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.
OK, Frame's the obvious choice for long documents BUT...
Subject:OK, Frame's the obvious choice for long documents BUT... From:Patrick O'Connell <patricko -at- EICON -dot- COM> Date:Wed, 18 Jan 1995 10:58:00 PST
I read with disbelief the results of Mike LaTorra's Frame-vs.-Word survey.
Notwithstanding the long-document-in-word nightmares so many people have
been through (something two co-workers of mine have personally experienced),
I have to wonder how many of the FM yea-sayers are using it on Windows.
On Windows (so far the only platform on which I've used Frame) trying to use
Frame as a word processor bugs the HELL out of me because:
- The keyboard text-manipulation conventions, for reasons I cannot fathom,
are different from the Windows native ones inherent even in Notepad, or the
lowliest text box. I'm not one of those never-touch-the-mouse people, but
try to use the keyboard as much as possible to save wear and tear on my
mouse-hand carpal tendons. Try switching back and forth between Frame and
Word several times in one day. Just try. When they let you out of the
straijacket, send me a mail. :-)
- It's S...L...O...W. A fellow writer claims this is specific to Version 4;
I have used both Version 3 and Version 4, but I cannot reliably judge the
difference between them because I changed video subsystems around the same
time we changed versions. My old adapter and monitor (Sigma Designs L-View)
were a BIG bottleneck. I can say that I don't believe any program could
react as slowly on my 486/66 VL box as Frame sometimes does.
- In terms of interface design most of it is a Windows 3.0 program. In terms
of online help it's not a Windows program at all.
- It's a memory hog. When you have 16 Mb and have to watch how many other
programs/documents are open when Frame is open, something's WRONG. Yes, I
know it started out as a Sun workstation app with 32 Mb to play with. So?
With respect to speed and efficiency: apparently Microsoft holds
FrameMaker/Win up as an example of follow-the-rules-to-the-letter Windows
programming. Do I care? Word 6 is also a huge, sophisticated and quite
complicated program, and probably runs like a dog on a 386/25, but so do a
LOT of things. You can't blame the hardware when it's a 486DX2/VL with 16
megs.
According to a Frame trainer guy we had in some months ago, who has dealt
extensively with Frame Tech. and with other FrameMaker users, Frame is
unlikely to change things like the non-standard keyboard conventions (see
above) unless one of their major customers (I think Unisys was mentioned)
asks for it. Lovely.
Pat
.-------------------------------------------------------------------.
|\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\
||\-----------------------------.-------------------------------------.
|\| Patrick Brian O'Connell ! Intermediate Writer,Eicon Technology|
.|| These are my opinions, not ! Corporation / (B) 514-631-9825 x3250|
\| Eicon Technology's. ! Net (B):patricko -at- eicon -dot- com |
'-----------------------------'-------------------------------------'