Frames are extremely effective, when used properly. Take a look at titanrobotics.net for example, we use frames, but the website dosn't look bad (unless of course you are running something under 1024 x 768 resolution, but these days, few people actually do, and they don't deserve to see our site anyway :rolleyes:)
Tables are useful for websites where all the content is already decided on. However, say that you wanted to add a navigation item to a 25 page website... This means you would need to change 25 pages.

I would never do a professional website with everchanging content using anything else than frames.

PS: I do know about the include tag in coldfusion, asp, and php, but I have found it to be quite unreliable for table sites.

For my own site, I gave up on cross-resolution compatibility, and got quite a few people off of 800600.

And I tried frames, it was a nav bar, and the frame and the frame border were not visible... and scroll bar was disabled... It was just so the whole page didn't have to load again (the nav bar just stayed), but I realized the pointlessness of it, and so I went to normal HTML and then to CSS.

Frames, IMO are a matter of taste, and depend on the content your site is trying to deliver. They are an easy way to get a header and navigation bar, and are still the only way to put HTML file within another. Effects can be simulated by CSS, but for a quick way, frames are the answer, and are likely here to stay. In fact, the W3C knows this and is continuing development on Xframes and framesets for XHTML 1.

BTW, a lot of you saying you use tables as spacers are actually using them in an incorrect manner. CSS is what you're supposed to use to space out parts in a page. The reasons for this are how different browsers display frames and how tabular data in tables is interpreted. However, like frames, it is the easy way out for delivering pretty content, and I do it too.

And, 800 x 600 may be 'standard resolution', but I bet if you polled all the people here, the vast majority would use something larger. Besides, 800 x 600 is useless on a screen 17" or larger.

<--- Doesn't believe in using tables for graphical markup.

But good luck convincing people of that. Ultimately people are lazy (even if it isn't truly easier) and don't want to change the way they do things... so no real use in these kinds of threads... :-/

1. They are not browser friendly. Mozilla, Netscape, and possibly others (like CompuServe for sure) don't handle them easily. (Thanks to Gadget for announcing the "they are not browser friendly" comment)
Thats simply not true. My main browser is Moz and I've never had any frames problems since some really early releases. Frames are a standard part of HTML. Don't blame browsers for faulty implementations of this.

2. A big mess. Take team 5's site for an example. Before I had the menu that's on it now, the frames destroyed the other menu basically. Sure, it was a drop-down, but the code for it was basically useless. If you want a nice, clean site, use non-frames (or atleast have an option for the user wanting to view a frames or non-frames site). My poetry site is made without frames, and easy to browse (it should be anyways, it's only 4 pages). Yes, frames can make your site load faster (depending on where your server is, and a few other things), but sooner or later, it'll slow down your site to a hault.
First off why will it slow down your site later? Secondly there are as many (if not more) sites butchered from tables or any other HTML element. Poor web design skils lead to poor sites, not frames.

3. Annoying. If you think a next door neighbor with his music blaring at 2 am while you are trying to sleep is annoying, try this. Frames can make images seem distorted, text become wrapped (which is bad sometimes). Even if a high-class website designer did a site in frames, it would still look the same as if a 5-year old internet newbie did one.
I'm not even gonna bother with this one...

4. Take over the screen for small computers
Again, if they do its the fault of the webmaster not the tool. Frame websites can be made that don't take over the screen.

Kinda late reply but...

Don't be so cocky. While around 50% do use 1024 x 768.... arpimd 45% of the general population still uses 800 x 600, you don't want to not cater to almost half of the users. Bah.

When I saw this topic header, I thought to myself, AHHHHHHHHH!

I have perhaps seen less than 10 websites in years and years of using the internet that implement frames well.

Otherwise, you can construct a great website out of just XML and CSS.

Even simpler and better looking than using frames to get a header is just to make a php header and include it in each page... lack of frames is great. How many commercial websites have you seen that uses them?

Ebay? no
Amazon? no
Apple? no
Slashdot? no
Yahoo? no
Netscape? no
Mozilla? no
Gaim? no
Trillian? no
VBulletin? no
w3c.org? NO
etc etc etc etc etc etc

Those are just some examples. :)

Like on my site, http://silent-poet.vze.com, I don't use frames, I use includes (a.k.a.: headers). In asp, just do this:
where enter_file_here.asp is your file to include.

With the list of sites not using frames monsieurcoffee posted, here's a few more:

FIRST Offical Website
Chief Delphi
GameDev.Net
Game Tutorials
Jasc Inc.
AFL (it's an intranet site, but I've seen it before)

this list could go on for ever and ever, but I hope it doesn't ;)

They are usually gawdy and overused. But if done right they can help out a site. Also, iframes can be useful and save time in the creation of the site. They can be easily integrated and are easily updated.

Here's a few more reasons against frames:

Not very search engine friendly
Makes it difficult to bookmark specific pages within your site to easily return to
What happens if someone stumbles onto a page intended to be just a content frame and your navigation is in another one? ...confusion.

Also, here's a solution to a common problem:

For those looking to frames for an easy way to have standard navigation, take a look at SSI (Server-Side Includes). The free services are more likely to support them than they are to support a full-fledged language like PHP or ASP. It makes it easy to include a standard navigation menu, example:

<!--#include virtual="/navigation.txt" -->

Also, for those who do have access to PHP, you can set an option in the php.ini, httpd.conf, or .htaccess file to allow a common header and footer to be added to your pages.

Here's an example of how you would do this in a .htaccess file:

php_value auto_append_file "header.txt"
php_value auto_prepend_file "footer.txt"

There's an easy way to do the same thing in ASP, too. (I'm not quite sure what it is, off hand, but it shouldn't take too long to look up)

Frames can be search engine friendly when properly implemented. The key is proper head info such as meta tags in your head info. Also, the 'main' frame can be made search engine viewable in much the same way. If webmasters of frame sites are intelligent enough to use doctypes in the future, search engines will never stumble upon content frames. The problem is as usual, not the technology's fault, but rather a human screwed up somewhere.

The only problem with using SSI like that is that it behaves differently. The closest way to emulate the way a framed page works (wherein the two entities don't move together) is position: fixed through CSS, and that isn't yet properly supported by IE so it isn't used on pages. It also has some faults that I won't get into here. I use SSI on headers and footers for example, and I occasionally use frames. Both still have their place, and will continue to do so in the future. The other thing about your mentioned method is you're assuming the consumer is using a cache, and with the correct settings. Otherwise, they have a long time to wait for your page to load, especially if there's Flash or something to that effect on it.

Ebay? no
Amazon? no
Apple? no
Slashdot? no
Yahoo? no
Netscape? no
Mozilla? no
Gaim? no
Trillian? no
VBulletin? no
w3c.org? NO
etc etc etc etc etc etc

Hmmm none of them use fancy images or lotsa flash either. Does that mean they should never be used? No. Different sties work differently. You can't compair the design of a search engine to that of a message board. Frames work on some sites, but not all. The same can be said about image intensive or flash intensive sites. They are all only effective when implemented properly. Don't blame bad web design on frames, blame it on bad webdesigners.

Team Mercury's Webmaster's Opinions
 

okidoke. here's 1089's website: http://mercury1089.tk. It runs in frames. I being a long time internet user (try since I was about 8 or 9) hate frames. however, i wanted to have a stationary menu. The site was running on frames earlier, and i can easily change it back if someone would be kind enough to figure out a way for me to have a stationary menu with tables (not an image menu...way too much of a hassle). Also, I try to be browser friendly, so if there is something that works best with your browser, let me know. Same goes for window resolution. (I run 800x600)

So, yeah, stationary tables...anyone, anyone?

I used to use frames when I first learned HTML, but now I use all tables and sometimes the occasional IFRAME. It just keeps everything neater. One of the first mistakes I made when designing a website for a local band was designing it in my 1600 by 1200 resolution. Giant surprise to me when the band member told me how terrible it looked. And then I finally realized why when he sent me a screenshot and I had to convert everything to a smaller size :(..What do you CD-ers think of IFRAMES. Yay or nay?

In reply to Aignam, yay for sure. They're very useful, again, when properly used. My most recent use of them on team188.com (the perfect spot for one) is on the Mozilla/Netscape Forum sidebar tab I made.

In response to BandChick, you can simply apply the CSS property position:fixed to a div with your menu in it--SSI in this case isn't a bad idea--and play around (give the div an id attribute, call it 'nav' for example, and put in your CSS '#nav {position:fixed;}' then play with dimensions). Sadly, this is an iffy imlementation at best, as it will not display in WinIE6, and isn't quite the same as a frame. There is a way to force IE to sort of do this with JavaScript, but I'd tend to avoid JS for something so integral. I can elaborate or give examples.