Re: The Old Argument: FrameMaker vs. MS Word

[Win Day <winday -at- home -dot- com>]

At 08:35 PM 1/20/00 -0800, Marc Santacroce wrote:
>I'm not sure who asked the question...
>-------
>>"I'll buy that.  I'm interested in which features you miss in Frame."
>
>------
>but from my experience:
>
>
>Frame lets you assign a character style within a paragraph style. 
>It's invaluable for drawing attention to screens, fields, buttons, or 
>commands within body text.
>

So does Word.  I use this feature regularly, for the reasons you mention.


>Complex numbering in Word is a disaster, in Frame it's a breeze.

Word's SEQ fields are very powerful.  I have never ever had a problem using
them.  You can number anything -- complex lists, captions, headings,
whatever your heart desires.

>
>Frame doesn't cut the links to all graphics when it runs short of memory.

Hmm.  Never ran into this one either.  But I work with multiple small Word
files, not one enormous one.  Better for collaboration purposes, too.

>
>Frame easily creates run-in heads, I'm not even sure word can do that 
>unless you use tables.

Never had to do this, but I don't see why you can't.  Try TC fields and the
character formatting mentioned earlier.

I regularly use Word to create and maintain documents that might be 1000+
pages, and contain thousands of linked and embedded graphics, equations,
tables, captions, cross-references, index entries -- the works.  I own
Frame; I've walked through the tutorials.  I've never yet had to use it on
a contract.  I have also been able to keep myself gainfully employed for
the almost eight years I've been freelancing.

More and more companies are moving towards standard application
combinations.  Everyone gets the same software.  MS Office is far more
useful in that situation.

I'll stick with Word, thanks.

Win
------------------
Win Day
Technical Writer

http://www.wordsplus.net

mailto:winday -at- wordsplus -dot- net