lj@spdcc.com (Len Jacobs) (01/19/88)
Does anyone have any experience/comments re using Interleaf on a Mac.
Please send me your comments and suggestions, I will summarize.
Thanks.
Len Jacobs
{ihnp4,harvard,linus}!spdcc!lj
----------------------------------------
Submissions to: desktop%plaid@sun.com -OR- sun!plaid!desktop
Administrivia to: desktop-request%plaid@sun.com -OR- sun!plaid!desktop-request
Paths: {ihnp4,decwrl,hplabs,seismo,ucbvax}!sunchuq@sun.com (Chuq Von Rospach) (01/19/88)
I took a look at Interleaf at MacExpo. Let me say ahead of time that,
having worked with Interleaf on Sun's, I'm not a big fan of interleaf.
It is hard to use and non-intuitive. It also ignores the Sun user interface,
preferrring to go off and redefine menus handling and mouse buttons
their way. This makes it even harder to use because once you get used
to working on a Sun, you have to re-learn everything to use Interleaf.
Well, I hate to say it, but they did the same on the Mac. Interleaf uses
Interleaf's interface, completely ignoring Mac interface guidelines. It's
also big (requires 2 megs on a Mac II, mac SE or smaller not supported).
It's also expensive, somewhere around $2000 more than any equivalent
functionality on the Mac.
As far as I can tell, it is designed primarily for folks who want to use Mac
II's in shops that have already committed to compatibility with interleaf on
other machines. I don't see why anyone else would look at it, when you could
put together a set of products (Ready, Set, Go! 4.0, Word or Fullwrite,
Adobe Illustrator or Freehand) that would blow it away for much less money.
Chuq
----------------------------------------
Submissions to: desktop%plaid@sun.com -OR- sun!plaid!desktop
Administrivia to: desktop-request%plaid@sun.com -OR- sun!plaid!desktop-request
Paths: {ihnp4,decwrl,hplabs,seismo,ucbvax}!sunwex%SW.MCC.COM@MCC.COM (Alan Wexelblat) (01/20/88)
I second Chuq's comments. Interleaf has what my high school teachers
used to call "an attitude problem." They act like they own the world
(your computer). And the interface is one of the worst I've seen.
--Alan Wexelblat
ARPA: WEX@MCC.COM
UUCP: {harvard, gatech, pyramid, &c.}!sally!im4u!milano!wex
The Pentagon has "fire and forget" systems; I have "file and forget."
----------------------------------------
Submissions to: desktop%plaid@sun.com -OR- sun!plaid!desktop
Administrivia to: desktop-request%plaid@sun.com -OR- sun!plaid!desktop-request
Paths: {ihnp4,decwrl,hplabs,seismo,ucbvax}!sunchuck@trantor.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) (01/20/88)
I "third" the previous comments about Interleaf from Chuq and Alan
Wexelblat. I was able to evaluate Interleaf on a Sun, and was really
bothered by their total disregard for the Sun interface conventions. Even
worse was the fact that they worked outside of SunTools, making it impossible
to use other windowed tools along with Interleaf. This, coupled with the
$25,000 price !per machine!, made Interleaf nothing more than another amusing
anecdote.
If you need desktop publishing on a Sun, I heartily recommend Frame
Maker, from Frame Technology.
Chuck Musciano
ARPA: chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com
----------------------------------------
Submissions to: desktop%plaid@sun.com -OR- sun!plaid!desktop
Administrivia to: desktop-request%plaid@sun.com -OR- sun!plaid!desktop-request
Paths: {ihnp4,decwrl,hplabs,seismo,ucbvax}!sunbarry@hcx1.SSD.HARRIS.COM (01/22/88)
While I've not had the chance to review Interleaf on the Mac II, I have
had several conversations with Interleaf sales people. According to
what I've been able to gather, Interleaf on the Mac is similar to
Interleaf on other platforms (Sun, Apollo, etc.) with reduced
functionality (at least initially). They alluded to the idea that the
Mac version would not support scanning (and maybe a couple other things
of which I cannot remember now).
One of the questions you need to ask yourself is...how much volume am I
going to be publishing? The main advantage Interleaf has over other Mac
software (Word, RSG, Pagemaker, MacDraw, etc) is speed and document length.
While some Mac applications can handle fairly large files, in my
experience, none can handle the sheer volume of documentation Interleaf
can on a day to day basis. In addition, Interleaf combines its writing,
drawing, and layout tools; so you don't have to swap applications to
get a job done. This last point has been diminished somewhat in
importance lately with the introduction of multifinder, however, using
several applications to do a job still requires a certain amount of
compatibility. I have used up to eight different drawing programs on
the Mac to do technical illustrations and while some can read each
other's formats (and most can read PICT format), I still find
incompatibility in several areas. Don't get me wrong, I don't think I
could perform my job nearly as well if it weren't for my Mac.
When I was using Interleaf, its diagramming tools had most everything I
needed to do really decent technical drawings. and the writing tools
were excellent also. However, it IS expensive and there is a learning
curve. A fairly large learning curve if you want to tap all of its
features. The one thing I wish Interleaf could do though - is what
Adobe Illustrator can do. Sigh.
----------------------------------------
Submissions to: desktop%plaid@sun.com -OR- sun!plaid!desktop
Administrivia to: desktop-request%plaid@sun.com -OR- sun!plaid!desktop-request
Paths: {ihnp4,decwrl,hplabs,seismo,ucbvax}!sunbarry@hcx1.SSD.HARRIS.COM (01/29/88)
I can appreciate the need to keep within the boundaries of a user interface
(such as the Sun and the Macintosh). I believe that companies should make all
efforts to work within that interface. However, the bottom line is...what
enables me to get my job done, be more productive, and therefore, save me
money?
A word on Framemaker...I evaluated this product for about 2 months on
a Sun. Conclusion? Slow...Real slow. Framemaker's graphics capabilities
did not meet my demands. The word processing features were good -
not as good as Interleaf though. As a matter of fact, there was nothing
about Framemaker that was better than Interleaf, except the learning curve and
price. (Big factors, I know.) Framemaker support people told me that a
new release of the software was due out within a few months (that was about
1 1/2 years ago).
>From my evaluations, I concluded that Interleaf
was the better package and had the speed and features to do large volume
publishing. I would appreciate, however, if someone would share
their feelings on a more recent review of Framemaker, possibly even a
comparison between Framemaker and Interleaf. My evaluation is pushing two
years old and I know Interleaf has revised their package. I suspect Framemaker
has done the same as well.
One final note: I am not condemning Framemaker. I believe it is the right tool
for small volume, office-type publishing on the Sun. It runs under sun windows
and is easy enough to learn and operate. Large volume publishing? Not unless
they did a major revision to their software.
Barry Lyden
barry@hcx1.SSD.HARRIS.COM
"The opinions expressed here are solely my own and
do not necessarily reflect those of my employer."
----------------------------------------
Submissions to: desktop%plaid@sun.com -OR- sun!plaid!desktop
Administrivia to: desktop-request%plaid@sun.com -OR- sun!plaid!desktop-request
Paths: {ihnp4,decwrl,hplabs,seismo,ucbvax}!sunchuck@trantor.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) (01/29/88)
>A word on Framemaker...I evaluated this product for about 2 months on >a Sun. Conclusion? Slow...Real slow. Framemaker's graphics capabilities >did not meet my demands. The word processing features were good - >not as good as Interleaf though. As a matter of fact, there was nothing >about Framemaker that was better than Interleaf, except the learning curve >and >price. (Big factors, I know.) Framemaker support people told me that a >new release of the software was due out within a few months (that was about >1 1/2 years ago). I would suppose you evaluated the beta release, which was Frame 0.6. This would be in the late '86, early '87 time frame. Since then, 1.0 (and 1.1) have been released, with big improvements in speed and functionality. You should seriously consider a new look, since Frame is still 1/6 the price of Interleaf. The graphics tools are much better, and the handling of paragraph and document formats is much improved. Overall speed is better, and print speed is a lot better. Chuck Musciano chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com ---------------------------------------- Submissions to: desktop%plaid@sun.com -OR- sun!plaid!desktop Administrivia to: desktop-request%plaid@sun.com -OR- sun!plaid!desktop-request Paths: {ihnp4,decwrl,hplabs,seismo,ucbvax}!sun