If I remember correctly, there was a smaller footprint program called 
FrameReader that could be used to view FrameMaker documents. I think it was 
less expensive than FrameViewer.

Rick

> FrameViewer was FrameMaker, just crippled to prevent authoring. It was 
> expensive to purchase for just a product that reads and prints FrameMaker 
> files, and it was also expensive in the amount of storage space and 
> machine resources it required in those days.
>
> Adobe's not the villain here, IMO. Acrobat's PDF is more versatile for 
> distributing files for reading, commenting, printing, 
> information-collecting, and publishing for more applications beyond 
> FrameMaker.
>
> You might say that Windows is a more likely villain, because on unix, 
> FrameMaker's "floating" licensing approach minimized the need to purchase 
> one license per user. Floating licenses could be checked out, used, and 
> checked in, to release them for other users. If 20 simultaneous users are 
> likely to need FrameMaker at any one time, a customer needs to purchase 
> only 20 floating licenses to serve an enterprise of thousands of potential 
> users.
>
> There are some similar third-party application-sharing tools that work on 
> Windows across applications; they incur other overhead penalties and 
> impose their own maintenance requirements.
>
>
> ________________
> Regards,
>
> Peter Gold
> KnowHow ProServices


Reply via email to