Yep, thanks.
Sent them a request for an evaluation. Let's see if it works.
Mike
> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:40:31 -0400> From: art.campbell at gmail.com> To:
> biozaichenko at hotmail.com; framers at lists.frameusers.com> Subject: Re:
> QUICKSILVER> > Perhaps
Hello there,
it's a slightly off-topic but does anyone know where I can download an
Interleaf Quicksilver. I've been googling for half an hour in vain...
Michael
_
Invite your mail contacts to join your friends list wi
Perhaps it's because the Quicksilver program publisher's name is
Broadvision, not Interleaf?
Look at: http://www.broadvision.com/ and see if that's what you're
looking for...
Art
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 1:34 PM, Michael Zaichenko
wrote:
> Hello there,
>
> it&#x
Yep, thanks.
Sent them a request for an evaluation. Let's see if it works.
Mike
> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:40:31 -0400> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL
> PROTECTED]; framers@lists.frameusers.com> Subject: Re: QUICKSILVER> > Perhaps
> it's because t
Perhaps it's because the Quicksilver program publisher's name is
Broadvision, not Interleaf?
Look at: http://www.broadvision.com/ and see if that's what you're
looking for...
Art
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 1:34 PM, Michael Zaichenko
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello t
Hello there,
it's a slightly off-topic but does anyone know where I can download an
Interleaf Quicksilver. I've been googling for half an hour in vain...
Michael
_
Invite your mail contacts to join your friends list wi
fact, given the
choice between Interleaf /Quicksilver and Word, I'd choose Word. Now .that.
ought to tell you something. :-)
Diane (glad I don't have to choose) Gaskill
===
-Original Message-
>From: Syed Zaeem Hosain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Jan 20, 20
fact, given the
choice between Interleaf /Quicksilver and Word, I'd choose Word. Now .that.
ought to tell you something. :-)
Diane (glad I don't have to choose) Gaskill
===
-Original Message-
>From: Syed Zaeem Hosain
>Sent: Jan 20, 2006 9:53 AM
>To: &q
At 7:29 am -0500 20/1/06, Rita Muller wrote:
>I just googled "Quicksilver publishing software on Mac OS X." There are tons
>of articles, but it looks like Mac has some product they labeled Quicksilver
>too, which impacts the OS itself somehow.
Yes, it does: it's a sh
Hi, Richard, et. al.
Combs, Richard wrote:
BTW, back when I was working in Interleaf (on Sun 3/50s), we demo'd this
new software called FrameMaker. My evaluation? It had a brilliant
paradigm and lots of potential, but it wasn't robust and full-featured
enough to replace Interleaf.
Times chang
Hi, Richard, et. al.
Combs, Richard wrote:
> BTW, back when I was working in Interleaf (on Sun 3/50s), we demo'd this
> new software called FrameMaker. My evaluation? It had a brilliant
> paradigm and lots of potential, but it wasn't robust and full-featured
> enough to replace Interleaf.
>
> Ti
On 19 Jan 2006, at 16:04, Rita Muller wrote:
> Me too, Bill! But I just Googled Interleaf and learned that
> Quicksilver is
> the new brand name for the original Interleaf code. So IL is alive and
> well,
> just now known as Quicksilver.
Does it run on Mac OS X?
I remember tha
My approach would be as follows:
Solicit opinions from a IL/Quicksilver list in the same manner. Beware
though as some of your colleagues may be on those lists - write from a
neutral email address and don't mention too many identifying details.
Sorry, I've no idea if any lists even exis
Rita Muller wrote:
> It's been ten years since I saw the Interleaf product and I
> can't remember if it was running on a Mac or PC.
I'd guess it was either a PC or a Sun workstation. I last worked with
Ileaf about 16 years ago, and it only ran under UNIX (Solaris, HP-UX,
maybe one or two others
Hi Paul,
I just googled "Quicksilver publishing software on Mac OS X." There are tons
of articles, but it looks like Mac has some product they labeled Quicksilver
too, which impacts the OS itself somehow. I don't think it's the former
Interleaf product being discussed, but o
Rita Muller wrote:
> It's been ten years since I saw the Interleaf product and I
> can't remember if it was running on a Mac or PC.
I'd guess it was either a PC or a Sun workstation. I last worked with
Ileaf about 16 years ago, and it only ran under UNIX (Solaris, HP-UX,
maybe one or two other
At 7:29 am -0500 20/1/06, Rita Muller wrote:
>I just googled "Quicksilver publishing software on Mac OS X." There are tons
>of articles, but it looks like Mac has some product they labeled Quicksilver
>too, which impacts the OS itself somehow.
Yes, it does: it's a sh
Hi Paul,
I just googled "Quicksilver publishing software on Mac OS X." There are tons
of articles, but it looks like Mac has some product they labeled Quicksilver
too, which impacts the OS itself somehow. I don't think it's the former
Interleaf product being discussed, but o
On 19 Jan 2006, at 16:04, Rita Muller wrote:
Me too, Bill! But I just Googled Interleaf and learned that
Quicksilver is
the new brand name for the original Interleaf code. So IL is alive and
well,
just now known as Quicksilver.
Does it run on Mac OS X?
I remember that it supports x-refs
> Solicit opinions from a IL/Quicksilver list in the same manner. Beware
> though as some of your colleagues may be on those lists - write from a
> neutral email address and don't mention too many identifying details.
> Sorry, I've no idea if any lists even exist, but I
You're probably right. My group (prior to my coming on board) used to
use IL and switched to FM. I ran into a need for using IL when I had
to dig up some old docs. Very arcane, manual tool.
On 1/19/06, Ridder, Fred wrote:
> I'd almost guarantee that for 80% of the Interleaf users, the only
> fact
Of Glenn Voyles
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 4:17 PM
To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
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
> Solicit opinions from a IL/Quicksilver list in the same manner. Beware
> though as some of your colleagues may be on those lists - write from a
> neutral email address and don't mention too many identifying details.
> Sorry, I've no idea if any lists even exist, but I
You're probably right. My group (prior to my coming on board) used to
use IL and switched to FM. I ran into a need for using IL when I had
to dig up some old docs. Very arcane, manual tool.
On 1/19/06, Ridder, Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd almost guarantee that for 80% of the Interleaf use
> I thought that IL was effectively a dead product
I believe it is but Broadvision is now producing Quicksilver, and they
claim they can work with FM files. Might be something for your
heel-stuck group to look into and report back on. ("Automatically
assembles documents from a va
At 5:47 am -0800 19/1/06, David Creamer wrote:
>I've only seen Quicksilver/Interleaf demo'd for me, but from what I saw, the
>cost of (re)training could be much greater too. I could be wrong, but I
>thought it made FrameMaker look simple. If most of your users are coming
>
My approach would be as follows:
Solicit opinions from a IL/Quicksilver list in the same manner. Beware
though as some of your colleagues may be on those lists - write from a
neutral email address and don't mention too many identifying details.
Sorry, I've no idea if any lists even exis
sers.com
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
CTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Bill Swallow
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 12:23
To: Bill Briggs
Cc: framers@lists.frameusers.com
Subject: Re: Frame vs. Quicksilver - Please help me save Frame
> I thought that IL was effectively a dead product
I believe it is but Broad
bounces+glenn.voyles=mitchell@lists.frameusers.com
[mailto:framers-bounces+glenn.voyles=mitchell.com at lists.frameusers.com]
On Behalf Of Bill Swallow
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 12:23
To: Bill Briggs
Cc: framers at lists.frameusers.com
Subject: Re: Frame vs. Quicksilver - Please help me save
Hi Joe,
I have used both. I would use Framemaker over Interleaf (QuickSilver)
anyday. I learned Framemaker on my own and I would hate to have tried to
learn InterLeaf that way. I am not sure what the support is like now for
QuickSilver but it got spotty for InterLeaf.
Z
> I thought that IL was effectively a dead product
I believe it is but Broadvision is now producing Quicksilver, and they
claim they can work with FM files. Might be something for your
heel-stuck group to look into and report back on. ("Automatically
assembles documents from a va
Hi Joe,
I have used both. I would use Framemaker over Interleaf (QuickSilver)
anyday. I learned Framemaker on my own and I would hate to have tried to
learn InterLeaf that way. I am not sure what the support is like now for
QuickSilver but it got spotty for InterLeaf.
Z
>>I thought that IL was effectively a dead product
- web<<
Me too, Bill! But I just Googled Interleaf and learned that Quicksilver is
the new brand name for the original Interleaf code. So IL is alive and well,
just now known as Quicksilver.
Give me FM any day over that IL
Okay, I just ran a search on Monster.com to see how many jobs had
"Interleaf" vs. "Framemaker" as a keyword. (No geographic limits, so this
represents the whole US but just what is listed today)
The results:
Interleaf 6 (yes, 6, as in one more than five)
Quic
One point that I haven't seen mentioned yet is the ability to customize
the tools.
FrameMaker has a robust SDK, plus FrameScript, dzBatcher, FrameAC, and a
wide variety of available plug-ins/scripts to perform a myriad of tasks.
While many similar tools may exist for Ileaf/Quicksilv
Art Campbell wrote:
> off-the-shelf software vendords.
Is that, like, Retail Warlords?? ;-)
--
Stuart Rogers
Technical Communicator
Phoenix Geophysics Limited
Toronto, ON, Canada
+1 (416) 491-7340 x 325
srogers at phoenix-geophysics dot com
"Please reinstall the application you want to remove
Joe,
A few more factors to think about including in your business case...
* numbers of users of each tool
* approximate number of existing pages in each tool
* platforms/OS in use and on which your products run
And, although I haven't had contact with them for years, Adobe used to maintain
som
4. Frame is more widely used and offers greater compatibility with the
rest
of the publishing world.
Related to this is if/when the time comes that you need a contractor to
do something fast, you are a lot more likely to find a Frame pro than an
Interleaf one. This applies to new hires, too, if t
>>I thought that IL was effectively a dead product
- web<<
Me too, Bill! But I just Googled Interleaf and learned that Quicksilver is
the new brand name for the original Interleaf code. So IL is alive and well,
just now known as Quicksilver.
Give me FM any day over that IL
Okay, I just ran a search on Monster.com to see how many jobs had
"Interleaf" vs. "Framemaker" as a keyword. (No geographic limits, so this
represents the whole US but just what is listed today)
The results:
Interleaf 6 (yes, 6, as in one more than five)
Quic
One point that I haven't seen mentioned yet is the ability to customize
the tools.
FrameMaker has a robust SDK, plus FrameScript, dzBatcher, FrameAC, and a
wide variety of available plug-ins/scripts to perform a myriad of tasks.
While many similar tools may exist for Ileaf/Quicksilv
Art Campbell wrote:
off-the-shelf software vendords.
Is that, like, Retail Warlords?? ;-)
--
Stuart Rogers
Technical Communicator
Phoenix Geophysics Limited
Toronto, ON, Canada
+1 (416) 491-7340 x 325
srogers at phoenix-geophysics dot com
"Please reinstall the application you want to remove
Joe,
A few more factors to think about including in your business case...
* numbers of users of each tool
* approximate number of existing pages in each tool
* platforms/OS in use and on which your products run
And, although I haven't had contact with them for years, Adobe used to maintain
som
4. Frame is more widely used and offers greater compatibility with the
rest
of the publishing world.
Related to this is if/when the time comes that you need a contractor to
do something fast, you are a lot more likely to find a Frame pro than an
Interleaf one. This applies to new hires, too, if
At 5:47 am -0800 19/1/06, David Creamer wrote:
>I've only seen Quicksilver/Interleaf demo'd for me, but from what I saw, the
>cost of (re)training could be much greater too. I could be wrong, but I
>thought it made FrameMaker look simple. If most of your users are coming
>
I've only seen Quicksilver/Interleaf demo'd for me, but from what I saw, the
cost of (re)training could be much greater too. I could be wrong, but I
thought it made FrameMaker look simple. If most of your users are coming
from Word, it could be easier, and therefore, cheaper to switc
I've only seen Quicksilver/Interleaf demo'd for me, but from what I saw, the
cost of (re)training could be much greater too. I could be wrong, but I
thought it made FrameMaker look simple. If most of your users are coming
from Word, it could be easier, and therefore, cheaper to switc
At 4:20 PM -0500 1/18/06, Sims, Joseph wrote:
>The company I work for uses Frame, Interleaf and Word in three separate
>offices. (PC version) Management has requested that we create a uniform
>style for documentation starting now. They're expecting us to share content
>and presumably document templ
re.
1. IL to PDF conversions can be less straightforward than Frame to PDF
conversions. Does IL generate bookmarks?
2. Translation memory tools don't support IL, dramatically increasing costs.
3. Interleaf/Quicksilver/Broadvision corp. is far more likely to end up in
Chapter 11 than Adobe.
4
> non-constructive us vs. them conflict. As a
> result, I need to come up with a list of
> business reasons why Interleaf is not the correct
> choice for the company.
It seems to me that the best way to state your FM case is because it
is a compromise between the two. IL may want to be the stan
> non-constructive us vs. them conflict. As a
> result, I need to come up with a list of
> business reasons why Interleaf is not the correct
> choice for the company.
It seems to me that the best way to state your FM case is because it
is a compromise between the two. IL may want to be the stan
At 4:20 PM -0500 1/18/06, Sims, Joseph wrote:
>The company I work for uses Frame, Interleaf and Word in three separate
>offices. (PC version) Management has requested that we create a uniform
>style for documentation starting now. They're expecting us to share content
>and presumably document templ
Behalf
Of Sims, Joseph
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 2:21 PM
To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
Subject: Frame vs. Quicksilver - Please help me save Frame
The company I work for uses Frame, Interleaf and Word in three separate
offices. (PC version) Management has requested that we create a
.
Mesa, AZ
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Sims, Joseph
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 2:21 PM
To: framers@lists.frameusers.com
Subject: Frame vs. Quicksilver - Please help me save Frame
The company I work for uses Frame, Interleaf and Wor
M
> To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
> Subject: Frame vs. Quicksilver - Please help me save Frame
>
>
> The company I work for uses Frame, Interleaf and Word in three separate
> offices. (PC version) Management has requested that we create a uniform
> style for documentatio
@lists.frameusers.com
Subject: Frame vs. Quicksilver - Please help me save Frame
The company I work for uses Frame, Interleaf and Word in three separate
offices. (PC version) Management has requested that we create a uniform
style for documentation starting now. They're expecting us to share conten
more.
1. IL to PDF conversions can be less straightforward than Frame to PDF
conversions. Does IL generate bookmarks?
2. Translation memory tools don't support IL, dramatically increasing costs.
3. Interleaf/Quicksilver/Broadvision corp. is far more likely to end up in
Chapter 11 than Adob
58 matches
Mail list logo
