TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Frame vs. Word From:John Bell <john_bell -at- C-STONE -dot- COM> Date:Fri, 6 Dec 1996 11:21:39 -0500
Mitch Berg wrote:
> True story - I once did a 750-page design guide in Word. I
> spent, literally, 2/3 of my billable hours wrestling with Word. I
> explained to my client that the time I spent fighting with Word would
> have bought several copies of Frame - and all I'd wanted was one! (That
> shop switched to Frame shortly thereafter)
I've said many times that if you're doing long documents, there is no way you
can cost-justify the use of Word. If I to convince my boss using real world
costs whether to use Word or Frame, Frame would win even at double its
The most expensive element in this comparison is everyday use. The cost
of using the product everyday far outweighs the purchase price, training costs,
conversion costs, and so on. When Word has to handle long documents, it is
inefficient. This is not surprising because it was never intended to handle long
docs. I view Word as a minivan: it works well for many people in many situations.
When you have to move 50 people across town, it is time to get a bus. Frame is
a bus. Big, noisy, clumsy and you need experience to drive it properly. However,
when you're handling many pages it is an efficient tool.