Re: QuarkXPress vs. FrameMaker

Subject: Re: QuarkXPress vs. FrameMaker
From: Ann Howell <ahowell -at- POOLMAIL -dot- DOLPHINSOFTWARE -dot- COM>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 12:19:26 -0400

It all depends what you want to do. As a long-time Quark user who has recently
switched to FM, I can say that you will lose a lot of functionality by
"downgrading" to Quark. Although the interface is a lot simpler, things like
file-sharing and HTML generation are not integrated into the program. Quark is
fine for creating short-to-medium length documents. You have paragraph and
character style sheets just like FM and the latest version even has an indexing
function built-in (though that is fairly clunky -- you may want to consider a
third-party plug-in for that). But if you need to create long manuals that need
to be cross-referenced, edited by multiple users and published on-line, I would
stick with FM.

Just out of curiosity, why are they prompting the switch?

Ann Howell
Dolphin Software

From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=

Previous by Author: Re: Cost analysis for SQL Server
Next by Author: Re: At what point does software become an application?
Previous by Thread: Re: FrameMaker vs. QuarkXPress
Next by Thread: Re: QuarkXPress vs. FrameMaker

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

Sponsored Ads