Hi, Rick:
Thanks for the detailed reply.

On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Rick Quatro <rick at rickquatro.com> wrote:

>  Hi Peter,
>
>
>
> I am comparing component chapter files in a catalog with lots of data. We
> used InDesign CS4. Although we don?t have a version of the catalog in
> FrameMaker for direct comparison, experience tells me that the performance
> would be better in any recent version of FrameMaker.
>
Have you evaluated the performance of the catalog tools made for InDesign?

>  The fact that InDesign scripting is built in doesn?t affect my business;
> I make money writing scripts, not selling scripting tools.
>
I was thinking about the many free InDesign scripts; I don't know how this
compares to free FrameScript scripts.

> Based on my experience, InDesign scripting performance with JavaScript is
> poor compared to FrameScript/FrameMaker performance, particularly for more
> complex tasks.
>
Inefficient coding is common.

> When you using automation, the cost for a third-party tool can be recovered
> quickly if there are significant gains in performance.
>
Agreed.

>  This is not to say that I don?t like InDesign; it is a great tool with
> many nice features. But I would be cautious about moving to InDesign from
> FrameMaker unless there is a compelling reason for doing so.
>
Two popular reasons are the significantly better typography controls, and
the better graphics features; ID's drawing tools are quite advanced vs. FM,
and there's more power in manipulating imported graphics. The graphic
features overlap Photoshop to some degree; the advantage here is staying
inside one application to use them. With TCS2 including the full Photoshop
application, "more is more" for sure.

"Compelling" is subjective, I agree. Usually, technical documentation's
communication of information doesn't improve significantly because of
more-sophisticatedly composed type, but for some publishers or publications,
masterful typesetting is a compelling requirement.

Perhaps Tina's list of requirements will provide more information for
comparing the applications and their suitability.


> Regards,
>
>
> Peter
>
> _______________________
>
> Peter Gold
>
> KnowHow ProServices
>


>  Rick Quatro
>
Carmen Publishing Inc.
>
> 585-659-8267
>
> rick at frameexpert.com
>
> www.frameexpert.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* knowhowpro at gmail.com [mailto:knowhowpro at gmail.com] *On Behalf 
> Of *Peter
> Gold
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 21, 2009 6:39 PM
> *To:* Rick Quatro
> *Cc:* Tina Ricks; framers at lists.frameusers.com
> *Subject:* Re: FM 9 vs. InDesign
>
>
>
> Hi, Rick:
>
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Rick Quatro <rick at rickquatro.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Tina,
>
> I have found InDesign's performance to be sluggish with long documents.
>
>
>
> Are you comparing books with component chapter files, or single-file long
> documents? And, which release of InDesign compared to which release
> of FrameMaker?
>
>
>
> Although InDesign has built-in scripting, the FrameMaker/FrameScript
> combination is much faster for automation.
>
>
>
> InDesign's scripting tools are built in, not extra-cost third-party items.
> Although it's obviously not a good thing for your business, there's a great
> quantity of free InDesign scripts "out there."
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Peter
>
> _______________________
>
> Peter Gold
>
> KnowHow ProServices
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Rick Quatro
> Carmen Publishing Inc.
> 585-659-8267
> rick at frameexpert.com
> www.frameexpert.com
>
>
>
>
> Can anyone point me to a thorough comparison list of features between FM9
> and InDesign? I'm using Frame primarily for print books at a small
> publisher, and using it because I know it and I'm familiar with it.
>
> I currently use Frame 8, and I'm considering an upgrade to either Frame 9
> or
> InDesign.
>
> I've read that InDesign CS4 recently added cross references. Does anyone
> know how they compare to Frame's feature? Also, what about creating an
> index
> in InDesign. What features does it have for dynamic indexing?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Tina Ricks | Managing Editor | Trial Guides
>
> www.trialguides.com
>
>

Reply via email to