Alan Litchfield wrote:
< Because almost everyone *does not* have broadband internet connection. The
Outside Northern Europe, North America, and parts of Asia is very different.
>

Perhaps I pulled the trigger too fast here. You are right, of course:
everyone in this world *does not* have broadband internet connections!

Anyway, for those of us who actually HAVE fast connections -- a group I
believe is considerably larger than you estimate and to my experience
include the vast majority of Framemaker users, incl. users in the major
cities in the DBCS world far east -- I find it highly relevant to have
cumulative updates handy.

Small-file-size "patchers" that alter only the "current" installation are
still relevant, of course. But why shouldn't they be cumulative in
proportion to the base version? Why do they require specific sub-versions?
Because the software used to generate such patcher-beasts require so, hence
understandable to some degree.

But that's not an argument at all. If you want to make life easy for the
Framemaker users, "full" install packages should be made available for each
revision-release.

End of story!

Anything else is bad service and delegates a completely unnecessary
install-burden to users that lives happily with older Framemaker versions,
which often have been patched 3-5 times though their official and supported
life-cycle.

Why doesn't Adobe offer cumulative packages at all for Framemaker, or at
least cumulative Service Packs, so those of us (not me, but you outside
Northern Europe and North America) that actually still use narrow internet
connections have a chance to get off lightly though a re-install process
WITHOUT downloading each patch separately?

Best regards / Med venlig hilsen
Jacob Sch?ffer? |? Chief Developer
----------------------------------
Grafikhuset (House of Graphics)
Paradis All? 22, Raml?se
DK-3200 Helsinge, Denmark
Phone: +45 4439 4400
Email: js at grafikhuset.dk
Web: www.grafikhuset.net




Reply via email to