I'd almost guarantee that for 80% of the Interleaf users, the only factor that really matters is that they don't have to change what they've been doing for the last dozen years. They've got a lot of time and energy invested on making it second nature to use a tool that most people consider arcane. They simply don't want to forced to change to *any* other tool that might involve a similar learning curve. The more difficult a tool was to learn, the more likely it is that proficient users will be strongly averse to adopting a new tool (unless they are tool geeks like me...)
My opinions only; I don't speak for Intel. Fred Ridder (fred dot ridder at intel dot com) Intel Parsippany, NJ -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glenn Voyles Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 4:17 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Frame vs. Quicksilver - Please help me save Frame We've heard a lot about how much better FM is than IL, and I don't doubt any of it. Great points. But wouldn't the IL side of the house be building a case as well? I'm curious what justification they claim for their cause. Glenn _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
