Re: The Old Argument: Framemaker vs. MS Word

Subject: Re: The Old Argument: Framemaker vs. MS Word
From: "Tim Altom" <taltom -at- simplywritten -dot- com>
To: "Darren Barefoot" <dbarefoot -at- mpsbc -dot- com>, "TechDoc List" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 14:57:04 -0500

Believe me, you're not the only person worrying about Adobe's apparent
disinterest in Frame. Those companies like ours that have Frame as their
centerpiece are nervous as a long-tailed cat in a roomful of rocking chairs.
It's a dynamite product, but we felt a lot more confident in its future when
it was owned by Frame Technology. At Adobe, it seems to be considered a
stepkid. I don't think it'll dry up and blow away myself, but sometimes
Adobe shakes my confidence.

Tim Altom
Simply Written, Inc.
Featuring FrameMaker and the Clustar Method(TM)
"Better communication is a service to mankind."
317.562.9298
http://www.simplywritten.com

>
> I've caught some flack for my (admittedly inaccurate) statement below.
What
> I meant to convey, which clearly I did not, was that I wouldn't rely upon
> FrameMaker over the long term. I mean, the release notes in our version,
> Frame 5.5.3, indicate that it shipped in 1998. With the exception of the
> recent Linux-friendly version, I haven't seen much that indicates that
Adobe
> is particularly interested in the product. Besides, how Web-friendly can a
> product be that has a spell-checker that does not include the term
> "Internet"?
>






Previous by Author: Re: Is Anyone Using XML for single sourcing help and docs?
Next by Author: Re: The Old Argument: Framemaker vs. MS Word
Previous by Thread: RE: The Old Argument: FrameMaker vs. MS Word
Next by Thread: Re: FW: The Old Argument: Framemaker vs. MS Word


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads