Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!tdatirv!sarima
From: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Desktop Publishing/Technical Report Software
Message-ID: <69@tdatirv.UUCP>
Date: 27 Nov 90 16:40:11 GMT
References: <1340@mustang.mst6.lanl.gov> <1990Nov10.195437.8543@ircam.ircam.fr> <1990Nov18.014103.20227@pegasus.com>
Reply-To: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Teradata Corp., Irvine
Lines: 16

In article <1990Nov18.014103.20227@pegasus.com> richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk) writes:
>
>Unless it's changed since I evaluated it (about a year ago, on a Sun),
>Interleaf has got one of the most god-awful user interfaces known to man.
>...  I tested it on a medium size project and had someone
>else do the same to get two opinions.  We both hated it.  Framemaker
>was a god-send after that.

We did essentially the same thing a while back on a larger scale, and reached
the same conclusion.  Framemaker is *much* easier to use than Interleaf.
(I certainly like it).  My only real complaint is that it rather tends to be
a memory hog.  But then I suppose so is Interleaf, so I doubt there is much
difference there.
-- 
---------------
uunet!tdatirv!sarima				(Stanley Friesen)