As new tools come out, companies will not expect you to know more than
the most common ones. There is a lot more to technical writing than the
authoring tool.
Regards,
Shmuel Wolfson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 8:29 PM -0500 3/4/07, Sean Pollock wrote:
Why be afraid of Frame's possible
Knowing how technology works, I'd prefer to build on a
working, proven platform and expand it to reach new
heights. In other words, why be afraid of FrameMaker
for the future? It's a great product design and
doesn't need changing.
Programs like mySQL may have eternal life for the
same reason
]
Subject: Re: Frame's future
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 10:36:35 -0500
What concerns me is that many of these tools are Enterprise level.
Meaning that they are too expensive to be purchased by a single
person, and often require a server from which to run. What that
means
Except for the fibbing part. I don't advocate saying you know
something you don't, even if learning it is a non-issue. I advocate
being up front about it and talk about the tech stuff you do know.
Many times companies will then agree that tools are easy to learn and
that the concepts are
9:06 PM
To: 'Frame Users'; 'Free Framers List'
Subject: RE: Frame's future
At 8:29 PM -0500 3/4/07, Sean Pollock wrote:
>Why be afraid of Frame's possible demise? XML is the future, and Frame is
>just a tool, and should never be the source. There will be (actually,
>already are) new too
As new tools come out, companies will not expect you to know more than
the most common ones. There is a lot more to technical writing than the
authoring tool.
Regards,
Shmuel Wolfson
quills at airmail.net wrote:
> At 8:29 PM -0500 3/4/07, Sean Pollock wrote:
>> Why be afraid of Frame's
> What concerns me is that many of these tools are Enterprise level.
> Meaning that they are too expensive to be purchased by a single
> person, and often require a server from which to run. What that
> means, is that companies will segregate writers into those who know
> the tools, and those who
Knowing how technology works, I'd prefer to build on a
working, proven platform and expand it to reach new
heights. In other words, why be afraid of FrameMaker
for the future? It's a great product design and
doesn't need changing.
Programs like mySQL may have "eternal" life for the
same reason
Thanks Bill, we agree!
--Sean Pollock
__
From: "Bill Swallow"
To: "quills at airmail.net"
CC: Frame Users ,Free Framers List
Subject: Re: Frame's future
Date: Thu,
Except for the fibbing part. I don't advocate saying you know
something you don't, even if learning it is a non-issue. I advocate
being up front about it and talk about the tech stuff you do know.
Many times companies will then agree that tools are easy to learn and
that the concepts are
Precisely, and you should be prepared for the day when FrameMaker is
killed off by Adobe. If this tool is important to you, you should be
very, very afraid of its demise for the exact same reasons that Adobe
dropped it for the Mac.
I suspect the user base of FrameMaker comes into play too:
on it.
Sean Pollock
UGS Corp.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 11:28 PM
To: 'Frame Users'; 'Free Framers List'
Subject: RE: Frame's future
At 9:40 AM + 3/2/07, Gordon McLean wrote:
Sales
At 8:29 PM -0500 3/4/07, Sean Pollock wrote:
Why be afraid of Frame's possible demise? XML is the future, and Frame is
just a tool, and should never be the source. There will be (actually,
already are) new tools, Frame ain't all that anyway. Seems like I've been
using it forever--I look forward
a month later. I'm no Einstein, I just looked up the
information I needed.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 9:06 PM
To: 'Frame Users'; 'Free Framers List'
Subject: RE: Frame's future
At 8:29 PM
List'
Subject: RE: Frame's future
At 9:40 AM + 3/2/07, Gordon McLean wrote:
>Sales figures will reveal the story.
>
>What sells more, Photoshop or FrameMaker?
>
>*yawns*
>
>Gordon
Precisely, and you should be prepared for the day when FrameMaker is
killed off by Adobe. If t
At 8:29 PM -0500 3/4/07, Sean Pollock wrote:
>Why be afraid of Frame's possible demise? XML is the future, and Frame is
>just a tool, and should never be the source. There will be (actually,
>already are) new tools, Frame ain't all that anyway. Seems like I've been
>using it forever--I look
At 9:40 AM + 3/2/07, Gordon McLean wrote:
Sales figures will reveal the story.
What sells more, Photoshop or FrameMaker?
*yawns*
Gordon
Precisely, and you should be prepared for the day when FrameMaker is
killed off by Adobe. If this tool is important to you, you should be
very, very
At 9:37 AM -0600 3/2/07, Sam Beard wrote:
Scott,
This isn't exactly true. Microsoft CHOSE not to export IE for Mac OS
X. This was done partly because Apple has their own browser, Safari, and
partly because of the rise in popularity of Firefox, Opera, Camino, and
others. The last version of
At 9:40 AM + 3/2/07, Gordon McLean wrote:
>Sales figures will reveal the story.
>
>What sells more, Photoshop or FrameMaker?
>
>*yawns*
>
>Gordon
Precisely, and you should be prepared for the day when FrameMaker is
killed off by Adobe. If this tool is important to you, you should be
very,
At 9:37 AM -0600 3/2/07, Sam Beard wrote:
>Scott,
>
>This isn't exactly true. Microsoft CHOSE not to export IE for Mac OS
>X. This was done partly because Apple has their own browser, Safari, and
>partly because of the rise in popularity of Firefox, Opera, Camino, and
>others. The last version
> Precisely, and you should be prepared for the day when FrameMaker is
> killed off by Adobe. If this tool is important to you, you should be
> very, very afraid of its demise for the exact same reasons that Adobe
> dropped it for the Mac.
>
I suspect the user base of FrameMaker comes into play
On 3/2/07, John Sgammato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- snipped ---
And I have read enough about FrameMaker on the Mac. We know you're unhappy.
Adobe knows you're unhappy. All God's chillun' must know you're unhappy.
You have expressed your feelings about it quite well enough, thank you. The
Sales figures will reveal the story.
What sells more, Photoshop or FrameMaker?
*yawns*
Gordon
This email (and any attachments) is private and confidential, and is intended
solely for the
It seems to me the question of How to get a new Mac
version of FrameMaker? is resolved by the question
How to get more Macintosh users using FrameMaker?
I can't think of a way to solve that one quickly.
Maybe we can turn this into a contest?
The first thing is that Apple has to start
There's also the probability that the CS suite porting is taking place
in the US Adobe development center but Frame is coded by Adobe India
-- so the Mac skill set may not be where the FM code is.
On 3/1/07, Steve Rickaby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 09:38 -0700 1/3/07, Graeme R Forbes wrote:
On 3/2/07, John Sgammato wrote:
--- snipped ---
> And I have read enough about FrameMaker on the Mac. We know you're unhappy.
> Adobe knows you're unhappy. All God's chillun' must know you're unhappy.
> You have expressed your feelings about it quite well enough, thank you. The
> well-organized
At 09:21 + 2/3/07, Bodvar Bjorgvinsson wrote:
>My advise if for them to read Joe Sutter's "747 -- Creating the
>World's First Jumbo Jet and Other Adventures from a Life in Aviation".
Thanks, Bodvar. And when you've finished that, try Tracey Kidder's 'The Soul of
a New Machine', about how
Sales figures will reveal the story.
What sells more, Photoshop or FrameMaker?
*yawns*
Gordon
This email (and any attachments) is private and confidential, and is intended
solely for the
> It seems to me the question of "How to get a new Mac
> version of FrameMaker?" is resolved by the question
> "How to get more Macintosh users using FrameMaker?"
>
> I can't think of a way to solve that one quickly.
> Maybe we can turn this into a contest?
The first thing is that Apple has to
d=oico.com at lists.frameusers.com] On Behalf
Of quills at airmail.net
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 9:49 PM
To: Paul Findon; Frame Users; Free Framers List; Steve Rickaby
Subject: Re: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX
Considering that Microsoft couldn't seem to port Internet Explorer to
OS X, it must be insu
There's also the probability that the CS suite porting is taking place
in the US Adobe development center but Frame is coded by Adobe India
-- so the Mac skill set may not be where the FM code is.
On 3/1/07, Steve Rickaby wrote:
> At 09:38 -0700 1/3/07, Graeme R Forbes wrote:
>
> >"Although
Considering how most companies spend their money on
the latest fad, or hot idea that the V.P. in charge
suddenly is convinced is the way to go (usually without
much real investigation), I don't see what the problem is.
and this is a legitimate and credible justification?
easier for us,
When someone stabs you in the back after you've been a very loyal
customer for nearly 20 years, you don't normally go running back for
more.
So what action are you going to take against Apple for dropping Classic
support from their Mactel machines? They stabbed you in the back, too,
didn't
On 1 Mar 2007, at 14:00, Mike Wickham wrote:
When someone stabs you in the back after you've been a very loyal
customer for nearly 20 years, you don't normally go running back for
more.
So what action are you going to take against Apple for dropping
Classic
support from their Mactel
Dov said:
Although MacOS X has UNIX underpinnings, the difficult
stuff relating to user interfaces, font access, output,
etc. is all exclusive to MacOS X
In other words, the difficult stuff has all been dealt with for
GoLive, Illustrator, InDesign, etc. etc. So Adobe employs people who
know
At 09:38 -0700 1/3/07, Graeme R Forbes wrote:
Although MacOS X has UNIX underpinnings, the difficult
stuff relating to user interfaces, font access, output,
etc. is all exclusive to MacOS X
In other words, the difficult stuff has all been dealt with for GoLive,
Illustrator, InDesign, etc. etc.
However, FrameMaker has a much older code base, so the effort to migrate it
to XCode would be proportionately greater. For all I know, some parts of
FrameMaker might be coded in Assembler for speed. If this is the case,
moving such code to a multi-platform production base such as XCode would be
Steve Rickaby wrote:
Although MacOS X has UNIX underpinnings, the difficult
stuff relating to user interfaces, font access, output,
etc. is all exclusive to MacOS X
In other words, the difficult stuff has all been dealt with for
GoLive, Illustrator, InDesign, etc. etc. So Adobe employs
Folks,
Worrying about whether the latest versions of FrameMaker are, or are
not, available for a particular OS and platform is not productive at
all. Whether we know and/or agree/disagree with Adobe's reasons for
dropping the Mac version is not anything we can or should waste any
[more] time on.
@lists.frameusers.com
Subject: RE: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX
Dov said:
Although MacOS X has UNIX underpinnings, the difficult
stuff relating to user interfaces, font access, output,
etc. is all exclusive to MacOS X
In other words, the difficult stuff has all been dealt with for
GoLive
-Original Message-
From: Paul Findon
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 9:13 AM
To: Frame Users; Free Framers List; Steve Rickaby
Subject: Re: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX
Steve Rickaby wrote:
Although MacOS X has UNIX underpinnings, the difficult
stuff relating to user
Oops, sorry, Richard. my response was not aimed at your earlier
response. I just did a reply-all and should have trimmed out your
words.
Z
Syed Zaeem Hosain wrote:
Folks,
Worrying about whether the latest versions of FrameMaker are, or are
not, available for a particular OS and platform is
On 1 Mar 2007, at 19:22, Dov Isaacs wrote:
Hang on. Don't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both support Type 1 fonts?
Hang on. Weren't NeXTSTEP app developers some of the first to port
their apps to Mac OS X?
How difficult could it be?
Paul
It is quite difficult because the similarities
you describe
On 1 Mar 2007, at 14:00, Mike Wickham wrote:
When someone stabs you in the back after you've been a very loyal
customer for nearly 20 years, you don't normally go running back
for
more.
So what action are you going to take against Apple for dropping
Classic
support from their Mactel
On 1 Mar 2007, at 17:12, Paul Findon wrote:
In the early '90s, I made many a manual with Adobe FrameMaker 3.0
for NeXTSTEP.
Whoops! In all the excitement I should have said Frame Technology
FrameMaker 3.0 for NeXTSTEP.
I wonder what ever happened to that code?
Paul
,
which was never a real OS).
--Sean Pollock
UGS Corp.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Paul Findon
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 4:41 PM
To: Mike Wickham
Cc: Frame Users; Free Framers List
Subject: Re: Frame's future
On 1 Mar 2007, at 14
Its as valid as any officer of a company doing something for worse
reasons. His justification may not be exemplary, however it is not
malfeasance. Since it is somewhere around the middle ground I see no
reason to take him to task for it.
Scott
At 5:38 AM -0800 3/1/07, John Posada wrote:
Considering that Microsoft couldn't seem to port Internet Explorer to
OS X, it must be insurmountable.
Scott
At 5:12 PM + 3/1/07, Paul Findon wrote:
Steve Rickaby wrote:
Although MacOS X has UNIX underpinnings, the difficult
stuff relating to user interfaces, font access, output,
etc.
on Solaris licenses vs. Mac.
Scott
At 11:22 AM -0800 3/1/07, Dov Isaacs wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Paul Findon
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 9:13 AM
To: Frame Users; Free Framers List; Steve Rickaby
Subject: Re: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX
Steve Rickaby wrote:
Although MacOS X
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Sean Pollock
Sent: Thu 3/1/2007 9:17 PM
To: 'Paul Findon'; 'Mike Wickham'
Cc: 'Frame Users'; 'Free Framers List'
Subject: RE: Frame's future
Mike,
At least you have a real OS. Most of us in the business world use PCs
because they're the corporate norm
> Considering how most companies spend their money on
> the latest fad, or hot idea that the V.P. in charge
> suddenly is convinced is the way to go (usually without
> much real investigation), I don't see what the problem is.
and this is a legitimate and credible justification?
> easier for
> When someone stabs you in the back after you've been a very loyal
> customer for nearly 20 years, you don't normally go running back for
> more.
So what action are you going to take against Apple for dropping Classic
support from their Mactel machines? They stabbed you in the back, too,
On 1 Mar 2007, at 14:00, Mike Wickham wrote:
>> When someone stabs you in the back after you've been a very loyal
>> customer for nearly 20 years, you don't normally go running back for
>> more.
>
> So what action are you going to take against Apple for dropping
> Classic
> support from their
Dov said:
"Although MacOS X has UNIX underpinnings, the difficult
stuff relating to user interfaces, font access, output,
etc. is all exclusive to MacOS X"
In other words, the difficult stuff has all been dealt with for
GoLive, Illustrator, InDesign, etc. etc. So Adobe employs people who
know
At 09:38 -0700 1/3/07, Graeme R Forbes wrote:
>"Although MacOS X has UNIX underpinnings, the difficult
>stuff relating to user interfaces, font access, output,
>etc. is all exclusive to MacOS X"
>
>In other words, the difficult stuff has all been dealt with for GoLive,
>Illustrator, InDesign,
>However, FrameMaker has a much older code base, so the effort to migrate it
to XCode would be proportionately greater. For all I know, some parts of
FrameMaker might be coded in Assembler for speed. If this is the case,
moving such code to a multi-platform production base such as XCode would be
Steve Rickaby wrote:
> >"Although MacOS X has UNIX underpinnings, the difficult
> >stuff relating to user interfaces, font access, output,
> >etc. is all exclusive to MacOS X"
> >
> >In other words, the difficult stuff has all been dealt with for
> GoLive, Illustrator, InDesign, etc. etc. So
At 17:12 + 1/3/07, Paul Findon wrote:
>Who's side are you on, Steve ;-)
Garn, Paul... you shouldn't need to ask me that. I borrowed the campaign
T-shirt, after all ;-) And suffered for The Cause: after barracking the Adobe
lot at IPEX I got comprehensively sneezed on by a Japanese visitor
Steve Rickaby wrote:
> However, FrameMaker has a much older code base, so the effort
> to migrate it to XCode would be proportionately greater. For
> all I know, some parts of FrameMaker might be coded in
> Assembler for speed. If this is the case, moving such code to
> a multi-platform
Folks,
Worrying about whether the latest versions of FrameMaker are, or are
not, available for a particular OS and platform is not productive at
all. Whether we know and/or agree/disagree with Adobe's reasons for
dropping the Mac version is not anything we can or should waste any
[more] time on.
> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Findon
> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 9:13 AM
> To: Frame Users; Free Framers List; Steve Rickaby
> Subject: Re: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX
>
> Steve Rickaby wrote:
>
> > >"Although MacOS X has UNIX underpinni
At 10:34 -0700 1/3/07, Combs, Richard wrote:
>I expect that the more extreme fundamentalist Apple-ists will threaten
>to behead you any time now for your apostasy. You're the Salman Rushdie
>of the Macintosh! ;-)
Cripes :-(
Actually, I haven't given up hope, but I prefer to base my hopes on
Oops, sorry, Richard. my response was not aimed at your earlier
response. I just did a reply-all and should have trimmed out your
words.
Z
Syed Zaeem Hosain wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Worrying about whether the latest versions of FrameMaker are, or are
> not, available for a particular OS and platform
On 1 Mar 2007, at 19:22, Dov Isaacs wrote:
>> Hang on. Don't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both support Type 1 fonts?
>>
>> Hang on. Weren't NeXTSTEP app developers some of the first to port
>> their apps to Mac OS X?
>>
>> How difficult could it be?
>>
>> Paul
>
>
> It is quite difficult because the
On 1 Mar 2007, at 14:00, Mike Wickham wrote:
>>> When someone stabs you in the back after you've been a very loyal
>>> customer for nearly 20 years, you don't normally go running back
>>> for
>>> more.
>>
>> So what action are you going to take against Apple for dropping
>> Classic
>>
On 1 Mar 2007, at 17:12, Paul Findon wrote:
> In the early '90s, I made many a manual with Adobe FrameMaker 3.0
> for NeXTSTEP.
Whoops! In all the excitement I should have said "Frame Technology
FrameMaker 3.0 for NeXTSTEP."
I wonder what ever happened to that code?
Paul
It seems to me the question of "How to get a new Mac
version of FrameMaker?" is resolved by the question
"How to get more Macintosh users using FrameMaker?"
I can't think of a way to solve that one quickly.
Maybe we can turn this into a contest?
--- Dov Isaacs wrote:
> It is quite difficult
Cc: Frame Users; Free Framers List
Subject: Re: Frame's future
On 1 Mar 2007, at 14:00, Mike Wickham wrote:
>>> When someone stabs you in the back after you've been a very loyal
>>> customer for nearly 20 years, you don't normally go running back
>>> for
>>>
Its as valid as any officer of a company doing something for worse
reasons. His justification may not be exemplary, however it is not
malfeasance. Since it is somewhere around the middle ground I see no
reason to take him to task for it.
Scott
At 5:38 AM -0800 3/1/07, John Posada wrote:
> >
Considering that Microsoft couldn't seem to port Internet Explorer to
OS X, it must be insurmountable.
Scott
At 5:12 PM + 3/1/07, Paul Findon wrote:
>Steve Rickaby wrote:
>
>> >"Although MacOS X has UNIX underpinnings, the difficult
>>>stuff relating to user interfaces, font access,
on Solaris licenses vs. Mac.
Scott
At 11:22 AM -0800 3/1/07, Dov Isaacs wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Paul Findon
>> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 9:13 AM
>> To: Frame Users; Free Framers List; Steve Rickaby
>> Subject: Re: Frame's future @
From: framers-bounces+jsgammato=imprivata@lists.frameusers.com on behalf of
Sean Pollock
Sent: Thu 3/1/2007 9:17 PM
To: 'Paul Findon'; 'Mike Wickham'
Cc: 'Frame Users'; 'Free Framers List'
Subject: RE: Frame's future
Mike,
At least you have a real OS. Most of us in the business world use
On 27 Feb 2007, at 22:55, Paul Pehrson wrote:
Jumping in a bit late here,
But why are Mac users jumping on the MadCap hope bandwagon? MadCap
products also only work on Windows. The problem will be the same
whether your tool of choice is Blaze or Frame.
It's quite simple really. One of
a real PC, since most of us have lost the appetite for Adobe
software, we'd rather use something else, and MadCap's Blaze looks
promising.
Let's see if I got this right.
Adobe used to suppot MAC but does no longer, so we're pissed.
Therefore, we'll go to a company who has never
in processor instruction sets (Sun's processors
versus Gx or Mactel).
- Dov
-Original Message-
From: Chris Borokowski
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 7:39 AM
To: Free Framers List; framers@lists.frameusers.com
Subject: Re: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX
It is possible I'm
Paul,
I think you're breaking the rules of the conversation by applying logic...
It's not about logic, it's about being a Mac fan.
Cheers,
Art
On 2/27/07, Paul Pehrson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jumping in a bit late here,
But why are Mac users jumping on the MadCap hope bandwagon? MadCap
Art Campbell wrote:
Paul,
I think you're breaking the rules of the conversation by applying
logic...
It's not about logic, it's about being a Mac fan.
So, Art, you don't think that Mac fanatacism trumps compulsive speculation?
Regards,
Peter Gold
KnowHow ProServices
AM
To: Free Framers List;
framers@lists.frameusers.com
Subject: Re: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX
It is possible I'm wholly clueless here. Although
rare, it does occur.
Mac OSX is a Mach/BSD hybrid. Wouldn't that enable
you
to use the UNIX version of FrameMaker?
If not, have you
I can't speak for the whole, but I can for this Mac fan and his Doc
Group. We are currently on Macs despite creating PC software (long
story, short is we used to be Mac and transitioned our code/product).
We've kept Docs on the Mac due to legacy docs and ease of use and
there was no real
At 6:53 AM -0800 2/28/07, John Posada wrote:
a real PC, since most of us have lost the appetite for Adobe
software, we'd rather use something else, and MadCap's Blaze looks
promising.
Let's see if I got this right.
Adobe used to suppot MAC but does no longer, so we're pissed.
Therefore,
On 27 Feb 2007, at 22:55, Paul Pehrson wrote:
> Jumping in a bit late here,
>
> But why are Mac users jumping on the MadCap hope bandwagon? MadCap
> products also only work on Windows. The problem will be the same
> whether your tool of choice is Blaze or Frame.
It's quite simple really. One
> a real PC, since most of us have lost the appetite for Adobe
> software, we'd rather use something else, and MadCap's Blaze looks
> promising.
Let's see if I got this right.
Adobe used to suppot MAC but does no longer, so we're pissed.
Therefore, we'll go to a company who has never
in processor instruction sets (Sun's processors
versus Gx or Mactel).
- Dov
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Borokowski
> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 7:39 AM
> To: Free Framers List; framers at lists.frameusers.com
> Subject: Re: Frame's fu
Paul,
I think you're breaking the rules of the conversation by applying logic...
It's not about logic, it's about being a Mac fan.
Cheers,
Art
On 2/27/07, Paul Pehrson wrote:
> Jumping in a bit late here,
>
> But why are Mac users jumping on the MadCap hope bandwagon? MadCap products
> also
Art Campbell wrote:
> Paul,
>
> I think you're breaking the rules of the conversation by applying
> logic...
> It's not about logic, it's about being a Mac fan.
So, Art, you don't think that Mac fanatacism trumps compulsive speculation?
Regards,
Peter Gold
KnowHow ProServices
It is possible I'm wholly clueless here. Although
rare, it does occur.
Mac OSX is a Mach/BSD hybrid. Wouldn't that enable you
to use the UNIX version of FrameMaker?
If not, have you considered Linux?
--- Paul Findon wrote:
> One of our frustrations is
> that there is no
> FrameMaker
m: Chris Borokowski
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 7:39 AM
> > To: Free Framers List;
> framers at lists.frameusers.com
> > Subject: Re: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX
> >
> > It is possible I'm wholly clueless here. Although
> > rare, it does o
On 28 Feb 2007, at 14:53, John Posada wrote:
>> a real PC, since most of us have lost the appetite for Adobe
>> software, we'd rather use something else, and MadCap's Blaze looks
>> promising.
>
> Let's see if I got this right.
>
> Adobe used to suppot MAC but does no longer, so we're pissed.
>
At 6:53 AM -0800 2/28/07, John Posada wrote:
> > a real PC, since most of us have lost the appetite for Adobe
>> software, we'd rather use something else, and MadCap's Blaze looks
>> promising.
>
>Let's see if I got this right.
>
>Adobe used to suppot MAC but does no longer, so we're pissed.
Jumping in a bit late here,
But why are Mac users jumping on the MadCap hope bandwagon? MadCap products
also only work on Windows. The problem will be the same whether your tool of
choice is Blaze or Frame.
Or did I miss something?
-Paul Pehrson
Midvale, UT
On 2/25/07, Paul Findon [EMAIL
Jumping in a bit late here,
But why are Mac users jumping on the MadCap hope bandwagon? MadCap products
also only work on Windows. The problem will be the same whether your tool of
choice is Blaze or Frame.
Or did I miss something?
-Paul Pehrson
Midvale, UT
On 2/25/07, Paul Findon wrote:
>
>
At 10:54 -0800 24/2/07, Guy K. Haas wrote:
I see nothing that spells out FrameMaker does not work at all Has anyone
TRIED it and reported this?
I was quoting from page 5 of the document 'How Adobe Products Support Windows
Vista':
Q. Does Adobe FrameMaker 7.2 run on Windows Vista? Does
From: Steve Rickaby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Guy K. Haas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: framers@lists.frameusers.com
Subject: Re: Frame's future
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 10:39:17 +
At 10:54 -0800 24/2/07, Guy K. Haas wrote:
I see nothing that spells out FrameMaker does not work at all Has
anyone
At 11:00 -0500 25/2/07, Fred Ridder wrote:
What you stated was your interpretation, not a direct quote.
True. But stated immediately above a direct quote, namely:
'Adobe FrameMaker 7.2 and earlier do not support Windows Vista. However, Adobe
currently plans to release the next major version of
On 24 Feb 2007, at 00:33, Michael Heine wrote:
Blaze sounds interesting (on vapour paper, so far). So, will it do
endnotes, and print 4/C ... ?
I don't know. Ask them. They seem to be a helpful company.
General: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sales: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Perhaps we can work out a deal for
]
Cc: framers@lists.frameusers.com
Subject: Re: Frame's future
At 11:00 -0500 25/2/07, Fred Ridder wrote:
What you stated was your interpretation, not a direct quote.
True. But stated immediately above a direct quote, namely:
'Adobe FrameMaker 7.2 and earlier do not support Windows Vista
Was: Frame's future
I've been lurking on this thread but I have a comment that might throw a
monkey wrench into the conversation.
It seems that sometimes people upgrade just to have the latest and
(hopefully) the greatest version of a sw product, car, music system, etc.
This includes Frame, Vista
On 21 Feb 2007, at 19:30, Dov Isaacs wrote:
What is true is that Adobe was certainly NOT going to
drop support for Windows in favour of a MacOS X-only
solution or start developing products exclusively for
MacOS X, a strategy that apparently at least some within
Apple would have liked Adobe to
On 21 Feb 2007, at 16:28, Dov Isaacs wrote:
Comparing the Macintosh version of FrameMaker to a Ford
Taurus is not a valid analogy. FrameMaker on Macintosh was
NEVER a best-seller. It was a very small fraction of the
FrameMaker user base, smaller than even Unix, that did not
justify the
On 21 Feb 2007, at 16:28, Dov Isaacs wrote:
Comparing the Macintosh version of FrameMaker to a Ford
Taurus is not a valid analogy. FrameMaker on Macintosh was
NEVER a best-seller. It was a very small fraction of the
FrameMaker user base, smaller than even Unix, that did not
justify the
1 - 100 of 195 matches
Mail list logo
