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:RE: Interleaf to Frame From:"Murrell, Thomas" <TMurrell -at- alldata -dot- net> To:TECHWR-L <TECHWR-L -at- LISTS -dot- RAYCOMM -dot- COM>, "'Michael Andrew Uhl'" <uhl -dot- mike -at- epa -dot- gov> Date:Fri, 10 Dec 1999 14:29:16 -0500
I used Interleaf on a UNIX platform in the early '90s, FrameMaker on UNIX,
PCs, and Macintoshes in the mid-90s, and I'm using MS Word as the '90s end.
Talk about your death spiral.
I'll allow as how I can't speak to Interleaf today, but I found it easier to
use than Frame when I first had to make the switch. I thought they were
both comparably capable publishing packages, though I agree with the person
who thought that Interleaf has a better graphics capability.
I haven't kept up with Interleaf's pricing policies, but that was their
biggest drawback, that and the fact that they did not have a good version
for PCs or Macs. (At the time, they were keeping those versions one release
behind their UNIX version.) My recollection was that Interleaf was nearly
an order of magnitude more expensive than Frame. Made it very hard for me
to build a business case for Interleaf. (Is anyone at Infoaccess
BTW, FrameMaker for the Mac has always seemed to be better than FrameMaker
for Windows. I don't know if that's policy at Adobe or not.
Final thought: If you hadn't guessed by now, I would not recommend Word for
document publishing, period. (Though I still have to use it <sigh>.)