, Richard
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 1:22 PM
To: Art Campbell; a...@alphabyte.co.nz
Cc: framers@lists.frameusers.com; Jim Duszynski
Subject: RE: Any advantage to upgrade-FM7.2 to FM9?
Art Campbell wrote:
Actually, that was about the point Frame Technology was edging close
to running
, Richard
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 1:22 PM
To: Art Campbell; alan at alphabyte.co.nz
Cc: framers at lists.frameusers.com; Jim Duszynski
Subject: RE: Any advantage to upgrade-FM7.2 to FM9?
Art Campbell wrote:
> Actually, that was about the point Frame Technology was edging close
> to
I agree with your chronology of official releases, but I'm also
remembering a preview or proof of concept or something similar that
(*I think* -- I didn't record it in my diary) surfaced in the 94-95
time frame. I got a look at it because I was free-lancing for UNIX
World magazine at the time and
I agree with your chronology of official releases, but I'm also
remembering a preview or proof of concept or something similar that
(*I think* -- I didn't record it in my diary) surfaced in the 94-95
time frame. I got a look at it because I was free-lancing for UNIX
World magazine at the time and
Bodvar Bjorgvinsson wrote:
>
> I am waiting for FM for Linux! ;-)
There was one. V5.2(?). I still have a binary for it. It ran very well under X
and I used it with Windowmaker as well as Gnome.
It was quite good but Adobe decided against proceeding down that route because
there did not appear
Oops, no that was 5.5.6 :}
It ran on Redhat.
Alan
Alan Litchfield wrote:
>
> Bodvar Bjorgvinsson wrote:
>
>>
>> I am waiting for FM for Linux! ;-)
>
> There was one. V5.2(?). I still have a binary for it. It ran very well under X
> and I used it with Windowmaker as well as Gnome.
>
> It was
OK. I thought Adobe already owned it by then. But my memory is a bit out today
(obviously need more coffee).
Alan
Art Campbell wrote:
> Actually, that was about the point Frame Technology was edging close
> to running out of money Adobe bought 'em. I think 5.6 was a FT
> remnant, not a path
[mailto:framers-boun...@lists.frameusers.com] On Behalf Of Jim Duszynski
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 3:30 PM
To: framers@lists.frameusers.com
Subject: Any advantage to upgrade-FM7.2 to FM9?
Is there any advantage to upgrade from FM 7.2 to FM 9? I am using FM9
trial now and not finding enough
I think it's worth upgrading before falling off the upgrade path. *If*
in the next version you can only upgrade from 8.0, then you are stuck
using the old version forever unless you want to buy a new version,
which is much more expensive than the upgrade. So every few versions I
think it's
: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:29:32 -0600
From: Jim Duszynski jimduszyn...@skylineproducts.com
Subject: Any advantage to upgrade-FM7.2 to FM9?
To: framers@lists.frameusers.com framers@lists.frameusers.com
Message-ID:
0a40f4cef76cb346bf24279809054c301ac89...@spiexc01.spi.local
Content-Type: text
Classification: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
Amongst other things, the Apply Master Pages thingy is great when you
have a mixture of portrait and landscape pages - makes it simple to
ensure they all stay the right way round. Saved me shedloads of hassle.
Other stuff: spreading it across multiple
Rather than relist what's already been mentioned, I think 9 is more
stable than 7, noticably so in book operations. On my system, I think
it may even be a little quicker. I also like the ability to spread the
interface over two monitors, although I dislike the need to do so.
A big plus is the
the need
to upgrade further, though.
Alexandra Wilowska
-Original Message-
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:29:32 -0600
From: Jim Duszynski jimduszyn...@skylineproducts.com
Subject: Any advantage to upgrade-FM7.2 to FM9?
To: framers@lists.frameusers.com framers@lists.frameusers.com
Message-ID
Bodvar Bjorgvinsson wrote:
I am waiting for FM for Linux! ;-)
There was one. V5.2(?). I still have a binary for it. It ran very well under X
and I used it with Windowmaker as well as Gnome.
It was quite good but Adobe decided against proceeding down that route because
there did not appear to
Oops, no that was 5.5.6 :}
It ran on Redhat.
Alan
Alan Litchfield wrote:
Bodvar Bjorgvinsson wrote:
I am waiting for FM for Linux! ;-)
There was one. V5.2(?). I still have a binary for it. It ran very well under X
and I used it with Windowmaker as well as Gnome.
It was quite good but
Actually, that was about the point Frame Technology was edging close
to running out of money Adobe bought 'em. I think 5.6 was a FT
remnant, not a path that Adobe started and then backed away from.
Art Campbell
art.campb...@gmail.com
... In my opinion, there's nothing in this
OK. I thought Adobe already owned it by then. But my memory is a bit out today
(obviously need more coffee).
Alan
Art Campbell wrote:
Actually, that was about the point Frame Technology was edging close
to running out of money Adobe bought 'em. I think 5.6 was a FT
remnant, not a path that
Art Campbell wrote:
Actually, that was about the point Frame Technology was edging close
to running out of money Adobe bought 'em. I think 5.6 was a FT
remnant, not a path that Adobe started and then backed away from.
Adobe acquired Frame Technology about 1994-5, around the time that FM
I hope there is!
It took a long time for me to convince my (engineering) manager to upgrade
me from FrameMaker 7.2 (and RoboHelp 6) to Technical Communication Suite
2.
Should have it in a few weeks.
Regards,
Barry Kieffer
Technical Writer
Internet, Military, and Consumer
Yup, that was the official release, but there were betas and escaped
releases way before then. Frame Tech was more of a UNIX house and the
UNIXLinus porting work was largely done there; Adobe never did much
with any workstation products
Art Campbell
art.campb...@gmail.com
... In
Art Campbell wrote:
Yup, that was the official release, but there were betas and escaped
releases way before then. Frame Tech was more of a UNIX house and the
UNIXLinus porting work was largely done there; Adobe never did much
with any workstation products
There was no official Linux
Jim Duszynski wrote:
>
> Another way to ask the question is, does anyone have any experience with FM
> 7.2 and compatibility with computer system utilities as time goes by?
>
Yes.
--
Alan Litchfield MBus (Hons), MNZCS
AlphaByte
PO Box 1941, 1140, Auckland, New Zealand
t; From: framers-bounces at lists.frameusers.com
> [mailto:framers-bounces at lists.frameusers.com] On Behalf Of Jim Duszynski
> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 3:30 PM
> To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
> Subject: Any advantage to upgrade-FM7.2 to FM9?
>
> Is there any advantage to upgra
I think it's worth upgrading before falling off the "upgrade path." *If*
in the next version you can only upgrade from 8.0, then you are stuck
using the old version forever unless you want to buy a new version,
which is much more expensive than the upgrade. So every few versions I
think it's
: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:29:32 -0600
From: Jim Duszynski <jimduszyn...@skylineproducts.com>
Subject: Any advantage to upgrade-FM7.2 to FM9?
To: "framers at lists.frameusers.com"
Message-ID:
<0A40F4CEF76CB346BF24279809054C301AC8952A at SPIEXC01.SPI.LOCAL>
Content-Type: t
Classification: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
Amongst other things, the Apply Master Pages thingy is great when you
have a mixture of portrait and landscape pages - makes it simple to
ensure they all stay the right way round. Saved me shedloads of hassle.
Other stuff: spreading it across multiple
Rather than relist what's already been mentioned, I think 9 is more
stable than 7, noticably so in book operations. On my system, I think
it may even be a little quicker. I also like the ability to spread the
interface over two monitors, although I dislike the need to do so.
A big plus is the
ide with the
> TCS1
> release so upgrading to the suite was a bonus). I haven't yet felt
> the need
> to upgrade further, though.
>
>
>
> Alexandra Wilowska
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
>
> Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:29:32 -0600
>
> From: J
Actually, that was about the point Frame Technology was edging close
to running out of money Adobe bought 'em. I think 5.6 was a FT
remnant, not a path that Adobe started and then backed away from.
Art Campbell
art.campbell at gmail.com
"... In my opinion, there's nothing in
I hope there is!
It took a long time for me to convince my (engineering) manager to upgrade
me from FrameMaker 7.2 (and RoboHelp 6) to Technical Communication Suite
2.
Should have it in a few weeks.
Regards,
Barry Kieffer
Technical Writer
Internet, Military, and Consumer
Yup, that was the official release, but there were betas and "escaped"
releases way before then. Frame Tech was more of a UNIX house and the
UNIX>Linus porting work was largely done there; Adobe never did much
with any workstation products
Art Campbell
art.campbell at gmail.com
Art Campbell wrote:
> Yup, that was the official release, but there were betas and "escaped"
> releases way before then. Frame Tech was more of a UNIX house and the
> UNIX>Linus porting work was largely done there; Adobe never did much
> with any workstation products
There was no official Linux
Jim Duszynski wrote:
Another way to ask the question is, does anyone have any experience with FM
7.2 and compatibility with computer system utilities as time goes by?
Yes.
--
Alan Litchfield MBus (Hons), MNZCS
AlphaByte
PO Box 1941, 1140, Auckland, New Zealand
http://www.alphabyte.co.nz
Is there any advantage to upgrade from FM 7.2 to FM 9? I am using FM9 trial now
and not finding enough improvement in features to justify the c0st to my
management.
Another way to ask the question is, does anyone have any experience with FM 7.2
and compatibility with computer system utilities
at lists.frameusers.com] On Behalf Of Jim Duszynski
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 3:30 PM
To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
Subject: Any advantage to upgrade-FM7.2 to FM9?
Is there any advantage to upgrade from FM 7.2 to FM 9? I am using FM9
trial now and not finding enough improvement in features
35 matches
Mail list logo
