There's also the probability that the CS suite porting is taking place in the US Adobe development center but Frame is coded by Adobe India -- so the Mac skill set may not be where the FM code is.
On 3/1/07, Steve Rickaby <srickaby at wordmongers.demon.co.uk> wrote: > At 09:38 -0700 1/3/07, Graeme R Forbes 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. > > -- > Steve > _______________________________________________ > > -- Art Campbell art.campbell at gmail.com "... In my opinion, there's nothing in this world beats a '52 Vincent and a redheaded girl." -- Richard Thompson No disclaimers apply. DoD 358