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