home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!Germany.EU.net!pki-nbg!pla_jfr
- From: pla_jfr@sld64pki-nbg.philips.de (joachim friedrichs)
- Newsgroups: comp.text.frame
- Subject: Re: Frame 4.0 (Was Re: No 4.0 for NeXT???)
- Message-ID: <1992Dec23.160128@sld64pki-nbg.philips.de>
- Date: 23 Dec 92 15:01:28 GMT
- References: <1992Dec12.210400.4199@u.washington.edu> <1992Dec12.220725.21100@csus.edu> <1992Dec14.030417.1072@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> <1gnmfsINNr47@columbia.cs.ubc.ca> <GERRY.92Dec17100057@onion.cmu.edu>
- Sender: news@pki-nbg.philips.de
- Reply-To: pla_jfr@pki-nbg.philips.de
- Organization: Philips Kommunikations Industrie AG Nuernberg, Germany
- Lines: 24
-
-
- In article <GERRY.92Dec17100057@onion.cmu.edu>, gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
- |> Vincent Manis' article, although short, summarizes my feelings about
- |> Frame Maker also. Yes, it is easy to use, and yes, for many simple
- |> applications, it gets the job done. But you must really give up quite
- |> a lot, for example, when switching from TeX. The other problem is
- |> that Frame seems to only know about lines, where TeX knows about
- |> paragraphs and pages, thus the documents set by TeX ALWAYS look
- |> better. (This is in part due to TeX vastly superior use of kerning
- |> and glue.)
- |>
- |> What really bugs me though, is that these comments have been said for
- |> years, and no one at Frame seems to be listening. Seriously, what
- |> was the big deal about the 2.1 -> 3.0 release? Not much that I could
- |> see, except tables.
- |>
-
- ... and conditional text.
-
- |> So, Frame folks, are you listening? We are disgruntled! If you don't
- |> improve your product, you will lose in the end.
- |>
-
- What's about FrameBuilder?
-