CMS vs Static Web Pages

[TheShortStack]

I'd be interested in hearing people's thoughts on the advantages of disadvantages of using CMS' to run a website (like Wordpress and Joomla) verses individual HTML pages.

I think I remember reading in the past that some of the larger affiliates use CMS' for smaller sites while preferring to ignore them for their main sites. Why is this? And do you find it a pain when it comes to adding more content to your sites?

Thanks loads in advance

[sirtiner]

The only downside I can think of with having a cms vs regular static is security.

Can also be a speed decrease but I dont know.

[sirtiner]

First time I got a double post, dammit

[Tom]

Not sure why you would ever want a static paged website for bigger sites. It makes it easier to update the content and the overall design with a CMS.

[pokerworx]

I have a decent size site all html and im sickened I did it that way. I picked up one of Tom's themes for myself for xmas and wish I had got one when I started. I will be moving most of my sites over to wordpress now and it will make life much much easier. The only think I like about the static html is being able to make it look really cool but for me from now on its gona be wordpress.

[sirtiner]

I have a decent size site all html and im sickened I did it that way. I picked up one of Tom's themes for myself for xmas and wish I had got one when I started. I will be moving most of my sites over to wordpress now and it will make life much much easier. The only think I like about the static html is being able to make it look really cool but for me from now on its gona be wordpress.

There is no limitation with wordpress, joomla etc, you still design the site with html/css.
No difference from a regular static site.

[Unknown Webmaster]

For a lot of people it is easier to test new things on a HTML site, since you can change the code directly.

If you use a CMS, you will need to figure out how to implement the change in that particular CMS before you can get started.

[GregW]

I think it's a matter of personal preference, rather than one being better than the other for making websites.

After using both, I personally much prefer "static" sites instead of using a CMS. My biggest gripe with a CMS like wordpress is that there is a bit of a "middle-man" between you and your website if that makes any sense. With a static site you have 100% control, whereas some of that control is taken out of your hands with a CMS.

However, not having 100% over everything might turn out to make things easier for those that are not totally confident which html, css and php. So yeah, I'd say that they are both just as good, so just go with the option that works better for you.

[GregW]

Double post. I swear I just clicked "reply" once.

[TheShortStack]

Thanks for the replies so far.

After using both, I personally much prefer "static" sites instead of using a CMS.

So is the downside of that that it takes slightly longer to get a new page up on the site? Do you just have a blank template stored on your PC that populate with content? How do you find that if your page runs to 200/300 pages?