Ventura vs. FrameMaker

[Richard Lippincott <rlippinc -at- BEV -dot- ETN -dot- COM>]

Jumping into the Frame vs. Ventura debate:

I'm not able to make a comparison, as I've never used Ventura. I can say the
following positive and negative things about Frame.

It's easy to use, I picked it up quickly and immediately began to use it in
contract assignments. I learned it on a Mac, did contract work using both Mac
and Windows, and am now using Version 3.1 on a Unix platform. I have to agree
with one observation: it seems to be running best, and fastest, on Unix.

Version 4.0 has more filters, and the conversions of documents from other
formats seems to be easy. It handled Word 2.X documents with only one problem
(more on that in a moment), I'm assuming Frame will release an upgrade that
will handle Word 6.0.

I've also discovered that crossing platforms is easy in Frame. I have gone
from the V3.1 Unix to 4.0 Windows on my home 486. Again, very little
difficulty.

Now the bad news: Sometimes Frame doesn't like graphics. I've seen this most
often with MS Word documents, and it's weird. Frame will simply reject the
graphic, printing only a grey box. I've seen this on my current Unix, and
two separate 486s. In an extreme case, I've actually watched Frame go into
an original graphics file, completely trash the file, then sweetly tell me
that it "can display all graphics." The tech support people at Frame tell me
that this is impossible, but I've seen it. They also say that the "grey box"
problem may be due to a lack of ram, but with 32 meg on this SPARC, I think
there is another problem. (Anybody else out there ever see anything similar
to this?)

I'd still recommend Frame. At least for the next three or four years until
someone comes out with a -new- platform we'll all be using.

Rick Lippincott
I can send, but not receive at work.  Send personal comments to:
rjlippincott -at- delphi -dot- com