Word versus FrameMaker

Subject: Word versus FrameMaker
From: "USA::MU17692" <MU17692%USA -dot- decnet -at- USAV01 -dot- GLAXO -dot- COM>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 10:59:00 EST

Kelly Burhenne wrote

>Anyway, though I use neither Word nor FrameMaker, Word is a word
>processing package while FrameMaker is a desktop publisher. Need I say

This oversimplifies the problem and the decision-making criteria.
PageMaker and Quark Express define a niche for themselves that
demonstrates a key deficiency in Kelly's statement. That is, there
are at least *three* categories of document production sofware, and
the programs in these categories provide--usually in a very limited
way--overlapping functionality.

On page 272 of the January 1995 issue of Windows magazine, you can
read a useful comparison of six different document publishing
programs. Word, WordPerfect, and Interleaf are notably absent from
the comparison, which in itself reveals an implicit definition of

The three categories I envision are

(1) document publishing, short-medium documents
(1-350 pages)
(2) document publishing, long documents (350 or more
(3) page layout and publishing (short documents only)

Under category 1 I see Word for Windows, WordPerfect, and Ventura
Publisher. (I don't much about Microsoft Publisher 2.0 or
PagePlus 3.0)

Under category 2 I see Interleaf and FrameMaker.

Under category 3 I see Quark Express and PageMaker.

(A fourth category could be mark-up languages such as BookMaster.
However, I would rather not contemplate the use of such dinosaurs.)

I am sure my colleagues have opinions on these matters.

-Mike Uhl (uhl~m -at- glaxo -dot- com)
Glaxo Inc. Research Institute
Research Triangle Park, NC

Previous by Author: Word for Windows versus FrameMaker
Next by Author: FrameMaker versus Interleaf
Previous by Thread: Forw: Your request to sign off the TECHWR-L list
Next by Thread: Pre-Press at Printers and Publications Tools

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads