it's value. I know that AListApart, JasonSantaMaria.com, change.gov, iLounge, and many more high quality, high traffic sites run on ExpressionEngine, but I'm not totally convinced it's worth the price given that WP can surely do the job well enough in 90% of cases.
I would really appreciate your opinion.
Maybe I should just say F all this, and create my static pages with straight HTML/CSS, and then use a blogging platform like Tumblr or WordPress strictly for blog posts, as per Sproutcore?
Would love to hear your opinion.
For developing a commercial website that needs to run "in the real world", $300+/- is a very compelling price. This isn't to do with Expression Engine specifically, but any good commercial CMS. Nearly anything can do the job - including WordPress - it's just a matter of how easily and quickly it lets you do your job. Nothing is free - it's just a matter of whether you - or your users - pay for it in time, or in dollars (or Euros. Or Crowns... whatever). Amortize $300 over the life of the product - from the first big setup to every time you need to make a tweak - and think about how much effort EllisLab developers have spent themselves, and thus saved you. Then think about how little they're actually charging for that value.
Or, if WP happens to align perfectly with your needs, just use that.
But I strongly support commercial software products (partly because I work with them and make them) and IMO 4 times out of 5, the ROI is better than a free alternative.
EE is perhaps worth the price if it is the solution that meets all of your requirements. You need to use the right tool for the job. It will not do you well to learn just one CMS and then try to shape all your problems to fit that solution. I suggest you learn the features and downsides of several CMSs and apply whichever one is the best for the particular site you are working on. Or even use a combination. Limiting yourself to learning just one CMS as if it is the be-all-and-end-all of CMSs will only hurt you, and it might make your customers miserable when they're forced to use a product that wasn't even designed with their needs in mind.
You say that wordpress.org doesn't use WordPress, but I suggest you look more closely. The wordpress.org site is quite complex, therefore it might not make sense to use WP as the main CMS for that site. But did you look at the Blog (aka News) section? That's running on WP. Look at the Showcase section. That's WP too!
My guess is that they use WP where it's appropriate, and perhaps something else where WP isn't appropriate. Which brings me back to my original point: You need to use the right tool for the job.
Edit #1 - Oh, and as for your interest in making fast-loading sites: The CMS has some influence on that because some have more overhead than others, but the CMS is not the only thing that affects a site's performance. Sproutcore loads fast because it's a tiny page, it's got only one small image and a tiny stylesheet. So of course it's going to load fast! You can make a complex site load fast, too, if you use things like caching, small graphics, code/database optimizations, content delivery networks, throw more hardware at it, etc etc etc.
Edit #2 - If you're interested in creating static sites for performance, but you want to have some templating control, take a look at Jekyll. It's a script that combines your templates with plain text files that are formatted using Textile or Markdown, and spits out complete HTML pages. You might also be interested in Movable Type, which is a platform that can generate static HTML. Once again, the right tool for the job... there are so many choices out there.
I used ExpressionEngine professionally for about two years, compared to other "content management systems" out there I think it gets the job done well. In order to make Wordpress or Drupal do the same out of the box features ExpressionEngine has takes a bit of tweaking or php knowledge. ExpressionEngine was a great tool for me while I used it. The templating language and admin aren't too hard to get into with only html and css knowledge. Using third-party addons such as Structure and most from Pixel & Tonic will make your sites easy to develop and most of all easy for clients to manage.
Wordpress is a blogging platform, not a CMS. I find the admin too bare bones and confusing for clients to properly separate and manage their different kinds of structured content. It works great for blogging, but try to make a staff page or anything more structured and it falls apart.
If price is an issue I would recommend looking into Symphony CMS, which follows a similar concept to organization of content as ExpressionEngine. Though you have to learn XSLT, which can be a bigger learning curve than EE's own tag language. But, it's free.
I primarily work with projects now using Django, which is a python framework and will have a bigger learning curve than Wordpress, ExpressionEngine or Symphony. But it gets the job done for small and large projects alike. If you're looking to take the plunge so to speak, might as well go straight for the jugular.
Having dealt with both, between WordPress and ExpressionEngine, EE is not worth it. The community is nowhere near as supportive or vibrant, and there is nothing EE can do (after hours of painstaking configuration, mind you) that WordPress doesn't do better (in my opinion). Add to that the best plugin interface I've ever seen, and WordPress truly is limited only by the imagination and capabilities of the developer. And the technology, I suppose.
WordPress is not always the best tool for the job, but I'd say it is always a better tool than EE.
As most people have already said it depends on the site. But in my opinion for most sites ExpressionEngine is a better choice than WordPress. The $300 for the license gets you support from paid support staff plus the community is really awesome.
Paid software will always, in my opinion, be a cheaper solution than free software as you're getting better quality code, guaranteed support and a commitment from the developers. Try getting support for wordpress and it will run you $15,000 per year or more.
Additionally in order to do anything truly special with WP you need to know wordpress with EE you can build outstanding sites without any php knowledge and you're not forced to work within the confines of what is essentially blogging software. Admittedly it's gotten a little beyond blogging recently buy it nowhere near as flexible as EE.
Sean
To speed up WordPress, you can use caching and minification plugins, like WP Super Cache,
W3 Total Cache, and WP Minify — or even go with a specialized hosting provider like WP Engine.
Caching can speed up WordPress significantly. What it does in some cases, in fact, is actually create static files that are loaded on subsequent page requests.
As for minification, they say that 20% of loading time is server-side, and 80% is front-end code. (Of course, server-side delays are generally worse in than front-end delays, but still...) So when you're thinking of optimizing, front-end is often the first place to think about.
I have made many sites with WordPress and I'm finishing my first EE2 site.
My choice for future sites will mainly be based on the type of content the site needs. If the site needs pages and some sort of "posts" like a blog or simple news feed, WP is a good candidate. If there are other types of content EE2 might be the way to go as you create a new channel for each type of content (pages, posts, events, products, etc). Relating all these types of content to other content with the Playa Add-on has been pretty cool too.
In WP you can create a custom post type and customize the fields to create a suitable home for these other types of content, but by default it's meant for blogs. So I wouldn't say that WP can't be a CMS, I would say it's a blogging engine that can be a CMS with some work.
Two problems with EE instead WP. First, you can find many out-of-the-box solutions for WordPress from themes to plugins that can let a site with simple needs be created quickly. If I have a project that needs to go up quickly, find a premium theme that fits good enough, do some slight modifications and I'm done. The second thing is that for the average person WordPress will be easier to use in creating and maintaining content, especially if the content is posts and/or pages.
And use WP Super Cache to speed up WordPress!
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 12 years ago.
Improve this question
I am planning to build a training site which will accommodate multiple users. It will also have lots of custom pages with videos in them. Which CMS/CMF is better suited for this project? Please advise..
Wordpress is designed from the ground up to be a blog, but also to be modular. Drupal is designed to be a complete CMS out of the box, but there are also extensions for Drupal too. Both are CMS systems, but again, Wordpress is really designed to be a blogging platform. Also, Drupal is a little more complicated at first and has a higher learning curve.
However, you can do what you are trying to do with either one. In addition to out of the box functionality, you can customize both Drupal or Wordpress. People tend to specialize in one or the other, and the choice comes down to personal preference (people make a living off of being Drupal or Wordpress developers, that's what's great about open source!). Once you become proficient in PHP and the CMS platform of choice, you can build your own extensions/modules and have a very custom website, but I would minimize customization to only what you absolutely need. If you are creative in using the framework and freely available modules, you may not need to write any code.
Lastly, Drupal is getting a complete re-write with version 7, which people have been waiting a long time for! If you want to get into Drupal, you may want to look into the newest version.
Edit: Personally, I prefer Wordpress, I think the admin section looks great, gives you a lot of control, but without being overwhelming (however, my opinion doesn't really matter). I really think Wordpress has a lower learning curve. I'm also pretty sure, although you haven't given many details, but if you are planning on having simple pages with videos on them, and want access to those pages to be restricted only to authenticated users, I'm pretty sure you can do that without any custom PHP coding, just some HTML.
Here's a couple helpful links for Wordpress:
Restrict Page View to Authenticated Users
Setting your Posts or Entire Blog to Private
It can be confusing trying to decide which CMS to dive into; I hope that helps a little!
The answer is Drupal.
I've been running various websites, and few years ago I decided to use Drupal as my main CMS engine and I never looked back.
I used Joomla, phpNuke, Mambo and WordPress before and nothing is as flexible, as maintainable as Drupal.
My biggest website – www.mugen.pl has 14853 registered users so I can confirm Drupal is just perfect for big, heavily used web portals.
Drupal has few wonderful 'social-networking' modules I make an excellent use of to make sure my users are keen to stay on the website, sneak preview: (sorry, I've got only screenshots in Polish):
(source: mugen.pl)
Unfortunately for Drupal, sometimes it takes a while to understand this system. Some theming stuff is not that obvious at first, but the online community is huge and always helpful.
Additionally, Drupal has excellent support for SEO. It’s built-in “path” module allows to set custom URLs for every item on the page, and other available modules (i.e. Nodewords) allow to set custom meta data for every subpage.
When you decided to go with Drupal, you should have a look at the following modules:
Content Construction Kit - http://drupal.org/project/cck
Views - http://drupal.org/project/views
Custom breadcrumbs - http://drupal.org/project/custom_breadcrumbs
Last Node - http://drupal.org/project/last_node
Nodewords - http://drupal.org/project/nodewords
Fivestar - http://drupal.org/project/fivestar
Go with Drupal ;-)
With the new release of WordPress 3.0, I would have to say WP. Many useful updates just came around the bend (menu system et al) that make it even easier to create a "site" out of a WP installation instead of just a "blog".
Drupal is extremely powerful and accommodating to the time-allowed developer, but falls short on the ease-of-use-side of things (at least from my experiences.
In short, if you're looking to make a site that's easy to install, update, and maintain - especially for posting media, go with WordPress.
Hope that helps.
Read both JohnB's and Lance May's answers. The choice is quite tricky so the only way you can make a good decision is to do your own feature comparison/score matrix.
List all the features that you need and assign importance score to them - then objectively go through both systems (or ask again on so) to get their scores.
This will also help you if you have to justify your decision later.
In the end both are good, both have quirks and both will get the job done.
WordPress is just easy to understand, for both the developer and the content editors.
WordPress is best suited for sites with:
1) Typical CMS needs - Pages, Posts, Menus - I would also include embedded videos in this list
2) Low to Moderate Traffic Loads - I know there are sites like Smashing Magazine that user WordPress under high-load, but I am sure there is some custom code added to introduce a better caching architecture and multiple servers
3) Hand off to Client for Content Editing - In my opinion, the best feature of WP is the admin user interface. The sleek visual design, smart use of ajax controls, and the simple layout makes it possible to hand off content editing to "non-technical" people
When I start a WP site, I create a new theme with two files, index.php and styles.css. Then I build my own, custom theme, that is uniquely designed for my project. Examples of my work are http://perqworks.com, http://janemonheitonline.com and http://generalordersno9.com. As you can see, these are not blogs, but CMS sites. I agree, WP was a blog platform, but it has proven itself as a CMS-lite application.
I prefer WordPress because of its extensibility and easy install and modifications.
Version 2.0 has introduced a bunch of features (like custom post types) that makes using it as a CMS easy.
Wordpress is mostly use for blogging and Drupal is used for creating websites. YOu should consider using drupal for that ;)
You may be lured to WP immediately from how quick it is to get started. But in the long term, do yourself a favor and use Drupal. It's a proven CMS framework and less prone to security issues from contributed modules. I can count on two hands how many times a WP plugin has bit me in the ass, even highly rated ones. It has very granular security also, so you know exactly what your users can and cannot do.
I've used both and Drupal is just easier to extend and configure. I don't get why people think it has a huge learning curve.
I also think a big deal breaker is the end user experience - WordPress makes it just so damn easy to manage your website, all whilst looking (in my opinion) rather beautiful at the same time.
Every client I've handed a WP site to has been impressed with it's simplicity - as the iPad put it;
You already know how to use it!
I prefer Drupal over Wordpress . Drupal is made for flexibility . But you must know how to do it , ie all . You may need some time to read how to do with that module x and how to with module Y . But once you have learned you will be comfortable to do any site.
The main advantage of Drupal is CCK and Views . Wordpress 3 have come with CCK , but Drupal has it from version 5. Now we are moving to 7, and it still misses Views :) . Yes ofcourse wordpress is a wonderful tool for blogging with ease. But when talking other than blog, you may want to opt for Drupal . Once you have learned how to do with drupal , you will never say wordpress .
If some one is against Drupal then he may have not used or learned it to the extent :) . So my suggestion for you to checkout Drupal 6 for now , as Drupal 7 is still in alpha for the present time.
I'm going to be moving my website to a CMS in the coming months I'd I need some help on choosing an appropriate CMS. Many of the websites I've seen tend to say "use Drupal, hands down". However, my website truly doesn't have a need for commenting or community features. Its pages will need to be modified occasionally, but not extensively. My website will also consist of many programs, each with their own sub-pages and menus.
There are probably 25 people that will need access to the content on my website and will need the ability to update it.
I do like the idea of being able to tag and categorize the content, and the modular aspect of Drupal but is it really right for my website? If not, which CMS may fit my needs better?
It sounds like Drupal would be an excellent solution to your company's needs. I used to recommend WordPress for smaller, single-blog type sites, but now, even for those, I recommend Drupal because you can start small and scale up as your needs grow. It has a very dedicated community and there is a module for just about any need you may have.
I would agree with Drupal. The thing about Drupal is that you start out very small and add on as you need things. There is a ton of documentation, it is well coded, always being expanded on, good forum support, and free. It's the easiest to install, most problem free, and most maintainable CMS system I've seen so far.
You can turn Drupal commenting off with the press of a button, and if/when you decide to add onto your website, perhaps you want an ad rotator, more extensive user permissions, etc, etc, it is all already developed for you and ready to go.
I am not sure if Wordpress supports multiple users on a site.
The smallest you can go for a CMS is something like 10kCMS or the more popular TinyMCE
If it is something small I will go with WordPress as it is easily themed and extensible. There are a lot of community plugins and support. Their documentation is also fairly simple as they don't have a thousand of functions and stuff you need to remember and understand. With some creativity the basic functionality of WordPress is sufficient to solve almost all problems that might arise in small to mid-size website.
I also like Drupal, but you may consider Umbraco as well. http://umbraco.org/ I'd use Umbraco over Drupal if your team is stronger in .Net than PHP. (Really, I think that's a larger concern - what are your organization's strengths? Play to suit them. You are making a decision that will pave the way for many developers besides yourself, and business decisions of your company.) Both are extendable and open source so you can write your own modules/components to customize. It may be cleaner to import into Drupal tables than Umbraco, since it goes down to xslt files. (EDIT: This looks to be no longer the case in the new version - http://umbracohosting.com/umbraco-4---get-excited/one-cms-any-database) From a front end dev perspective, both offer great control of the final output.
From working on legacy stuff a lot, you may end up hiring interns to do the gruntwork. There's bound to be tons of inline tables and all sorts of un-reusable code in there, it may be easier to scrape the content manually and start w/clean markup for the content portions.
We are about to start a new project, and an outsourced developer has come in and insists that Textpattern is the way forward... personally I don't mind. I can develop in almost any PHP environment... but the aim of the game is that it does well with SEO.
The question is, is Textpattern any good? Wordpress, Drupal etc are all very usable, with varying degrees on tidiness on the code, but they all work. Why would textpattern be any better than Wordpress for example? I like the community, I like the API, I like the plugins... why would you want to replace WP?
Thanks guys.
They're both pretty much the same as far as I know.
WP has more plugins, it's easier to install themes for it and it's more popular. It's got a worse security record though.
Textpattern is also robust, customisable and has decent plugins (though not as much as WP). It doesn't have the easy drag/drop theme installation as does WP (last time I checked anyway) but has a better security record in general. I personally find the whole look a little more tasteful than WP which seems to try too hard but that's just a personal opinion.
Drupal is heavier, more customisable and a different beast from WP and textpattern. Your needs would be different if you wanted that.
All of them do decent SEO by default as far as I know. Alteast I know that WP and Drupal do it well. TP too from what I remember.
You should just ask the outsourced developer for concrete reasons why to use TP instead of WP. Engineering reasons, tradeoffs, pros, cons, statistics, numbers. Make it clear to him that you're not going to let the project hinge on his personal preferences.
I think they are both very capable systems, and if you already know one of the systems over the other I'd go with the one you know...
There are some differences though, these pages give quite a nice summary of the pros and cons between the two:
http://txpmag.com/article/textpattern-versus-wordpress
http://www.robspangler.com/blog/wordpress-vs-textpattern
We user Textpattern because it allows to produce simple sites really quickly from our base install template (5-10 pages, no more than secondary level navigation).
For those sites we also find it pretty simple for our clients to update. For anything bigger or more complex it can get a bit cumbersome and confusing using the Textpattern backend, so we'd usually go with Drupal or Wordpress.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
Looking for some feedback on those of you who have evaluated umbraco lately.
I've been on a quest for the 'best' cms that balances ease of use/extendability/customization etc. to use as a base for a new vertical product I am in the planning stages on, so for the past month or so I have been downloading, installing, reading source code and creating test sites in every asp.net cms I can get my hands on - and so far I have pulled down GraffitCMS, MojoPortal, Oxite, Orchard, Kuboo and maybe a couple of others that I am not remembering of the top of my head.
For each of those, except Umbraco, I have been up and running in less than a couple of hours, including adding pages, customizing templates, and in some cases (especially Graffiti), writing drop in widgets in C# in a matter of just a few hours....
But with Umbraco, after wrestling it for almost 2 days just getting it to run, and now another morning watching videos, and then building pages etc, I am still unable to even get even a simple site operational, and even the pages I have gotten working crash routinely (not to mention being a dog)...
So, the question is: Am I doing it wrong? or is it really that hard to work with? and more importantly, if I continue to push forward, will it be worth it? or do I cut my losses and move on?
Edit: asp.net with SQL Server support are requirements of anything I pick.
UPDATE ONE YEAR LATER (Feb/2011):
My initial impressions are still accurate, Umbraco is different than most of the other CMS's that I have used in the past, and for me took a bit longer than usual to 'get it', but now that I have, I have to say I have a much better appreciation of the product, what it does, and how it does it - and to top it all of, it really performs really well - especially with the latest release of 4.6.1. So call me a convert - I am glad I stuck it out and then took another look. I only update this post now, over one year later so as not to leave my initial negative 'review' here for posterity.
The learning curve for umbraco is short but steep. Once it all 'clicks' then you'll be up and running in short order.
It's different from other CMS platforms in that you doesn't give you anything out of the box - just a blank canvas to work with. Other cms systems will set you up with a default template and allow you to drop in pre-built functionality. Umbraco is, by design, not like that at all. You only get out what you put in, it doesn't generate anything for you.
This is ideal for developers and designers who want 100% control over their code/markup.
Version 4.7 (currently in release candidate) introduces the Razor syntax for creating macros. This does away with needing XSLT+XPath which I think was a big stumbling block for a lot of people. Even if you're not familiar with Razor, it is much intuitive to learn than the XML based offerings.
The videos have been mentioned by other posters below. $20 is a small price to pay to get up and running quickly.
Does it matter? What I mean is, if you find it hard to use, and there are other alternatives available, why persist? If it's non-intuitive to you, then you're going to find it hard to use. If it doesn't have some killer feature you (think you) need, dump it and move on. You don't need the hassle of trying to wrap your head around some oddly-designed (to you) product, and the product's developers don't need the hassle of trying to support people who think their product should work in some way it wasn't designed to.
None of this is intended to be harsh, just practical. You have the freedom to choose, so choose what works best for you. This sounds like it isn't working, so move on. My brother-in-law wanted to buy a Volvo, but found the controls and dashboard totally confusing, so he wound up with a BMW instead. Nothing wrong with the Volvo, nothing wrong with my brother-in-law, just cognitive dissonance. Don't worry about it.
I've been building sites with Umbraco for something like 5 years now, and I don't recognize your description of Umbraco as a very difficult CMS, but I'll try to provide a few pointers here to help you if you're still considering Umbraco:
Go to http://our.umbraco.org, read the Wiki-pages, and post any questions in the forums there, it's a really friendly community.
Always use Microsofts Web Platform Installer when installing Umbraco, It'll help you create your site, and set up your database. Just be sure not to install Umbraco in a sub/virtual directory, since Umbraco can't handle a setup like that.
If possible, do your install on a development machine with IIS7 and SQL Server Express, it'll work for sure, and deployment of a finished site can be done with a xcopy transfer and a restore of a database backup.
Don't start a new Umbraco site, before you've coded the HTML you'll be using for the site, or at least have a really clear idea about the page types, and html content you'll need.
I hope I'll be seeing you on the Umbraco forums.
Regards
Jesper Hauge
As a grizzled CMS veteran I can say that Umbraco is no harder to set up and use than many other CMS solutions.
However much of whether you find it hard or easy depends largely on your previous experience with CMS and your expectations for what a CMS should provide out of the box.
I've worked mostly with larger CMSs:
Microsoft CMS
Immediacy
Obtree
Reef (anyone remember that one!)
etc....
Against those it is no harder to use and is probably easier as it tends to get out of your way and lets you get on with building the functionality you require.
However if your expectations are more based around things like Wordpress, i.e. install and go but with more limited options, then it can be hard to start with (if you just fire it up without installing a website starter kit).
My recommendation is that if you are building a small site you take a look at the Creative website starter kit at our.umbraco.org. There are also many packages that you can install to make things easier or add specific functionality (including pre-built navigation controls and full blog solutions).
Also take a look at the Wiki on our.umbraco.org and ask questions in the forum, the community is helpful and friendly.
Umbraco is a bit different than other CMSs like Sitefinity, DNN, or Drupal. It does compare well to Sitecore.
Yes, there is a bit of a learning curve. I think the XSLT can cause that, but more likely its just the fact that you have to understand how Umbraco is structured. There are very few "modules" out of the box that you have to arrange and style. Rather, it allows you to easily create your own structure and markup that doesn't force you into a box that is hard to get out of.
I've used Drupal, Sitefinity, WordPress, Sitecore, and some others and frankly Umbraco is my favorite. If you know how to develop great web sites and you don't want limits on your design, markup, or client experience then Umbraco is a great choice. If you aren't really building a site but just want to put pieces together and get "something" working, then it may not be worth your time. If you build lots of sites or want your end users to edit content easily (not just a big rich text editor), then it may be worth overcoming the learning curve.
The videos are totally worth the $20 to watch BTW. They are far better than any documentation you can find and after maybe 5-6 videos you should be "getting it". Just buy one month and cancel after that.
The community is awesome too. If you're struggling, head over to the http://our.umbraco.org forums and get some help. There's lots of it over there.
Also, try installing the Creative Web Starter Kit package or the Blog 4 Umbraco package to get a head start. Those will be more familiar to those coming from a Sitefinity or Drupal background and may help the learning curve flatten out.
Good luck!
As a senior .NET programmer naturally I gravitate to .NET based solutions, and Umbraco seems to be a solid CMS. So I installed it and tried to gain some knowledge and getting it going and these are my findings:
Videos are ridiculously thin on content. The first introductory video talks of a runway. What on earth is a runway??? No jargon please, I'm a first time user.
You have to pay for the most advanced videos. No wonder it hasn't taken off as a mainstream .NET based CMS.
Out of the box demos are non functional (I chose the business theme an the menus don't work)
Admin area very non-intuative
Installation forces Web-Matrix installatiuon.. I have IIS7 and so do our production systems... I DON"T WANT WebMatrix!!! Finding documentation on this is also not easy.
All in all EXTREMELY FRUSTRATING to use and put me off Umbraco totally.
So I've picked up on Wordpress in the mean time and find it extremely easy to extend the admin interface. Documetnation and community support is superb. Just a pity its PHP bases because that won't fly in my company that has invested heavily in .NET developers :-(
Opinions aside, this all depends on your background. I'm a software engineer not a webmaster. So, I think like a software engineer and not like a webmaster.
Umbraco was VERY frustrating for me to install simply because there was no easily found TEXT documentation. Once I finally found that, it was a breeze to install.
The problem for many web designers is that they are not software engineers. Nothing bad about web designers who aren't also software engineers, it's just a different way of seeing the world. I have worked a lot with web designers who needed to interface with my C++ and C# back ends; they have a completely different perspective of almost everything.
Once I got past the goofy implied install process (which is bad, bad, bad -- you should never require another product JUST to install your own!) I found Umbraco to be simple and intuitive. Even my (non-programmer) girlfriend found it to be much more logical than some of the other CMS's we had been playing around with. Drupal, for example, was simple to install, but isn't really designed for a Windows development (ASP.NET/SQL Server) environment and I hate PHP, so I eventually abandoned that. MojoPortal was really nice and simple, but... it was... well... simple. Too simple.
I like Orchard, but the last time I looked at that there was so little in terms of what to start with that I decided that it would be a problem in the immediate future. I wanted a web content management system, not a web development platform. I kept thinking Orchard is a lot like *nix: "A nice place to live, but ya wouldn't wanna visit there."
Umbraco for me is a nice medium place, extremely flexible and easy to extend. It tries very hard to not get in your way. If you want to extend it you would probably do best to either learn C# (or {cringe} VB) or co-opt someone to write the CodeBehind for you. But, using it is extremely simple and straight forward.
I can't say whether it's just hard to use in general - but I came to much of the same conclusion as you did. I was especially disappointed by the lack of useful documentation - all the potentially useful video resources at their website are for pay $$$ only - what's up with that??
Also, the few intro videos I saw never quite clicked with me. They presented lots of concepts, but really never explained them much.
I also had tried Graffiti, but that never quite worked, either - and with its future less than sure, I gave up on that. Others seemed overly complicated for my requirements (Kentico, CommunityServer, and others).
In the end, based on a tip by a fellow on superuser.com, I went with BlogEngine.NET for my club's web site, and so far, I haven't looked back at all. It's pure ASP.NET which appeals to me, it's easily extensible, has a fairly large community with extensions and themes and stuff. From my personal experience, I can only recommend you check it out, if you have a mostly (blog) post based site in mind.
Strange. It takes me 5 minutes to install new Umbraco site, in 2 hours i managed to create standard portfolio website (well, when I've already got used to XSLT). It's very easy to create, modify, add custom controls, add smth to administration section, etc.
What was hard to understand (took me half an hour) that I don't have to write any SQL or C# code until I need some additional data model that's above Documents concept or Umbraco capabilities. Such samples: auto-resizing pictures, invoking some web-service, etc. - anything that comes from business logic layer that can't be covered by CMS model.
In most cases Umbraco is so easy to use that even that little bit of documentation is enough. There's pretty thin and easy API provided by Umbraco, but there's a good tech. level needed from developer, and that's XML 1st of all: XQuery and XPath to use maximum of XSLT.
And once more about installation: I just followed each step of installation guide and that's all.
The problem with Umbraco is that the UI is awkward and it's not immediately apparent how to use it and where to find things. There are several section buttons at the bottom of the page and when you click on one, you're presented with a tree view where you drill down to what you want. This is bad UI 101: no mystery meat. All functions should be organized and visible to the user. Dropdowns with submenus would have been a better approach.
The UI element names are ambiguous. For instance, there's a Members and a Users section, a Developer and a Settings section, a Content and a Media section. Isn't Media supposed to be Content? Aren't Members also Users? Aren't Settings something a Developer would do? You get my drift.
With the release of version 5, none of these issues have been addressed. The best thing they did was to kill XSLT/Classic ASP.NET and replace it with MVC and Razor. This makes getting your head around the product much easier from a developer's standpoint, despite a lack of adequate documentation for version 5. From a content creation standpoint, it's still lacking, however.
If you want to see a great UI, look no further than SiteFinity. Even though the new design isn't as good as SiteFinity 3 versions, it's content editing is the best I've seen on the market. It's too bad it doesn't support MVC and it's controls are cumbersome to modify and style.
what i wish i would have known!
Umbraco - Before you start