This is a religious and/or political issue for many, and it is very hard to provide an objective answer. The following summarizes a few majority opinions from the frequent discussions in the newsgroup. Framemaker is considered to be a "mid-range" application; it is easy to learn, but experienced users find complex tasks difficult or impossible. Many I5 users hate the toolbox, Mac/PC-like interface. Interleaf considered a high-end system; it is difficult to get started, but expandable and powerful when advanced tasks must be done. While many new users abhor the I5 UI, a seemingly equal number of experts praise it. I6 for Unix has a traditional Motif interface whose graphics editor is largely toolbox based. 6.1 offers a combination of traditional Motif/MSWindows style interface with optional "power user" UI features. Interleaf's document creation metaphor is object-oriented and structured in approach, in contrast to the page-layout orientation of many "Desktop Publishing" products like Frame, Quark, PageMaker, etc. This is often a widely misunderstood difference when comparing Interleaf to other "similar" products. IslandWrite, WordPerfect, MS-Word, et al. have been considered low-end applications, but as they improve on their capabilities, Interleaf distinguishes itself from them in the complexity and size of documents it can deal with, in its level of integration of text and graphics, and in its open architecture for third-party extensibility.