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:Tech. writing list From:Geoff Hart <geoff-h -at- MTL -dot- FERIC -dot- CA> Date:Wed, 22 Mar 1995 08:37:24 LCL
Douglas Thayer <douglas_thayer -at- smtplink -dot- syscom -dot- com -dot- tw> asked about
portable document software. I've tried a few programs, and here are
my results:
1) Adobe Acrobat seems to be great if you're working across
platforms (e.g., Windows, Mac, Unix) and publishing using
Postscript. If you want to see the results, Adobe offers a "free"
CD ROM ($15 shipping and handling fee, perhaps more overseas) to
show off the technology, and I was fairly impressed.
2) No Hands Software Common Ground seems to get better reviews in
the press (PC Magazine, MacUser and MacWorld have all reviewed it
as better than Acrobat). However, I tried a few Windows print jobs
and found it to be acceptable but not on a par with Acrobat. This
is subjective, as I haven't performed in-depth destructive testing.
3) WordPerfect Envoy subjectively feels the best: fast, efficient,
and reliable. But again, I haven't tested it extensively, and some
magazine reviews of older versions (1.X) ranked it below Acrobat
and Common Ground.
Note that the situation is changing rapidly. Common Ground and
Envoy have new releases that are competitive with the new version
of Acrobat. My advice: each company offers free demos for the price
of a phone call or letter, so get a copy and test it for your
specific application. All magazine reviews test under specific,
controlled situations that won't match yours, and I've often found
surprising omissions in their testing when I tried a product
myself.
--Geoff Hart #8^{)} <---got these specs from reading too much
online info!