This isn't exactly true. Microsoft CHOSE not to export IE for Mac OS
X. This was done partly because Apple has their own browser, Safari, and
partly because of the rise in popularity of Firefox, Opera, Camino, and
others. The last version of IE for Mac was running quite well on Mac OS
X, but it was also the equivalent of at least one version behind Windows
IE, IIRC. Safari is generally well-regarded, as are the others listed
above. And, with MS pushing IE's "integration" into the Windows OS,
there wasn't really a desire on their part to continue work on something
without much tangible return. IE for Windows gets stuck into the Windows
OS in such a way that it's VERY difficult to fully disentangle it from
the OS and to fully use another browser instead. I've heard of many
times where someone THINKS they've disabled IE as a default browser, but
then something happens that launches IE instead of something else. As
always, YMMV greatly from this.

Samuel I. Beard, Jr.
Technical Writer
OI Analytical
979 690-1711 Ext. 222
sbeard at

-----Original Message-----
[ at] On Behalf
Of quills at
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 9:49 PM
To: Paul Findon; Frame Users; Free Framers List; Steve Rickaby
Subject: Re: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

Considering that Microsoft couldn't seem to port Internet Explorer to 
OS X, it must be insurmountable.


At 5:12 PM +0000 3/1/07, Paul Findon wrote:
>Steve Rickaby wrote:
>>  >"Although MacOS X has UNIX underpinnings, the difficult
>>>stuff relating to user interfaces, font access, output,
>>>etc. is all exclusive to MacOS X"
>>>In other words, the difficult stuff has all been dealt with for 
>>>GoLive, Illustrator, InDesign, etc. etc. So Adobe employs people 
>>>who know how to get a document to print on a Mac, even under the 
>>>formidably taxing OSX. It just chose not to put them to work on 
>>>FM, because there was little demand for its previous, non-OSX, 
>>>new-feature-thin FM upgrades. Terrific.
>>There may be other factors at work here. To create universal 
>>binaries that will work on OS X across MacIntel and PowerPC 
>>platforms, Adobe has to migrate their code base to XCode, the Apple 
>>development system. That process is, as I understand it, well under 
>>way for the CS 2 applications.
>>However, FrameMaker has a much older code base, so the effort to 
>>migrate it to XCode would be proportionately greater. For all I 
>>know, some parts of FrameMaker might be coded in Assembler for 
>>speed. If this is the case, moving such code to a multi-platform 
>>production base such as XCode would be all the more complex, and 
>>might involve a major re-coding effort. All this ups cost and 
>>reduces margins.
>Who's side are you on, Steve ;-)
>In the early '90s, I made many a manual with Adobe FrameMaker 3.0 
>for NeXTSTEP.
>Hang on. Aren't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both built on BSD?
>Hang on. Aren't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both built on the Mach kernel?
>Hang on. Aren't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both object-orientated
>Hang on. Don't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both support Objective-C?
>Hang on. NeXTSTEP used Display PostScript, Mac OS X uses PDF. Isn't 
>PDF based on PostScript?
>Hang on. Don't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both support Type 1 fonts?
>Hang on. Weren't NeXTSTEP app developers some of the first to port 
>their apps to Mac OS X?
>How difficult could it be?


You are currently subscribed to Framers as sbeard at

Send list messages to framers at

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
framers-unsubscribe at
or visit

Send administrative questions to listadmin at Visit for more resources and info.

Reply via email to