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:Why Frame not Word? From:Keith Soltys <ksoltys -at- IO -dot- ORG> Date:Mon, 16 Jan 1995 06:38:41 -0500
ML>Upper management in my company is exerting pressure for
>the documentation people to jump on the Word bandwagon
>and abandon our dearly beloved FrameMaker. I'm now
Hmmm, you'd think they'd be going in the other direction!
ML>If you have any personal experience with Frame and Word,
>I would appreciate hearing your arguments for one over
>the other. You may post them to the list or send them to
>me and I will summarize them in due course.
I just got Frame for the PC, and some of our developers will be using
the UNIX version. We've been using Word, and I've found that it is
completely inadequate for long documents, say anything over 50 pages.
The master document feature that is supposed to let you work with
multifile, large projects is unreliable and a memory hog. On the other
hand, I think Word is superior as a basic writing tool.
The recently released Word to Frame import filter for Word 6 does a
decent job of importing Word docs into Frame. Perhaps, you could
continue to use Frame for document assembly and final production,
importing Word files as necessary.
But if you are now working with large documents in Frame, I would fight
very, very hard against a complete switch to Word.
Regards,
Keith
* 1st 2.00b #3667 * Why is abbreviation such a long word.
