pacific@runxtsa.runx.oz.au (Pacific Partners) (07/06/90)
Hi does anyone know of any good software packages available now on Unix workstations that are under $5000 ? If so please email. Thanks in advance Sal Barbagallo
pault@hpspdra.HP.COM (Paul Taira) (07/07/90)
>/ hpspdra:comp.text.desktop / pacific@runxtsa.runx.oz.au (Pacific Partners) / 12:31 am Jul 6, 1990 / > >Hi does anyone know of any good software packages available now on Unix >workstations that are under $5000 ? > > > >If so please email. > > >Thanks in advance > > >Sal Barbagallo >---------- We worked with Interleaf TPS which I know runs on the HP 9000 Series 300s and Apollos. I know they are on other platforms, which others I don't know off hand. The s/w is excellent and is very powerful. Paul Taira
tpf4434@DOMAIN_2.lerc.nasa.gov (Teddy Fabian) (07/09/90)
In article <12980001@hpspdra.HP.COM> pault@hpspdra.HP.COM (Paul Taira) writes: >>/ hpspdra:comp.text.desktop / pacific@runxtsa.runx.oz.au (Pacific Partners) / 12:31 am Jul 6, 1990 / >> >>Hi does anyone know of any good software packages available now on Unix >>workstations that are under $5000 ? >> >>Sal Barbagallo >>---------- > > We worked with Interleaf TPS which I know runs on the HP 9000 Series 300s > and Apollos. I know they are on other platforms, which others I don't > know off hand. The s/w is excellent and is very powerful. > > Paul Taira Interleaf TPS runs on the following platforms (that I know of): Apollo DN3x00, DN4x00, DN10000, DN2500, et. al. available Interleaf TPS versions include 3.5 and 4.0 which run under Aegis or Unix.. Sun workstations (sorryr I don't know the model number) available Interleaf TPS versions include 3.5 and 4.0 which run under Unix IBM 386 AT clones / IBM PS/2 family machines available Interleaf version called "IBM Interleaf Publisher" is a full function version of Interleaf TPS 3.5 approximate cost $600 - $1000 depending on distributor run under DOS.... uVax and VaxStations Interleaf TPS 3.5 and 4.0 available. run under VMS. all in addition to the HP version mentioned above, and an early version of Interleaf that ran on an IBM RT under it's operating system.. files are portable between platforms with some conditions.. (ie. how it was stored.. and what software you're using..) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * Thanks, * * Ted Fabian NASA Lewis Research Center * * Cleveland, Ohio * * * * phone: 216-433-6307 FTS 297-6307 | disclaimer: * * email: tpfabian@nasamail.nasa.gov | my opinions * * tfabian@earth.lerc.nasa.gov | are my own * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- ---------------------------------------------------- Thanks, Ted Fabian NASA Lewis Research Center tpfabian@nasamail.nasa.gov *my opinions tfabian@mars.lerc.nasa.gov *are my own..
saal@cbnewsl.att.com (samuel.saal) (07/09/90)
In article <1924@runxtsa.runx.oz.au> pacific@runxtsa.runx.oz.au (Pacific Partners) writes: >Hi does anyone know of any good software packages available now on Unix >workstations that are under $5000 ? Depending on how many licenses you need, FrameMaker amy be the right choice. -- Sam Saal ...!{att}!floyd!saal Vayiphtach HaShem et Peah HaAtone
consp22@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (Darren Handler) (07/09/90)
Interleaf publisher will also run on a Mac II series computer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Consp22@Bingsuns.pod.binghamton.edu | SUNY-B Computer Consultants - | | Consp22@Bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu | Trying to keep the world safe from | |---------------------------------------| the SUNY-B Computer users. | | Consultant/Techie - World Computers |-------------------------------------| | Computer Cons. - SUNY Binghamton | Darren `Mac Hack' Handler | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| I don't know if I am going to heaven or hell, I just hope God grades on a curve
chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) (07/10/90)
In article <1990Jul9.032311.6040@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>, tpf4434@DOMAIN_2.lerc.nasa.gov (Teddy Fabian) writes: > [InterLeaf] files are portable between platforms with some conditions.. > (ie. how it was stored.. and what software you're using..) That doesn't sound too portable to me... After the number of messages describing InterLeaf, I feel compelled to mention Frame Maker, from Frame Technology. Frame is an outstanding tool, far superior to InterLeaf (IMHO). It runs on Sun, Apollo, HP, DEC, NeXT, and Mac platforms, and documents are COMPLETELY interchangeable. It is incredibly easy to use, is cheap ($2500 for the complete package; get a quote from InterLeaf on the ENTIRE package, not just the intro-level slim TPS stuff they push), and does an excellent job with any number or size documents. Frame really wins on "unusual" layouts, like newsletters and such. It has, hands down, the best mathematical WYSIWYG typesetter in the business. The integrated editor and spelling checker are much better than InterLeaf, and the search and replace function is unparalleled (you can do things like search for a particular font usage, and replace with anything, including a graphical object). The InterLeaf interface is, in the opinion of many, just terrible. EVERYTHING is in a menu, and the menu contents change based upon mouse position and document state. While InterLeaf has some fancy name for this and claims that it is better, recent studies (see SIGCHI, April, 1989) have shown this to be a less effective interface, producing greater cognitive loading upon the user. There are few, if any, keyboard accelerators. Frame uses a combination of dialog boxes and pull-down menus for a very Mac-like interface. There are keyboard equivalents for every operation, letting expert touch typists do everything without touching the mouse. A recent review of DTP products for the Mac refused to consider InterLeaf a Mac product, because its interface was so foreign that Mac users could not readily use it. The July 2, 1990 InfoWorld rated the InterLeaf interface "unacceptable" in terms ease of learning, and just "satisfactory" in ease of use. All other tools (Frame, Pagemaker, Xpresss, and Ventura) were rated either good or very good in ease of use. InfoWorld rated InterLeaf last of these five packages overall, while Frame came in next to last. Admittedly, I am a very big fan of Frame. But do not, DO NOT, consider purchasing InterLeaf without trying Frame first. Call 1-800-U4FRAME to get a free demo copy. And, ask your InterLeaf sales rep why so many InterLeaf employees have quit to go work at Frame :-) Chuck Musciano ARPA : chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com Harris Corporation Usenet: ...!uunet!x102a!trantor!chuck PO Box 37, MS 3A/1912 AT&T : (407) 727-6131 Melbourne, FL 32902 FAX : (407) 729-2537 I'm glad you asked, son. Being popular is the most important thing in the world. -- Homer Simpson
jsweet@ICS.UCI.EDU (Jerry Sweet) (07/11/90)
At the risk of appearing to be a proponent of Interleaf, I'd like to respond
to a few comments made by Chuck Musciano:
> Frame is an outstanding tool, far superior to InterLeaf (IMHO).
[Cites platforms, heterogenous environment support, price,
and user interface. -j]
Interleaf is indeed a tough sell compared to Frame. I've heard lots
of complaints about Interleaf and few about Frame. For most small
one-off document needs, Frame is probably the way to go in WYSIWYG
editors for Unix platforms. However, for someone maintaining a large
document with many different versions, I'd have to point out
Interleaf's "effectivity control," called "conditional text" by any
normal human being. Also, Interleaf has pretty good table maintenance
features; I haven't found an equivalent in Frame. (That's not to say
it isn't there; I just haven't found it yet.) It is true that you PAY
for these additional features in Interleaf. On the other hand, at
least you can get the feature extensions if you need them. And at
least Interleaf has a floating license server now (for an additional
fee), as Frame has had for a while.
One big objection that I have to WYSIWYGs in general is that they tend
to live in their own hermetically sealed worlds, making it difficult
to work with external configuration management requirements. To
mitigate this, Interleaf has announced something that they call
"Active Documents." I haven't seen it in action yet, but it looks
good on paper. It sounds like a less limited version (in terms of
display) of Macintosh's programmable HyperCard software.
If you can stand the learning curve and complicated maintenance
required, WYSIWYG document production systems still can't beat TeX or
LaTeX on platforms supported, heterogeneous environment support,
price, extensibility or hackability. You pay one way or the other,
though: time and brainpower to deal with TeX, or $$$ for WYSIWYG.
Disclaimer: interested bystander only.
I'd like to hear comments from document hacks who've used both systems
and who've had to deal with document and graphical import/export
issues. I've used Interleaf and Frame just a little bit,
experimentally. Has anyone used them "in anger" in the heat of a
larger project context?wunder@hp-ses.SDE.HP.COM (Walter Underwood) (07/11/90)
Frame really wins on "unusual" layouts, like newsletters and such. It has, hands down, the best mathematical WYSIWYG typesetter in the business. Have you tried ArborText Publisher? Full TeX rules in the equation editor. All AMS symbols, etc. The Publisher is different from WYSIWIG -- it is a structured document editor. It runs on X11 or SunView, and it does change fonts and sizes on the screen, but it saves page breaks, columns and that stuff for the previewer. Tags (chapter, section, x-ref, today, ...) are visible as small boxes on the screen, so they can be selected, deleted, changed, etc. I like it a lot better than the WYSIWIG approach, because it separates the structure of the document from the style (much like Scribe, LaTeX, or SGML). I think there are advantages in that approach for everyone, but it is particylarly attractive to programmers, since they already understand manipulating nested structures. One nice advantage of this approach is the support for "conditinal compilation". If the a document needs to be published in two versions (SunView and X, for example), you can add ifdefs for the parts that need changed, then print the versions separately. As mentioned for Frame, The Publisher has keyboard equivalents for everything. It also has command language eqivalents for all actions, and those can be combined into macros, and bound to keys, mouse actions, or menus. Check it out before charging off after Frame or Interleaf. I've tried both of those, and like the Publisher better. wunder
mwolf@pws.bull.com (Mary-Anne Wolf) (07/11/90)
I have used Frame 1.? intensively for technical software design documents and I found it: easy and good for transparencies with all graphics (circles, boxes, black-and-white dumps from a section of the screen etc.) but it lacks non-horizontal text in the graphical tools powerful but difficult for mixed text and graphics (things like when you have a document with chapters, sections, and subsections automatically numbered and you want to stick relatively large diagrams into the text that may go off the end of the page, or you want to import text from a document created with emacs), and relatively good but less convenient than emacs or MacWrite for straight text generation (no easy multiple cut-buffers, no easy macros, no easy rebinding keys, you have to read the manual to make sense of TextRects). Frame 1.? also has problems with things like it says someone else is using the file whenever you want to save it. I hear that 2.0 is MUCH better and friendlier but I have never used it. I hear that Interleaf is especially good for creating structured documents in a particular format (e.g. repair manuals for related kinds of aircraft), and that they also have the beginnings of an emacs-like LISP customization and extension language. If I remember right, they also provide an iconic desktop which can make the filenames on a short-filename system seem longer. It would probably also be easier for things like defining a footnote to be a certain group of fonts. You probably have to set up more ahead of time with Interleaf. I have not used Interleaf. The choice between them probably depends on what you want to do. Mary-Anne Wolf mwolf@granite.cr.bull.com or mwolf@pws.bull.com These opinions are my own and not my employer's.
jps@uh.msc.umn.edu (Jeff P. Sorvik) (07/11/90)
In article <4662.647633645@ics.uci.edu>, jsweet@ICS.UCI.EDU (Jerry Sweet) writes: > > At the risk of appearing to be a proponent of Interleaf, I'd like to respond > to a few comments made by Chuck Musciano: > > > Frame is an outstanding tool, far superior to InterLeaf (IMHO). > [Cites platforms, heterogenous environment support, price, > and user interface. -j] > > Interleaf is indeed a tough sell compared to Frame. I've heard lots > of complaints about Interleaf and few about Frame. For most small > one-off document needs, Frame is probably the way to go in WYSIWYG > editors for Unix platforms. However, for someone maintaining a large > document with many different versions, I'd have to point out > Interleaf's "effectivity control," called "conditional text" by any > normal human being. Also, Interleaf has pretty good table maintenance > features; I haven't found an equivalent in Frame. [ STUFF DELETED] > I'd like to hear comments from document hacks who've used both systems > and who've had to deal with document and graphical import/export > issues. I've used Interleaf and Frame just a little bit, > experimentally. Has anyone used them "in anger" in the heat of a > larger project context? I am using Interleaf for a large project that spans 7 different computing centers. One of my tasks is to maintain a large (200+ pages) userguide for three of the sites. This userguide has many sections that are identical except for small modifications to make the guide site specific. Interleaf's "effectivity control" feature is ideal for this kind of a task. It sure makes my life a little easier. I can't deny that there is a learning curve involved with Interleaf, but anyone who has used a few different publishing systems and/or markup languages shouldn't have too much trouble getting up to speed. After using Interleaf for only a few hours at a previous employer, I came to MSC and was able to define all of the elements and templates I needed to produce the desired style of documentation in about 1.5 weeks. Once the templates, elements, etc. are set up, Interleaf really is pretty easy to use for document production. I do have to say, however, that I do not like Interleaf at all for "special purpose" documents like newsletters and brochures. For those projects, I use Quark Express on a Macintosh. Good luck, Jeff S. (Minnesota Supercomputer Center)
prc@erbe.se (Robert Claeson) (07/11/90)
In article <3944@trantor.harris-atd.com>, chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) writes: > Frame is an outstanding tool, far superior to InterLeaf (IMHO). It runs > on Sun, Apollo, HP, DEC, NeXT, and Mac platforms, and documents are COMPLETELY > interchangeable. It runs on all 88open BCS compliant systems as well (in fact, everyone who buys an 88K-based AViiON workstation from DG gets one license for Frame bundled with the o/s), and I believe that several other computer vendors has ported it to their platforms and uses it, even though it hasn't been released yet. -- Robert Claeson |Reasonable mailers: rclaeson@erbe.se ERBE DATA AB | Dumb mailers: rclaeson%erbe.se@sunet.se | Perverse mailers: rclaeson%erbe.se@encore.com These opinions reflect my personal views and not those of my employer (ask him).
zwicky@sparkyfs.istc.sri.com (Elizabeth Zwicky) (07/11/90)
In article <14694@know.pws.bull.com> mwolf@pws.bull.com (Mary-Anne Wolf) writes: >I hear that Interleaf is especially good for creating structured documents >in a particular format (e.g. repair manuals for related kinds of aircraft), >and that they also have the beginnings of an emacs-like LISP customization >and extension language. Interleaf does deal OK with structured documents, although not as well as I would like, coming from LaTeX (I want structure and layout separately, damn it). They have LISP, not merely the beginnings of an extension language. They have the beginnings of a macro facility, however. >If I remember right, they also provide an iconic >desktop which can make the filenames on a short-filename system seem >longer. They provide their own, propietary, incompatible window system with iconic desktop. It has 18 different cursors, and menus are heavily dependent on location; it believes in file types (including no less than three concepts equivalent to "directory") and it indicates them via extensions. Thus it will make the filenames on a short-filename system seem even shorter. It believes in extensions solely, ignoring magic numbers, which allows you to crash it several interesting ways. Interleaf is very powerful; it is also a) slow b) unreliable c) a resource hod d) expensive e) unwilling to work and play well with others and f) liable to drive system administrators to distraction. It is, in my opinion, 10% better than Frame; it is also 700% more expensive (for a full configuration - core omits almost all useful features). We have produced a gorgeous, 7,000+ page document with it. We survived, which is something of a recommendation. On the other hand, it was an excruciating experience. (We also use Frame, although we do not have as much experience with it.) Of the two, Frame is a less painful experience. It is missing some features, but they are not major problems. Frame also seems to have a better attitude. I hate "Interleaf only costs $1,000!"* *(Exclusive of kerning, cataloging, math, input filters, output filters, graphics, and everything else that makes us better than Frame. Adding them may increase your price to $14,000...) Then again, I write my long documents in LaTeX, with conditional text done with a pre-processor I wrote. (LaTeX is capable of conditionals, but there are some particularly sick features I need for a book I'm working on.) Elizabeth
briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Brian D Diehm) (07/11/90)
> After the number of messages describing InterLeaf, I feel compelled to >mention Frame Maker, from Frame Technology. > > Frame is an outstanding tool, far superior to InterLeaf (IMHO). It runs >on Sun, Apollo, HP, DEC, NeXT, and Mac platforms, and documents are COMPLETELY >interchangeable. Actually, so are Interleafs, prior misinformation from guessers notwithstanding. >It [Frame] is incredibly easy to use, is cheap ($2500 for the >complete package; get a quote from InterLeaf on the ENTIRE package, not just >the intro-level slim TPS stuff they push), and does an excellent job with >any number or size documents. It is true that complete Frame is $2500, which is the cost for Core Plus TPS Interleaf (the basic setup). However, a careful examination of the capabilities will show that the very basic Interleaf is about functionally equivalent to full Frame. > Frame really wins on "unusual" layouts, like newsletters and such. Yes, if you are doing unusual few-pagers, it might appear more friendly at first. See below. >It has, hands down, the best mathematical WYSIWYG typesetter in the business. >The integrated editor and spelling checker are much better than InterLeaf, >and the search and replace function is unparalleled (you can do things like >search for a particular font usage, and replace with anything, including >a graphical object). > > The InterLeaf interface is, in the opinion of many, just terrible. >EVERYTHING is in a menu, and the menu contents change based upon mouse >position and document state. While InterLeaf has some fancy name for this >and claims that it is better, recent studies (see SIGCHI, April, 1989) >have shown this to be a less effective interface, producing greater >cognitive loading upon the user. There are few, if any, keyboard >accelerators. This is a really interesting area. Interleaf does appear less friendly at first. However, after you have used both for a while, Frame's friendlinessseems to be all "on the surface." It's as if Interleaf has studied how professional typographers use the tools, and Frame has studied how desktop publishers think they want to use the tools. The difference is important in as little as an hour. Certainly, Frame does feel more comfortable, more "Macintosh-like" at first. And golly gee, it really does let you search for a Helvetica lower-case "f" if it is underlined and shadowed. But that's NOT the sort of things you need to DO in a manuals department with deadlines to meet. > > Frame uses a combination of dialog boxes and pull-down menus for a >very Mac-like interface. There are keyboard equivalents for every >operation, letting expert touch typists do everything without touching >the mouse. > > A recent review of DTP products for the Mac refused to consider >InterLeaf a Mac product, because its interface was so foreign that Mac users >could not readily use it. This is true, but the original requestor asked about unix programs. Or are we Interleaf-bashing here? Actually, Interleaf has made a conscious choice to make all of their platforms perform identically as Interleaf, rather than try to fit Interleaf to the platform. They believe (probably) that Interleaf users will primarily be using Interleaf. This may or may not be the case with you. >The July 2, 1990 InfoWorld rated the InterLeaf >interface "unacceptable" in terms ease of learning, and just "satisfactory" >in ease of use. All other tools (Frame, Pagemaker, Xpresss, and Ventura) >were rated either good or very good in ease of use. InfoWorld rated >InterLeaf last of these five packages overall, while Frame came in next >to last. The InfoWorld review has been a laugh to people in the publishing world, be- cause the ONLY thing it proved was the reviewer's ignorance of the difference between a publishing system and a word processor. This opinion has been ex- pressed to be by representatives of Interleaf, Frame resellers, and our own systems people. The very last part of this posting covers some of the functional differences that make Interleaf a tool for a documentation department rather than just another fancy page-layout program. Frame does not touch these areas. >Admittedly, I am a very big fan of Frame. But do not, DO NOT, consider >purchasing InterLeaf without trying Frame first. Call 1-800-U4FRAME to get >a free demo copy. I would agree. However, I would do it with an open mind, and I would do it after using both, in my own work area, for at least a week or two. When a group of our engineers were going through this evaluation, we (the documentation group) recommended Interleaf, and the engineers balked at the price. So they brought in a Frame workstation for a week. They independently concluded every- thing I report here, and bought Interleaf. At the same time, we in documentation let some of our illustrators play with the Frame box. They were familiar with Claris CAD on the Mac, Interleaf, and many other drawing programs. Of the three, they liked Claris CAD first, Interleaf second (far back), and way way back was Frame. >And, ask your InterLeaf sales rep why so many InterLeaf employees have quit >to go work at Frame :-) Maybe Frame pays better, maybe they are located in a part of the country that is a more desirable area to live? Who knows? Is it a reason that matters to you, the customer? Or was this poster just a rabid Frame fanatic? Here are some of the features and concepts that are unique to Interleaf: EFFECTIVITY: Suppose you are writing documents for two separate products, that are really very similar except for a few differences. With a typical package, you write up one, you copy it, and you modify the copy to fit the second product. You wind up with two documents and two document files. With Interleaf, you tag the differences in the original file, and specify which version of the file you want to have print out. One set of files, two documents. This seems pretty trivial until you have to maintain the documents. One day, there is a change in the common portion of the products. With the traditional package, you make the change in one set of files, and then you have to remem- ber to make the same identical change in the other set. With Interleaf, you make the change once, it propagates to all versions. With one or two products, it's simple either way. I live in a department where we maintain 300+ older versions of manuals, many of which are several years old, many of which have varied common elements throughout, and many of which have had many many mods over the years. Our maintenance people COULD NOT keep up with this if the writers did not have and use effectivity. In one case, I had to develop two manuals in parallel, where the devices were very similar. We couldn't wait to finish one before modifying it for the second. This was in the days before effectivity, and I estimate that I spent 30% of my time simply making VERY VERY certain that EVERY change was correctly duplicated in both manuals. Effectivity would have made me 30% more effective in that situation. ACTIVE DOCUMENTS: Interleaf has developed a method whereby you can adjust your document to reflect the information in a database. This can be small changes like the entries in a specification table, or it can reflect giant changes in structure and content. Thus, your service manual could be the same file set for two different documents, such as a field-replacable module level combined with a detailed component-level document. Again, the benefits are similar to those for effectivity. Or say you are developing plans for a new venture. If the document is distri- buted on-line, you can modify the document for the reader. A VP of finance might get a lot of financial detail that you don't really want to distribute to the folks in the stockroom. Even more than the feature itself, this reveals the futurist orientation of Interleaf as a company. CALS: If your customers are the military (DOD) or their contractors, then your documents MUST be deliverable in a specific mag-tape form. This form is very specific, from writing style to content organization. Interleaf offers a CALS- compliance package that ensures your text qualifies, then outputs the proper tape format for you. Eventually, CALS will require that the DOD have on-line dial-up access to YOUR documents on YOUR computer in CALS-compliant form. Interleaf is part of the industry consortium that is guiding CALS so that the military only asks for what is possible. Frame has announced that they will have some sort of CALS support in the future. These features above indicate that Interleaf is of a totally different mindset, and therefore totally different orientation, than any other package on the market. These features are not included with the basic $2500 Interleaf, it is true. But then, if you buy Interleaf and decide later you need them, you have an upgrade path. If you buy Frame and decide later, you start over on a totally new platform, with no investment to leverage from. I'd do what this poster suggests, and look at both very carefully. But look behind the flash and glitter, and decide which system, and which company, you want supporting you two, three, or ten years out. -- -Brian Diehm Tektronix, Inc. (503) 627-3437 briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM P.O. Box 500, M/S 47-780 Beaverton, OR 97077 (SDA - Standard Disclaimers Apply)
davecb@yunexus.YorkU.CA (David Collier-Brown) (07/11/90)
>In article <1990Jul9.032311.6040@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>, tpf4434@DOMAIN_2.lerc.nasa.gov (Teddy Fabian) writes: >> [InterLeaf] files are portable between platforms with some conditions.. >> (ie. how it was stored.. and what software you're using..) chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) writes: > That doesn't sound too portable to me... It doesn't to me, either! The ascii form of the files are portable across all the platforms and readable by all current and subsequent versions. (ie, 3.0 files are readable by 4.0, but not the converse). The binary forms used to pose problems when moved to a byte-swapped machine: rumor had it last year that Interleaf was going to recognize the byte-swapped magic number and convert... > After the number of messages describing InterLeaf, I feel compelled to >mention Frame Maker, from Frame Technology. > Frame is an outstanding tool[...] I have to agree, Frame is very nice. It has quite a different interface, and it not a bad one at all... I learned the Interleaf context-sensitive menu system very quickly, though, and mildly prefer it. Admittedly, its a tradeoff. Other people may prever the convers for valid reasons. > Admittedly, I am a very big fan of Frame. But do not, DO NOT, consider >purchasing InterLeaf without trying Frame first. Call 1-800-U4FRAME to get >a free demo copy. Get a demonstration by an expert (ie, salescritter) of each, then get the demo software of each and try it. Then (and only then) tell the salescritter that you're considering the other product and ask what their product does better. You'll be able to seperate the chaff from the grain by then. > And, ask your InterLeaf sales rep why so many InterLeaf employees >have quit to go work at Frame :-) Because the dimbulbs switched from selling turnkey systems to selling user-installed software. Much of their profit went right out the window. And Interleaf is only sortof-easy to install... Its sysadmin-friendly, but not something I'd hand to a secretary to put up. Ah marketing, how smart you are... Give away all the profit, and watch the troops revolt. --dave (formerly of Interleaf Canada, and I still like the product!) c-b -- David Collier-Brown, | davecb@Nexus.YorkU.CA, ...!yunexus!davecb or 72 Abitibi Ave., | {toronto area...}lethe!dave Willowdale, Ontario, | "And the next 8 man-months came up like CANADA. 416-223-8968 | thunder across the bay" --david kipling
zwicky@sparkyfs.istc.sri.com (Elizabeth Zwicky) (07/11/90)
In article <6543@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM> briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Brian D Diehm) writes: >> Frame is an outstanding tool, far superior to InterLeaf (IMHO). It runs >>on Sun, Apollo, HP, DEC, NeXT, and Mac platforms, and documents are COMPLETELY >>interchangeable. > >Actually, so are Interleafs, prior misinformation from guessers notwithstanding. Interleaf's documents are *not* completely interchangeable; this is not a guess, this is personal experience. In particular, the PC version is half a revision behind the Sun version; you can take old Sun documents to the PC, and you take PC documents to the new Sun version, but you can't reverse either process. Thus, you cannot have a user on a PC passing a document back and forth with an editor on a Sun. Furthermore, the Sun Sparc version is not compatible with the old Sun 3 version, although the new Sun 3 version is. WPS documents cannot be read at all on Sparc TPS. (I had to get around that one by using the (undocumented) magic numbers to determine what files were WPS and using an (undocumented) option to Sun 3 TPS to resave them - Interleaf was completely unhelpful about it.) >It is true that complete Frame is $2500, which is the cost for Core Plus TPS >Interleaf (the basic setup). However, a careful examination of the capabilities >will show that the very basic Interleaf is about functionally equivalent to >full Frame. Unless you want input filters, mathematics, or books. Or kerning. Or the ability to reshape text around pictures. One or more of those 5 features is used in *every* major document we produce. User interface preferences are very individual; personally, I've rarely if ever met a user-interface that I liked, but I prefer ones that I comprehend, and Interleaf's is too unpredictable for me. However, I have a naturally very shallow learning curve for new interfaces. On a more objective note, standards are a Good Thing in user interfaces; they conform to the principle of least surprise, and they mean that slow interface learners like me don't have to start over. Interleaf never met a standard in anything that they liked, and their user interface is no exception. I work with Interleaf almost every day, and am reasonably competent at it on my machine. I look like an idiot half the time I go to help someone else, because there's only a 50-50 chance that the menu button is where I expect it to be (sometimes it's right, sometimes it's middle). I now set mine to match the secretaries' default, which is middle; since my window system believes in the right button, this is not a piece of cake to deal with... Elizabeth
framer@DRD.Com (Framers List) (07/12/90)
In article <3962@trantor.harris-atd.com> you write: > >And, ask your InterLeaf sales rep why so many InterLeaf employees have quit > >to go work at Frame :-) > > Maybe Frame pays better, maybe they are located in a part of the country that > is a more desirable area to live? Who knows? Is it a reason that matters to > you, the customer? Or was this poster just a rabid Frame fanatic? Or maybe they see the writing on the wall. Every customer should be concerned about the health of their vendors. When talented people start bailing out, it's time to reevaluate your investment in a company. And, as many people are aware, I am a very rabid Frame fan. > CALS: If your customers are the military (DOD) or their contractors, then your > documents MUST be deliverable in a specific mag-tape form. This form is very > specific, from writing style to content organization. Interleaf offers a CALS- > compliance package that ensures your text qualifies, then outputs the proper > tape format for you. > > Eventually, CALS will require that the DOD have on-line dial-up access to YOUR > documents on YOUR computer in CALS-compliant form. Interleaf is part of the > industry consortium that is guiding CALS so that the military only asks for > what is possible. > > Frame has announced that they will have some sort of CALS support in the > future. Frame will support CALS, have no doubt. Further, InterLeaf cannot deliver any sort of CALS tools now, and even more important, their CALS product will run $60,000! Frame was the first company to demonstrate their ability to read and write CALS-format tapes. And, one of the main people directing the CALS effort at InterLeaf left to work for Frame. Frame will definitely support CALS. > I'd do what this poster suggests, and look at both very carefully. But look > behind the flash and glitter, and decide which system, and which company, you > want supporting you two, three, or ten years out. Good advice. And try this. Get demo copies of both Frame and InterLeaf. Come up with a problem and call the normal support line. See which company helps you out right away, and see which one spends all sorts of time deciding if you are a valid customer. Frame tech support is outstanding, and is available via e-mail, too. Some of the points regarding InterLeaf are valid. If you are just pouring text into predefined formats, InterLeaf may be the way to go. In particular, if you don't have to actually use InterLeaf, but produce text with ASCII terminals, InterLeaf may be a valid solution. For that matter, in such cases, ArborText Publisher is also a good choice, and its table and equation editors are far superior to InterLeaf, and it supports TeX and LaTeX. Chuck Musciano ARPA : chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com Harris Corporation Usenet: ...!uunet!x102a!trantor!chuck PO Box 37, MS 3A/1912 AT&T : (407) 727-6131 Melbourne, FL 32902 FAX : (407) 729-2537 I'm glad you asked, son. Being popular is the most important thing in the world. -- Homer Simpson
chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) (07/12/90)
In article <3962@trantor.harris-atd.com> briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM writes: > >And, ask your InterLeaf sales rep why so many InterLeaf employees have quit > >to go work at Frame :-) > > Maybe Frame pays better, maybe they are located in a part of the country that > is a more desirable area to live? Who knows? Is it a reason that matters to > you, the customer? Or was this poster just a rabid Frame fanatic? Or maybe they see the writing on the wall. Every customer should be concerned about the health of their vendors. When talented people start bailing out, it's time to reevaluate your investment in a company. And, as many people are aware, I am a very rabid Frame fan. > CALS: If your customers are the military (DOD) or their contractors, then your > documents MUST be deliverable in a specific mag-tape form. This form is very > specific, from writing style to content organization. Interleaf offers a CALS- > compliance package that ensures your text qualifies, then outputs the proper > tape format for you. > > Eventually, CALS will require that the DOD have on-line dial-up access to YOUR > documents on YOUR computer in CALS-compliant form. Interleaf is part of the > industry consortium that is guiding CALS so that the military only asks for > what is possible. > > Frame has announced that they will have some sort of CALS support in the > future. Frame will support CALS, have no doubt. Further, InterLeaf cannot deliver any sort of CALS tools now, and even more important, their CALS product will run $60,000! Frame was the first company to demonstrate their ability to read and write CALS-format tapes. And, one of the main people directing the CALS effort at InterLeaf left to work for Frame. Frame will definitely support CALS. > I'd do what this poster suggests, and look at both very carefully. But look > behind the flash and glitter, and decide which system, and which company, you > want supporting you two, three, or ten years out. Good advice. And try this. Get demo copies of both Frame and InterLeaf. Come up with a problem and call the normal support line. See which company helps you out right away, and see which one spends all sorts of time deciding if you are a valid customer. Frame tech support is outstanding, and is available via e-mail, too. Some of the points regarding InterLeaf are valid. If you are just pouring text into predefined formats, InterLeaf may be the way to go. In particular, if you don't have to actually use InterLeaf, but produce text with ASCII terminals, InterLeaf may be a valid solution. For that matter, in such cases, ArborText Publisher is also a good choice, and its table and equation editors are far superior to InterLeaf, and it supports TeX and LaTeX. Chuck Musciano ARPA : chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com Harris Corporation Usenet: ...!uunet!x102a!trantor!chuck PO Box 37, MS 3A/1912 AT&T : (407) 727-6131 Melbourne, FL 32902 FAX : (407) 729-2537 I'm glad you asked, son. Being popular is the most important thing in the world. -- Homer Simpson
cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) (07/13/90)
In article <4662.647633645@ics.uci.edu>, jsweet@ICS.UCI.EDU (Jerry Sweet) writes: ................... > If you can stand the learning curve and complicated maintenance > required, WYSIWYG document production systems still can't beat TeX or > LaTeX on platforms supported, heterogeneous environment support, > price, extensibility or hackability. You pay one way or the other, > though: time and brainpower to deal with TeX, or $$$ for WYSIWYG. What I would like to see is a WYSI(MOL)WYG setup with files directly translatable into things such as TeX. It is not important when writing a paper at the terminal to know _exactly_ how it will look; a fair approximation is quite enough. I am quite familiar with TeX, and I do write papers directly in it. However, I consider it a weird system, loaded with thousands of conventions, and I have been surprised too often when I print it at the errors made. I believe that we can get what is asked for. -- Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907 Phone: (317)494-6054 hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet) {purdue,pur-ee}!l.cc!cik(UUCP)
amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) (07/13/90)
In article <4540005@hp-ses.SDE.HP.COM>, wunder@hp-ses.SDE.HP.COM (Walter Underwood) writes: > Check it out before charging off after Frame or Interleaf. I've tried > both of those, and like the Publisher better. I admit my experience is minimal (i.e., I've played with demo versions of all three, but I haven't built large documents with anything but LaTeX), but the only piece of Publisher that I liked was the equation editor. It is hot stuff. As for the rest of it, though, I wasn't too impressed. It's only a little more WYSIWYG than LaTeX + a fast previewer, and it's user interface seems almost as unintuitive as Interleaf's. Of them all, Interleaf struck me as the most powerful and obtuse, and Frame seemed the easiest to learn and use. Publisher's main strengths seemed to be in the mathematics features. Publisher would be great for a physics thesis, but it's user interface could use a lot of polishing. On the plus side (for some people), it does support SGML import & export, as I remember. -- Amanda Walker <amanda@intercon.com> InterCon Systems Corporation
dave@island.uu.net (David Newman) (07/13/90)
Most of the people here are talking about word processing, and about Frame and Interleaf. We have taken a different approach from the expensive "tech-doc" programs. Island has taken a graphical approach. We've created IslandWrite, IslandPaint and IslandDraw (SunWrite, SunPaint and SunDraw when they were sold by Sun) for people who need to create letters, memos, reports and newsletters which include graphics - both vector and raster. The programs share a common clipboard, so you can copy a diagram or an illustration from IslandDraw, and paste it into IslandWrite; the same goes for grabbing an IslandPaint raster and pasting it into IslandWrite. Each program runs in a standalone mode, either under OPEN LOOK (on SunView) or under OSF/Motif; and you can print to PostScript devices from each program. I've been using the programs for two years (since before Sun began shipping them in February '89) and I've done all of my everyday word processing in IslandWrite, and created lots of freeform and structured documents in that time. Our documentation department does all of its documentation in the programs, too. We've been shipping (and supporting) the products, which are sold for $995 together as the Island Productivity Series, since June on Suns. This month we began shipping OSF/Motif versions for the Apollo personal workstation series and for the HP 9000 Series 300 workstations via Apollo Direct. For more information, I can be reached at ...!sun!island!dave, or at ..!uunet!island!dave, or you can call 1-800-255-4499, or 415/491-1000. David Newman Marketing Manager Island Graphics Corporation 4000 Civic Center Drive San Rafael, CA 94903 USA