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.
Re: RoboHelp For FrameMaker Discontinued -- Please Help Us Save It
Subject:Re: RoboHelp For FrameMaker Discontinued -- Please Help Us Save It From:"T.W. Smith" <techwordsmith -at- gmail -dot- com> To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Fri, 20 Aug 2004 18:18:41 -0400
I never tested RHFM 1.1, but it's very good news, I guess, that they
improved its speed. Sounds like they closed the gap on WWP's
tremendous advanatage over RHFM 1.0, eh?
RHFM is as interactive as WWP, n'est-ce pas? The idea being, set up
the templates ahead of time and then churn away, overrides and ad-hoc
stuff is bad, reliable, repeatable consistency is good. Not sure about
the real-time thing, WWP seemed as "real-time" to me as RHFM, I guess
I'd need to see a "real world" example of "real time."
As for user friendliness, RHFM and WWP were about tied, and neither
had an advantage that benefited standard RoboHelp users, for sure.
FM for the Mac? There you have a real complaint, IMHO. I chatted with
the Adobe PM about that, and he laid out the monetary case for
deep-sixing the Mac version, but it all sucked, IMHO.
Have you looked at Veredus as an alternative? Thoughts on that?
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:48:39 -0700, Liz Johnston <lizzyj -at- telus -dot- net> wrote:
> Since 1.1 was three times faster than 1.0, I don't know about the speed.
> My vectors and tif files output very quickly on RHFM. At the client site
> where I ran WWP, there were very few graphics used and no vectors and
> 1200 pages took about an hour. To my mind the RHFM interface was much
> more intutive and easier to use. WWP is strictly a "converter" not a
> real time, interactive tool like RHFM, which I considered to be a real
> step forward in user-friendliness, but maybe nobody cares about that any
> more except Mac users. I also used FrameMaker for the Mac. BTW, no reply
> is necessary.
1200 pages, for me, with bunches of graphics (average probably 3
rasters per page and 1 vector every 20 pages, maybe) in a
well-organized FM book, took me 30 minutes to generate on a P4 2 GHz
with 512MB RAM. I ran the same on a P4 700MHz with 512, and a P4 2GHz
with 256MB, it just took a little longer is all. I was able to run
that project reliably on a P3 750 with 128MB RAM, as well, but it was
pokey ... don't remember exactly, maybe 75min?
======
T.
Remember, this is online. Take everything with a mine of salt and a grin.
ROBOHELP X5: Featuring Word 2003 support, Content Management, Multi-Author
support, PDF and XML support and much more!
TRY IT TODAY at http://www.macromedia.com/go/techwrl
WEBWORKS FINALDRAFT: New! Document review system for Word and FrameMaker
authors. Automatic browser-based drafts with unlimited reviewers. Full
online discussions -- no Web server needed! http://www.webworks.com/techwr-l
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archiver -at- techwr-l -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
