At 11:00 -0500 25/2/07, Fred Ridder wrote:

>What you stated was your interpretation, not a direct quote.

True. But stated immediately above a direct quote, namely:

'Adobe FrameMaker 7.2 and earlier do not support Windows Vista. However, Adobe 
currently plans to release the next major version of FrameMaker for Windows 

so hopefully no confusion was caused.

The quote was a quote and was clearly marked as such. I took the trouble to 
read the document right through because it may affect me, and not just for 
FrameMaker, and I was merely trying to be helpful to others who were affected 
but who didn't have time to read it.

>When a vendor says "does not support", it usually reflects a business decision 
>rather than an unequivocal technical fact.

Sure. Maybe it's an issue of English: maybe I misunderstood. In future I will 
make sure that I sprinkle text with 'allegedly's, 'it would appear that's, and 

If the document had said 'Adobe does not support the use of FrameMaker 7.2 in 
Windows Vista', that would be one thing [i.e. it might work, it might not, but 
don't come crying to us if it doesn't], but it does not say that: it says 
'FrameMaker <all versions> does not support Windows Vista'. In fact, this is an 
odd phraseology, and hard to interpret at all, because it reverses the normal 
order of things, that an OS supports an app and not the other way around.

The same document has another classification, 'Adobe... does not *officially* 
support <yahdeyah>', which it applies for example to Acrobat 8 and many others.
There are further implied sub-classification in the table at the end, between:

<app>   Not officially          Installs and runs with... known issues
<app>   Does not support        [Adobe] do not recommend...
<app>   Does not support        Adobe does not recommend installing...

but FrameMaker is none of these. It's:

<app>   Does not currently support      Support expected in next major release

Maybe I was reading too much between the lines, but I took this document to 
mean 'Lots of our stuff is so-so in Vista, but FrameMaker is a non-starter'.

Guy is absolutely right in picking holes with this document: as far as 
FrameMaker is concerned, it doesn't really tell you a lot. Where this leaves 
corporates with ageing Windows machines running lots of FrameMaker licenses is 
anyone's guess.


Reply via email to