RE: Compatibility of old(ish) Software with Windows 7
I think buying more than 4GB of RAM would be a waste of money for most tech writers. I disagree 100%. It's not just the specific application(s) you run, but also how you work, that determines how much RAM is useful. If you only ever run a single word-processing application, then yes, more would be a waste. However, if you are a rampant multitasker, as I am, where you have a desktop pub application, word processing, Excel, a half dozen browser windows, etc., running simultaneously, system RAM is essential for responsiveness and to avoid virtual memory swapping. IMO, there are 3 main things one can do to breathe life into older desktop computer hardware to make it feel more responsive: 1. Upgrade the OS to 64-bit, in conjunction with: 2. Increase RAM, if supported, to 8GB or 16GB* 3. Replace the boot drive with an SSD. This one single upgrade, more than any other, can result in doubling or tripling the apparent speed of a computer system, due to the minimized seek times that SSDs offer. SSDs are no longer nearly as pricey on a per-GB basis as they once were. I've taken 5+ year old laptops and desktops, swapped in SSDs, and people thought they got new computers... it's THAT big of an improvement. * Be careful on the RAM limitations depending on the version of Windows you have installed. Microsoft made the consumer-unfriendly decision with Windows 7 that you needed to have Windows 7 Professional rather than Home to access more than 16GB of RAM. This restriction was removed in Windows 8. Dan Harding Technical Editorial Specialist University of Illinois Tax School 419 Mumford Hall 1301 West Gregory Drive Urbana, IL 61801 217-333-0935 -Original Message- From: framers-boun...@lists.frameusers.com [mailto:framers-boun...@lists.frameusers.com] On Behalf Of Robert Lauriston Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 12:50 PM To: framers@lists.frameusers.com Subject: Re: Compatibility of old(ish) Software with Windows 7 I think buying more than 4GB of RAM would be a waste of money for most tech writers. The only thing I've done in my work where I've needed more than 4GB is testing server applications with large memory footprints. The rest of the time I'm not using even half my 4GB. Outside of work I run music software that's extremely memory-intensive and 4GB on 32-bit is not a bottleneck. On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Syed Zaeem Hosain (syed.hos...@aeris.net) syed.hos...@aeris.net wrote: On a modern computer/laptop of the past few years, which are usually fully 64-bit capable and _usually_ have more than 4GB of main memory, installing Windows 7 32-bit is silly and wasteful. You end up not using the memory above 4GB (actually, less, since the graphics cards and stuff also take up some of the low-memory in a 32-bit OS load), etc., etc., etc. ___ You are currently subscribed to framers as dhard...@illinois.edu. Send list messages to framers@lists.frameusers.com. To unsubscribe send a blank email to framers-unsubscr...@lists.frameusers.com or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/dharding%40illinois.edu Send administrative questions to listad...@frameusers.com. Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info. ___ You are currently subscribed to framers as arch...@mail-archive.com. Send list messages to framers@lists.frameusers.com. To unsubscribe send a blank email to framers-unsubscr...@lists.frameusers.com or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to listad...@frameusers.com. Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
RE: Working on a joint FM doc
Inserting a cross reference only affects the target file if there is no cross reference marker at the target location. If one already exists there, the process of cross referencing will use the one that already exists rather than creating a new one. This means you can use an unlocked (i.e. dummy) version of a file as a target doc in that case. Fixing the broken xrefs is not too difficult either, but would require write access to both document, so you'd have to check them out locked. Craig -Original Message- From: framers-boun...@lists.frameusers.com [mailto:framers-boun...@lists.frameusers.com] On Behalf Of Robert Lauriston Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 4:45 PM To: framers@lists.frameusers.com Subject: Re: Working on a joint FM doc In my experience, inserting a cross-reference in one .fm file with a target in another .fm file makes changes in both files, so when another writer was working on the target file, I inserted a placeholder and added the cross-reference later, when the file was unlocked. On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Sonnenberg, Aryeh aryeh.sonnenb...@emc.com wrote: I need to work with another colleague on an FM book. We probably don't need to use the same chapters, but definitely need to create CRs within the book from my chapters to hers. ___ You are currently subscribed to framers as craig...@hotmail.com. Send list messages to framers@lists.frameusers.com. To unsubscribe send a blank email to framers-unsubscr...@lists.frameusers.com or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/craigede%40hotmail.com Send administrative questions to listad...@frameusers.com. Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info. ___ You are currently subscribed to framers as arch...@mail-archive.com. Send list messages to framers@lists.frameusers.com. To unsubscribe send a blank email to framers-unsubscr...@lists.frameusers.com or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to listad...@frameusers.com. Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
Round-trip revisions via MS Word. Alternate methods?
Good morning, We have used the same authoring process for eons: Authors/editors work in MS Word, as well as preliminary indexing work. I then take the MS Word file, import into FM (unstructured) and do the final print-ready formatting, making things adhere to our publishing standards and tightening up consistency. As a process it work well... until it's time to revise the book for the next edition. Our authors and editors will ONLY work in MS Word. PDF comments/revisions will not work, as there frequently are extensive revisions including insertion of new sections (multiple pages) of content, as well as shuffling of content. When I export the final FM version back to MS Word for them to work on, the conversion is VERY crude and frequently requires extensive work on the post-conversion Word files for the editors to be able to work within the files. Then of course there's the reformatting from scratch in FM when the revisions are done (which actually is faster and more reliable than trying to reconcile changes in the MS Word version with the existing FM version). Is there a better way to perform the round-trip process given the MS Word requirement, and barring that, are there better ways/tools to get cleaner MS Word files from FM than exporting to RTF? Would making the change from unstructured to structured FM on my part help in this regard? Environment: Windows 7 64-bit Enterprise Framemaker 10 (unstructured) [NOTE: TCS 5 is on order but I have not received it yet.] Microsoft Office 2010 Thank you in advance. Dan Harding University of Illinois Tax School ___ You are currently subscribed to framers as arch...@mail-archive.com. Send list messages to framers@lists.frameusers.com. To unsubscribe send a blank email to framers-unsubscr...@lists.frameusers.com or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to listad...@frameusers.com. Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
RE: Round-trip revisions via MS Word. Alternate methods?
Hi Dan, Mif2Go by Omsys is a much better way to get good Word output from FrameMaker. They will tell you that there is no good tool for round-tripping between Word and FrameMaker, but if you are doing it anyway, you might as well make the Frame to Word side as good as possible. I highly recommend Mif2Go. Rick Rick Quatro Carmen Publishing Inc. 585-366-4017 r...@frameexpert.com -Original Message- From: framers-boun...@lists.frameusers.com [mailto:framers-boun...@lists.frameusers.com] On Behalf Of Harding, Dan Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 9:21 AM To: framers@lists.frameusers.com Subject: Round-trip revisions via MS Word. Alternate methods? Good morning, We have used the same authoring process for eons: Authors/editors work in MS Word, as well as preliminary indexing work. I then take the MS Word file, import into FM (unstructured) and do the final print-ready formatting, making things adhere to our publishing standards and tightening up consistency. As a process it work well... until it's time to revise the book for the next edition. Our authors and editors will ONLY work in MS Word. PDF comments/revisions will not work, as there frequently are extensive revisions including insertion of new sections (multiple pages) of content, as well as shuffling of content. When I export the final FM version back to MS Word for them to work on, the conversion is VERY crude and frequently requires extensive work on the post-conversion Word files for the editors to be able to work within the files. Then of course there's the reformatting from scratch in FM when the revisions are done (which actually is faster and more reliable than trying to reconcile changes in the MS Word version with the existing FM version). Is there a better way to perform the round-trip process given the MS Word requirement, and barring that, are there better ways/tools to get cleaner MS Word files from FM than exporting to RTF? Would making the change from unstructured to structured FM on my part help in this regard? Environment: Windows 7 64-bit Enterprise Framemaker 10 (unstructured) [NOTE: TCS 5 is on order but I have not received it yet.] Microsoft Office 2010 Thank you in advance. Dan Harding University of Illinois Tax School ___ You are currently subscribed to framers as r...@rickquatro.com. Send list messages to framers@lists.frameusers.com. To unsubscribe send a blank email to framers-unsubscr...@lists.frameusers.com or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/rick%40rickquatro.com Send administrative questions to listad...@frameusers.com. Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info. ___ You are currently subscribed to framers as arch...@mail-archive.com. Send list messages to framers@lists.frameusers.com. To unsubscribe send a blank email to framers-unsubscr...@lists.frameusers.com or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to listad...@frameusers.com. Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
RE: Round-trip revisions via MS Word. Alternate methods?
At 09:40 -0500 22/2/14, Rick Quatro wrote: Mif2Go by Omsys is a much better way to get good Word output from FrameMaker. They will tell you that there is no good tool for round-tripping between Word and FrameMaker, but if you are doing it anyway, you might as well make the Frame to Word side as good as possible. I highly recommend Mif2Go. Just to add to what Rick's said, there's a helpful section (6.1) in the Mif2Go manual, which you can download from the Omni Systems site, explaining just why Word doesn't play well with FrameMaker. http://mif2go.com/download/ug Just a thought, taking a more global view... FrameMaker 12 claims to be able to import PDFs with comments into the original FrameMaker source document, *even if it has changed*. I have no experience of how well it works (yet ;-), but you might want to review this new feature. -- Steve ___ You are currently subscribed to framers as arch...@mail-archive.com. Send list messages to framers@lists.frameusers.com. To unsubscribe send a blank email to framers-unsubscr...@lists.frameusers.com or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to listad...@frameusers.com. Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
