RE: The Old Argument: FrameMaker vs. MS Word

[Darren Barefoot <dbarefoot -at- mpsbc -dot- com>]

Good afternoon,

Having never received formal training in either product, and thus having had
to learn both products on my own, I'm a big advocate of MS Office (past and
present). Our company is less and less concerned with hard copy
documentation, which seems to be FrameMaker's bread and butter. We want to
be able to easily repurpose data for a number of online formats and delivery
systems. Thus far, MS Word 2000 supports this strategy (without having to
use what we like to call the "Notepad Filter").

We use MS Word within its known limitations (problems with large files
and/or many images) and exploit its strengths (drap-and-drop, macros,
AutoText, integration with other products). Perhaps I'm wrong in associating
FrameMaker so strongly with printed documents, but I don't it has a place in
a software company inevitably headed toward more and more Web-based programs
and hosted solutions. Just my two cents. DB.

-----Original Message-----
From: Maurice King [mailto:mking -at- mamsi -dot- com]
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2000 7:44 AM
To: TECHWR-L
Subject: The Old Argument: FrameMaker vs. MS Word


I'm employed now in a company that is starting a documentation department. 
When it came time to choose the tools, MS Word was already available; 
buying FrameMaker was only an added expense. Managers approving the 
purchase wanted to know if MS Word cannot do the job that FrameMaker does.

While I normally stand my ground on this issue and insist on FrameMaker, I 
know that I heard one report about MS Office 2000 that indicated it might 
be stronger and might port better to other media. I'd like to hear from 
someone who has actually worked with MS Office 2000 to learn just how much 
it does deliver. My current knowledge would make me believe that FrameMaker 
is still the power tool that we need, but I'm always prepared to update my 
knowledge.