Re: WWP vs. mif2go

[jeremy@xxxxxxxxx (Jeremy H. Griffith)]

On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 12:30:11 +0200, "Thomas Michanek" 
<thomas.michanek@iar.se> wrote:

>MIF2GO is cheap; fast and low on computer resources;

Right.  Of course, it's *our* product... <g>

>is less integrated with FM and has no GUI (?); 

No, it's *more* integrated (WWP is standalone, M2G is
a plugin).  There is a GUI for setup and operation,
which is simple to use.  IMHO.  ;-)

>is less complex with less learning curve; 

Right.

>can be customized but requires you to edit an ini file; 

When you need to change some settings, you do need to 
edit a plain text .ini file.  We have a new GUI for 
that laid out, but not yet fully implemented for HTML; 
there *is* a working GUI included for most RTF settings 
(the 26-panel Conversion Designer).

>is flexible and
>produces very good output code, even "out-of-the-box".

Right.

>It lacks somewhat in documentation; 

Only if you consider a 295-page User Guide, furnished in 
PDF, WinHelp, and XHTML, kept up to date with the frequent
product enhancements, as "somewhat lacking"...  ;-)

>Technical support is free, fast and excellent, and the 
>product is often updated based on user feedback.

Yes; I consider that fact one of our best "features"!

I'd be interested in comparisons too; there's always
room for improvement, and I personally have never used
WWP.  My opinions of it derive only from the customer
feedback I've gotten...  Actually, we have a large file
of unsolicited comments which we've been given permission
to quote by their authors; we just haven't gotten them
up on the Web yet...  ;-)

-- Jeremy H. Griffith, at Omni Systems Inc.
  (jeremy@omsys.com)  http://www.omsys.com/

** To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@omsys.com **
** with "unsubscribe framers" (no quotes) in the body.   **