Re: Pagemaker vs. FrameMaker

[Karen Molloy <kmolloy -at- ON -dot- COM>]

Paul Carr <sorcha -at- BBS -dot- MACNEXUS -dot- ORG> asked:
> A friend just started a new job where they evidently have PageMaker, and
> the artist she would be working with is used to working with PM. She is
> being asked to assemble a manual.
>
> She asks me:  Should she recommend they get Frame, or just stick with
> what the company already has?

and Amy Brown <abrown -at- openmarket -dot- com> replied:
>Depends on the length and complexity of the manual she'll produce. Frame
is much better >than PageMaker at indexing, cross-referencing, and all
those other niggling book-production >tasks.  PageMaker is sort of a
stripped-down version of Frame for producing posters, >brochures, etc. In
general, if you want to write a book, use Frame; if you want to produce >a
graphics-heavy document such as a poster, use Page.


I've used both products (and I am a regular FrameMaker user). I would agree
with AB's first comment -- depends on the length and complexity of the
manual. I had to produce two manuals in PageMaker a couple of years ago,
and was surprised to find that it was more that just a "poster 'n brochure"
package.  I was skeptical at first, being such a FrameMaker fan, but
PageMaker actually does have some bookmaking features. Such features
include a surprisingly robust indexing utility for such a product. (The
company I worked for was a small startup and did not want purchase
FrameMaker at that point; they used PageMaker for all printed materials.)

If you are producing simple manuals under 100 pages I'd say you could do so
in PageMaker. (I believe a similar sentiment is expressed in another
current thead about PageMaker.)


Karen Molloy
kmolloy -at- on -dot- com