Wow.  What a wonderfully informative email.  This one will go straight to the 
Director's inbox as well as my manager's for sure.

Thank you SO much, Max.  

Best Regards,

Diane

==========


-----Original Message-----
>From: Maxwell Hoffmann <mhoffmann at translate.com>
>Sent: May 10, 2007 9:01 AM
>To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
>Subject: RE: How many FM users are there?
>
>
>Diane,
>
>When I left Frame Tech in 1994, internal metrics and intelligent speculation 
>put the total number of worldwide licenses at around 300K. With Wanock's 
>listing of 500K 5 years later, you could  assume liberal growth of 40,000 
>licenses per year which would put the probable current figure at an additional 
>280,000 licenses for a total of 780,000. If you cut the growth figure in half 
>to be conservative, the total number of licenses is probably 640,000.
>
>I think 650,000 total licenses would be a safe, conservative figure.
>
>FYI -- when I worked at Frame Tech and many of the licenses sold were still 
>UNIX (the PC was taking off by 1993), Frame estimated that only about 15% of 
>users actually registered their licenses. I don't know what the reg rate is 
>for Adobe, but that is one of the reasons that it is very challenging for a 
>vendor to have accurate figures on actual numbers of licenses in use.
>
>Regarding your earlier posting in late April (what are some of the advantages 
>that structured FrameMaker has over Arbortext) here are a few insights. I've 
>worked with a few customers whose management insisted on migration to 
>Arbortext, while much of production stayed in FrameMaker during the interim. 
>Even with experienced users who are "up" on XML structure, Arbortext takes far 
>longer than FrameMaker to design and test templates. Arbortext Architect (the 
>special license required to create style sheets) used to cost $15K. 
>FrameMaker's advantage is that every license is a "template creator" at no 
>additional cost.
>
>My company continued to design and support the structured application files in 
>FrameMaker for one account that had parallel Arbortext publishing and 
>development. Feedback we received is that it took ENLASO 4 business days to 
>develop significant format changes for XML publishing that took over 3.5 weeks 
>of testing and development in Arbortext. Naturally, some of this may be 
>dependent on the intelligence of expertise of the staff involved. But in 
>general I have observed that structured FrameMaker is much swifter than 
>Arbortext when it comes to making significant structural and formatting 
>changes to an application.
>
>The customer in question used very sophisticated page and PDF formatting that 
>went beyond most "streamline" formatting associated with XML applications. 
>(Lots of fancy tables, and lots of 3 level lists w/in tables.)
>
>Because Arbortext does not give a "literal" page representation, there are 
>often surprises at print/output time from target languages that cause text 
>expansion. One more reason that FrameMaker's embedded EDD with formatting 
>rules and "real" page display gives an advantage.
>
>The single biggest reason to stick with FrameMaker over Arbortext would be if 
>you have multilingual projects that occasionally require maintaining the same 
>page breaks as the source English. In Arbortext that would require an awful 
>lot of "PDF previews" to achieve.
>
>Another reason for sticking with structured FrameMaker is if your company or 
>division has a desire to "go all XML" corporate wide. FrameMaker has a much 
>lower learning curve than Arbortext, and is far easier for Word users to 
>master it than Arbortext. End users in Arbortext (who won't be involved in 
>format design, etc.) have a considerable amount of training to go through to 
>master the system which is less intuitive. If I had to distill it down to a 
>crude observation I would say that Arbortext was designed for engineers and 
>FrameMaker was designed for "everybody else." -- p.s. I went through 4 weeks 
>of Arbortext training a few years ago. Recent demos indicate that the 
>publishing paradigm is still similar to what I was trained on.
>
>I hope this helps. Feel free to contact me directly if you need more insights.
>
>
>
>Maxwell Hoffmann
>Manager of Consulting & Training Solutions
>ENLASO Corporation
>T: 805 494 9571 * F: 805 435 1920
>E: mhoffmann at translate.com <mailto:mhoffmann at translate.com>  ? ENLASO 
>Corporation provides quality enterprise language solutions and exceeds client 
>expectations through continuing research, development, and implementation of 
>effective localization processes and technologies.  Visit: www.translate.com 
><http://www.translate.com/>  for more information or to subscribe to our 
>complimentary localization newsletter. 
>http://www.linkedin.com/in/maxwellhoffmann
>
>>Message: 1
>>Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 23:28:22 -0700 (GMT-07:00)
>>From: Diane Gaskill <dgcaller at earthlink.net>
>>Subject: How many FM users are there?
>>To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
>>Message-ID:
>>      <30813912.1178692103115.JavaMail.root at 
>> elwamui-huard.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
>>      
>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>I know Adobe keeps all of their numbers a Big Secret, but I am creating a 
>>comparison spreadsheet in my research on FM vs AT and I need to have a 
>>general idea of how many FM seats have been installed.  FM has been in use 
>>since the late 1980s and I would estimate at least 100K seats.  If anyone on 
>>the list can provide an more accurate number, I'd really appreciate the 
>>information.  Incidentally, PTC says they have 20K installed seats.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Diane


Reply via email to