>Thanks, Steve. By the way, the FrameMaker for Mac OS X petition is almost at >3,300 signatories.
That's good to know - if I could sign again, I would. After fourteen years of FrameMaker, I'm currently going into new areas (complex designs, structure), and even now learning new stuff and new techniques, and am being constantly delighted with what I can achieve with FrameMaker. >I did a detailed comparison with Pages 1.0 and it shows real promise. The >real-time page updating while resizing or moving objects on a page is really >cool - something even InDesign can't do. ><http://www.infopage.net/fmforosx/fmcompared.html> I'll take a look at that, although Pages is really only of passing interest to me unless it reaches version, oh, er... 6? ;-) >However, it is only version one and I think software generally reaches a >maturity at around version three, so I wouldn't use it for serious work. >Having said that, Apple may release Pages 2.0 at the upcoming San Francisco >Macworld Expo in January as part of the iWork '06 package and that may have >the additional functionality to make it a more viable alternative to >FrameMaker. It will be interesting, but I don't think Apple is developing Pages as a replacement for FrameMaker - although I could be proved wrong. >Apple is still using FrameMaker 6.0 in the Classic environment to produce its >own user guides and I'm curious as to what they will use in the future. It >does seem ironic that with all that super-cool technology even Apple is still >replying on Mac OS 9 to produce its user guides. Then again, we do and some >Adobe employees do, too. ... and I do too, and will continue to do so for the forseeable future, even to the point of not buying any Apple machine that cannot run Classic. (I even considered buying a quad-core 2.5 GHz G5 to put on the shelf until I need it.) -- Steve