Re: FrameMaker

Subject: Re: FrameMaker
From: Jeremy M Lerman <jeremy -at- INSPEC -dot- COM>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 11:08:42 +0200

Jill Marie Ramacciotti, Java Writer, Sunsoft, wrote:

>When I worked on doc for PowerPoint for Microsoft, we used Quark
>with Photoshop and Illustrator.

The mind boggles; did Bill know about this?

>When I came to Sun, I felt like Frame was a step back into the
>dark ages.

Sure you did; it is totally unfair to compare QuarkXpress with Frame. Quark
has never touted Xpress as a major bookmaking tool; It certainly isn't. For
example, how did you create and update your Indexes and table of contents?
With Sonar Bookends and the ToC extensions? With IndexTension? Frame has
them all licked. Meanwhile Quark version 4.0, the so-called Frame-killer,
is still not ready, and one wonders if things are not more than a little
shaky over there. Your stepping back into the dark ages? maybe you were
just missing Microsoft.

>On one project I worked on, the company wouldn't let me use a UNIX
>workstation like the rest of the writers. So, I didn't have access
>to Frame. I was able to reproduce their style guide using Word, and had NO

>problems. Plus, I was able to use features that Frame is light
>years away from implementing properly - sort, search and replace,
>import, publish and subscribe.

Publish and Subscribe, eh. The Macintosh platform. At Microsoft's Tech Pubs
dept? Maybe Bill doesn't have a lot of confidence in either the Intel chip
or Word for Windows book making features? I doubt it, but it's fun to think
about it!

Anyway, Try installing Framemaker for the Macintosh; It's been available
for many years and versions 4 and 5 have always supported Publish and
Subscribe. Try using the Global Style Update feature in the Paragraph
Designer for implementing global style changes. Other than that, Frame's
Search and Replace is on a par with Word's.

>Personally, if I never have to use Frame again, I am happy.

A happy person is a contented soul. Nothing wrong with that. But I do beg
you to give Frame another try, especially as it works so well on the Mac.
On a different note entirely, have you tried comparing working performances
between Word 6.0.1 for the Mac and Word 7 for Win95? The results might
swing you to the PC platform! I shifted platform after 8 years of heavily
oriented Mac usage and I haven't looked back since.

Regards,

Jeremy M Lerman

jeremy -at- inspec -dot- com


Previous by Author: Re: PageMaker to FrameMaker
Next by Author: From QuarkXpress (Mac) to Word (Win)
Previous by Thread: FrameMaker Hands-on for free and a personal story
Next by Thread: FrameMaker+SGML Time Estimate


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

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads