Xref: utzoo comp.text:8574 comp.unix.misc:1571
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!iggy.GW.Vitalink.COM!widener!dsinc!cdin-1!fred
From: fred@compu.com (Fred Rump)
Newsgroups: comp.text,comp.unix.misc
Subject: Re: Frame vs. Interleaf vs. ?
Message-ID: <1991Jun21.130202.17852@compu.com>
Date: 21 Jun 91 13:02:02 GMT
References: <1991Jun20.064303.19790@hermesa.uucp>
Organization: CompuData Inc.
Lines: 27

mark@hermesa.uucp (Mark McWiggins) writes:

>My company is evaluating high-end publishing packages.  So far we
>have a demo of Frame (which looks great) and the Interleaf rep salivating
>over us; haven't seen his package yet.

>Have you been through this?  Which did you pick and why?  Are there other
>contenders that we should consider?

        To me availablility across as many platforms as possible is a key 
        ingredient here. Performance and price are also big 
        considerations.
        
        Having seen Frame 3.0 satisfied the performance/functionality 
        issue. Platforms are everywhere. Price was good for the main line 
        we need it for: SCO OpenDeskTop ($995)
        
        Since Interleaf was not available where we see the biggest 
        market, why even bother looking. Perhaps it is simply too high 
        end for us, but Frame seems to do everything imaginable plus 
        some. I guess you know what the conclusion was, right?
        
        Fred
        
        PS We don't have 3.0 yet on the SCO platform - another couple 
        weeks they say. [Maybe August? :-)]
        
-- 
Fred Rump              | 'A little learning is a dangerous thing/Drink deep
CompuData, Inc.        | or taste not the Pierian spring'    Alexander Pope
10501 Drummond Rd.     |		SCO Advanced Product Center
Philadelphia, Pa. 19154| Internet: fred@COMPU.COM         (215-824-3000)