Good Day Diane, Hope you are doing okay these days. Currently I am "racing", both at work and with our (spouse and my) business.
Unfortunately the situation is not always of the "wait a bit" situation. The company where I work supplies several computer systems as software and hardware controls of our products. Currently our products are tested and approved for XP, however that operating system is becoming harder and harder to obtain. Some of our customers have reported they have been unable to obtain computers with XP. Certainly by later this year we will need to have our products tested for Vista. Just how different the software interface will become, what process flows will change, and what will become of our online help files has yet to be determined. Certainly during the development phase for our next release, development, QA, and tech pubs will all be operating with Vista so we would be using FrameMaker on computers running Vista. Best, Denise -----Original Message----- From: framers-bounces+d.mossfritch=comcast....@lists.frameusers.com [mailto:framers-bounces+d.mossfritch=comcast.net at lists.frameusers.com] On Behalf Of Diane Gaskill Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 12:58 PM To: framers at lists.frameusers.com Subject: OT: A comment on upgrading and support Was: Frame's future I've been lurking on this thread but I have a comment that might throw a monkey wrench into the conversation. It seems that sometimes people upgrade just to have the latest and (hopefully) the greatest version of a sw product, car, music system, etc. This includes Frame, Vista, and whatever. But if the new version of a product does not have a feature I need or has fixed a bug that has been giving me trouble, I do not see the point in upgrading. Why spend the money and the time on installing something and take a chance on having more bugs or incompatibilities on your system? There's an old saying: "If it aint broke, don't fix it." FM7.2 and everything else I use in my job runs just fine on XP. Believe it or not, they also run fine on an old NT4 system I have at home (I have an XP system there too). I see no point in installing an OS because it's "New and Improved" but could make my job a lot harder before it gets easier. Deadlines don't wait for other companies to fix their bugs. Also, a comment on what Adobe means by "support." I remember a conversation just like this a couple of years ago. It was about the then current version of FM and whether it would run on XP. At the time, Adobe said, "We don't support it." But on further investitation, Adobe explained that they did not say it would not run on XP, but that they had not completed their testing and therefore could not guarantee that it would run or that there were no bugs. Therefore, no "official" support. Sounds like good business policy to me, and I'd guess the situation is at least similar with FM7.2 and Vista. Diane ================ -----Original Message----- From: framers-bounces+dgcaller=earthlink....@lists.frameusers.com [mailto:framers-bounces+dgcaller=earthlink.net at lists.frameusers.com]On Behalf Of Steve Rickaby Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 8:39 AM To: Fred Ridder; guy at hiskeyboard.com Cc: framers at lists.frameusers.com Subject: Re: Frame's future 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 Vista.' 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 'might's. 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. -- Steve