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
