Re: FrameMaker VS PageMaker VS Quark - Opinions?

["Eric L. Dunn" <edunn -at- TRANSPORT -dot- BOMBARDIER -dot- COM>]

In response to Tom Eagles:

>>1. What can PM do that FM can't?  ...What can FM
>>do that PM can't?

PM is much better at page layout. PM is a page layout software package
(same as Quark from what I understand.). These are good for one off
products that will not change or evolve (newsletters, reports, brochures,
etc..)
FM on the other hand produces documents. Tools for tables of contents,
lists, cross-references, indexes etc. Handling large documents and books is
easily done in FM. If your paragraph catalogues are properly created,
repaginating and rechecking the layout after modifications should be
unnecessary (but you should always check ;) ).

>>2. What can Quark do that Frame can't?  ... that
>>PM can't?

Quark is the same as (but much better I've heard) than PM and fulfils the
same purpose. If you need page layout tools look into K2 from Adobe.
See previous for FM vs. Quark.

>>3. What can PM do that Quark can't?  ...What can
>>FM do that Quark can't?

See above.

>>4. For general purpose tech writing and page
>>layout and design:
>>Which tool is better on the PC?  Which tool is
>>better on the Mac?

PC vs. MAC doesn't really come into it. I've used FM on both and seen PM on
both . No difference. However if you are just outfitting a department, I'd
go with the PC's. You get much more bang for your buck IMO.

>>5. Which of the 3 has better import/export
>>capability for graphics/text formats?

Don't know about the other two but FM imports virtually anything. If it
doesn't (or if any other functionality for that matter  is missing),
experience with visual C and the FDK will allow you to program anything
you'll need. That is if you can't get it from another source.


>>6. Is there anything that makes one or another a
>>"must have" for a technical writer?

For Technical documentation, and hence TW,  I'd say FM by a landslide.

 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=