Frame's future

[Sean Pollock]

   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, 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, is that companies will segregate writers into those who know
 >>the tools, and those who don't. If you want to get a job, you have
 >>to
 >>know the tools. Most companies don't want to teach you to use them.
 >>They want you to know them already. They won't care if you know XML
 >>or SGML. They will focus on the tool.
 >
 >Ah... Fear and Loathing in TechComm. ;-)
 >
 >1. There are plenty of non-enterprise solutions for lone writers and
 >such to use to manage XML content.
 >2. Technology will always win out over tools, period.
 >3. Some companies will undoubtedly be tool-centric, which is fine.
 >If
 >they want to overlook you as a candidate/hire based on specific
 >tools
 >experience and not on technology knowledge and experience, did you
 >really want to work there in the first place?
 >
 >--
 >Bill Swallow
 >HATT List Owner
 >WWP-Users List Owner
 >Senior Member STC, TechValley Chapter
 >STC Single-Sourcing SIG Manager
 >http://techcommdood.blogspot.com
 >avid homebrewer and proud beer snob
 >"I see your OOO message and raise you a clue."
 >___
 >
 >
 >You are currently subscribed to Framers as spolloc1 at hotmail.com.
 >
 >Send list messages to framers at lists.frameusers.com.
 >
 >To unsubscribe send a blank email to
 >framers-unsubscribe at lists.frameusers.com
 >or visit
 >http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/spolloc1%40hotmail.co
 m
 >
 >Send administrative questions to listadmin at frameusers.com. Visit
 >http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Frame's future

[Shmuel Wolfson]

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 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 to the day that something else will 
>> improve
>> on it.
>>
>> Sean Pollock
>> UGS Corp.
>
> 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 don't. If you want to get a job, you have to know 
> the tools. Most companies don't want to teach you to use them. They 
> want you to know them already. They won't care if you know XML or 
> SGML. They will focus on the tool.
>
> Scott
> ___
>
>
> You are currently subscribed to Framers as sbw at actcom.com.
>
> Send list messages to framers at lists.frameusers.com.
>
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
> framers-unsubscribe at lists.frameusers.com
> or visit 
> http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/sbw%40actcom.com
>
> Send administrative questions to listadmin at frameusers.com. Visit
> http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
>

Frame's future

[Bill Swallow]

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 transferable from one tool to another.

On 3/8/07, Sean Pollock  wrote:
> Thanks Bill, we agree!

-- 
Bill Swallow
HATT List Owner
WWP-Users List Owner
Senior Member STC, TechValley Chapter
STC Single-Sourcing SIG Manager
http://techcommdood.blogspot.com
avid homebrewer and proud beer snob
"I see your OOO message and raise you a clue."

Re: Frame's future

[Bill Swallow]

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 transferable from one tool to another.

On 3/8/07, Sean Pollock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Thanks Bill, we agree!


--
Bill Swallow
HATT List Owner
WWP-Users List Owner
Senior Member STC, TechValley Chapter
STC Single-Sourcing SIG Manager
http://techcommdood.blogspot.com
avid homebrewer and proud beer snob
"I see your OOO message and raise you a clue."
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Re: Frame's future

[Sean Pollock]

  Thanks Bill, we agree!

  --Sean Pollock
  __

From:  "Bill Swallow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:  "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC:  Frame Users ,Free Framers List
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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, is that companies will segregate writers into those who know
>>the tools, and those who don't. If you want to get a job, you have
>>to
>>know the tools. Most companies don't want to teach you to use them.
>>They want you to know them already. They won't care if you know XML
>>or SGML. They will focus on the tool.
>
>Ah... Fear and Loathing in TechComm. ;-)
>
>1. There are plenty of non-enterprise solutions for lone writers and
>such to use to manage XML content.
>2. Technology will always win out over tools, period.
>3. Some companies will undoubtedly be tool-centric, which is fine.
>If
>they want to overlook you as a candidate/hire based on specific
>tools
>experience and not on technology knowledge and experience, did you
>really want to work there in the first place?
>
>--
>Bill Swallow
>HATT List Owner
>WWP-Users List Owner
>Senior Member STC, TechValley Chapter
>STC Single-Sourcing SIG Manager
>http://techcommdood.blogspot.com
>avid homebrewer and proud beer snob
>"I see your OOO message and raise you a clue."
>___
>
>
>You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>To unsubscribe send a blank email to
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>or visit
>http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/spolloc1%40hotmail.co
m
>
>Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
>http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Frame's future

[Bill Swallow]

> 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 don't. If you want to get a job, you have to
> know the tools. Most companies don't want to teach you to use them.
> They want you to know them already. They won't care if you know XML
> or SGML. They will focus on the tool.

Ah... Fear and Loathing in TechComm. ;-)

1. There are plenty of non-enterprise solutions for lone writers and
such to use to manage XML content.
2. Technology will always win out over tools, period.
3. Some companies will undoubtedly be tool-centric, which is fine. If
they want to overlook you as a candidate/hire based on specific tools
experience and not on technology knowledge and experience, did you
really want to work there in the first place?

-- 
Bill Swallow
HATT List Owner
WWP-Users List Owner
Senior Member STC, TechValley Chapter
STC Single-Sourcing SIG Manager
http://techcommdood.blogspot.com
avid homebrewer and proud beer snob
"I see your OOO message and raise you a clue."

RE: Frame's future

[Chris Borokowski]

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 Frame could. They're the right tools for a
task that will not change so greatly a new paradigm is
required.

Now, afraid of my own demise... another story ;)

> At 8:29 PM -0500 3/4/07, Sean Pollock wrote:
> >Why be afraid of Frame's possible demise?




 

Get your own web address.  
Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Re: Frame's future

[Bill Swallow]

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 don't. If you want to get a job, you have to
know the tools. Most companies don't want to teach you to use them.
They want you to know them already. They won't care if you know XML
or SGML. They will focus on the tool.


Ah... Fear and Loathing in TechComm. ;-)

1. There are plenty of non-enterprise solutions for lone writers and
such to use to manage XML content.
2. Technology will always win out over tools, period.
3. Some companies will undoubtedly be tool-centric, which is fine. If
they want to overlook you as a candidate/hire based on specific tools
experience and not on technology knowledge and experience, did you
really want to work there in the first place?

--
Bill Swallow
HATT List Owner
WWP-Users List Owner
Senior Member STC, TechValley Chapter
STC Single-Sourcing SIG Manager
http://techcommdood.blogspot.com
avid homebrewer and proud beer snob
"I see your OOO message and raise you a clue."
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Frame's future

[Chris Borokowski]

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 Frame could. They're the right tools for a
task that will not change so greatly a new paradigm is
required.

Now, afraid of my own demise... another story ;)

> At 8:29 PM -0500 3/4/07, Sean Pollock wrote:
> >Why be afraid of Frame's possible demise?






Get your own web address.  
Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL

Re: Frame's future

[Shmuel Wolfson]

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 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 to the day that something else will 
improve

on it.

Sean Pollock
UGS Corp.


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 don't. If you want to get a job, you have to know 
the tools. Most companies don't want to teach you to use them. They 
want you to know them already. They won't care if you know XML or 
SGML. They will focus on the tool.


Scott
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/sbw%40actcom.com


Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.


___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Frame's future

[Sean Pollock]

When in doubt, fib. You can almost always get an evaluation version of, or
book on, the tool for which a company requires knowledge. If you know XML,
the tool usually isn't going to be that hard to learn.

I got my first tech writing job with no knowledge of Frame in 1997 and was
training others a month later. I'm no Einstein, I just looked up the
information I needed.

-Original Message-
From: framers-bounces+spolloc1=hotmail@lists.frameusers.com
[mailto:framers-bounces+spolloc1=hotmail.com at lists.frameusers.com] On Behalf
Of quills at airmail.net
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 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 tools, Frame ain't all that anyway. Seems like I've been
>using it forever--I look forward to the day that something else will
improve
>on it.
>
>Sean Pollock
>UGS Corp.

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 don't. If you want to get a job, you have to 
know the tools. Most companies don't want to teach you to use them. 
They want you to know them already. They won't care if you know XML 
or SGML. They will focus on the tool.

Scott
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as spolloc1 at hotmail.com.

Send list messages to framers at lists.frameusers.com.

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
framers-unsubscribe at lists.frameusers.com
or visit
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/spolloc1%40hotmail.com

Send administrative questions to listadmin at frameusers.com. Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

RE: Frame's future

[Sean Pollock]

When in doubt, fib. You can almost always get an evaluation version of, or
book on, the tool for which a company requires knowledge. If you know XML,
the tool usually isn't going to be that hard to learn.

I got my first tech writing job with no knowledge of Frame in 1997 and was
training others 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 -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 to the day that something else will
improve
>on it.
>
>Sean Pollock
>UGS Corp.

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 don't. If you want to get a job, you have to 
know the tools. Most companies don't want to teach you to use them. 
They want you to know them already. They won't care if you know XML 
or SGML. They will focus on the tool.

Scott
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/spolloc1%40hotmail.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

RE: Frame's future

[quills]

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 to the day that something else will improve
on it.

Sean Pollock
UGS Corp.


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 don't. If you want to get a job, you have to 
know the tools. Most companies don't want to teach you to use them. 
They want you to know them already. They won't care if you know XML 
or SGML. They will focus on the tool.


Scott
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

RE: Frame's future

[Sean Pollock]

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 to the day that something else will improve
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 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 afraid of its demise for the exact same reasons that Adobe 
dropped it for the Mac.

Don't be too smug.

Scott
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/spolloc1%40hotmail.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

RE: Frame's future

[David Creamer]

> 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:
Government agencies, government contractors, corporations among others.

Not the clientele that Adobe wants to upset TOO much, regardless of the
actual number of software packages they purchase.

David Creamer
I.D.E.A.S. - Results-Oriented Training
http://www.IDEAStraining.com
Adobe Certified Trainer & Expert (since 1995)
Authorized Quark Training Provider (since 1988)
Markzware, Enfocus, FileMaker Certified
Apple Consultant Network member (since 1990)


___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Frame's future

[Sean Pollock]

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 to the day that something else will improve
on it.

Sean Pollock
UGS Corp.

-Original Message-
From: framers-bounces+spolloc1=hotmail@lists.frameusers.com
[mailto:framers-bounces+spolloc1=hotmail.com at lists.frameusers.com] On Behalf
Of quills at airmail.net
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 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 afraid of its demise for the exact same reasons that Adobe 
dropped it for the Mac.

Don't be too smug.

Scott
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as spolloc1 at hotmail.com.

Send list messages to framers at lists.frameusers.com.

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
framers-unsubscribe at lists.frameusers.com
or visit
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/spolloc1%40hotmail.com

Send administrative questions to listadmin at frameusers.com. Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Frame's future

[qui...@airmail.net]

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 to the day that something else will improve
>on it.
>
>Sean Pollock
>UGS Corp.

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 don't. If you want to get a job, you have to 
know the tools. Most companies don't want to teach you to use them. 
They want you to know them already. They won't care if you know XML 
or SGML. They will focus on the tool.

Scott

Frame's future

[David Creamer]

> 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:
Government agencies, government contractors, corporations among others.

Not the clientele that Adobe wants to upset TOO much, regardless of the
actual number of software packages they purchase.

David Creamer
I.D.E.A.S. - Results-Oriented Training
http://www.IDEAStraining.com
Adobe Certified Trainer & Expert (since 1995)
Authorized Quark Training Provider (since 1988)
Markzware, Enfocus, FileMaker Certified
Apple Consultant Network member (since 1990)

Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

[qui...@airmail.net]

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 IE for Mac was running quite well on Mac OS
>X, but it was also the equivalent of at least one version behind Windows
>IE, IIRC. Safari is generally well-regarded, as are the others listed
>above. And, with MS pushing IE's "integration" into the Windows OS,
>there wasn't really a desire on their part to continue work on something
>without much tangible return. IE for Windows gets stuck into the Windows
>OS in such a way that it's VERY difficult to fully disentangle it from
>the OS and to fully use another browser instead. I've heard of many
>times where someone THINKS they've disabled IE as a default browser, but
>then something happens that launches IE instead of something else. As
>always, YMMV greatly from this.
>
>Samuel I. Beard, Jr.
>Technical Writer
>OI Analytical
>979 690-1711 Ext. 222
>sbeard at oico.com
>

They Chose not to because they were receiving competition, even 
though they still held a majority usage. If anything it highlights a 
very disturbing attitude behind Microsoft that many people still 
don't recognize.  As far as their attempt to integrate it into their 
OS, well, it's a veiled attempt to monopolize the Internet using an 
unfair advantage. And from a usability standpoint, it's a very stupid 
use of html.

Scott

Frame's future

[qui...@airmail.net]

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 afraid of its demise for the exact same reasons that Adobe 
dropped it for the Mac.

Don't be too smug.

Scott

RE: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

[quills]

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 IE for Mac was running quite well on Mac OS
X, but it was also the equivalent of at least one version behind Windows
IE, IIRC. Safari is generally well-regarded, as are the others listed
above. And, with MS pushing IE's "integration" into the Windows OS,
there wasn't really a desire on their part to continue work on something
without much tangible return. IE for Windows gets stuck into the Windows
OS in such a way that it's VERY difficult to fully disentangle it from
the OS and to fully use another browser instead. I've heard of many
times where someone THINKS they've disabled IE as a default browser, but
then something happens that launches IE instead of something else. As
always, YMMV greatly from this.

Samuel I. Beard, Jr.
Technical Writer
OI Analytical
979 690-1711 Ext. 222
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



They Chose not to because they were receiving competition, even 
though they still held a majority usage. If anything it highlights a 
very disturbing attitude behind Microsoft that many people still 
don't recognize.  As far as their attempt to integrate it into their 
OS, well, it's a veiled attempt to monopolize the Internet using an 
unfair advantage. And from a usability standpoint, it's a very stupid 
use of html.


Scott
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

RE: Frame's future

[quills]

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 afraid of its demise for the exact same reasons that Adobe 
dropped it for the Mac.


Don't be too smug.

Scott
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

[Art Campbell]

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 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 how to get 
> >a document to print on a Mac, even under the formidably taxing OSX. It just 
> >chose not to put them to work on FM, because there was little demand for its 
> >previous, non-OSX, new-feature-thin FM upgrades. Terrific.
>
> There may be other factors at work here. To create universal binaries that 
> will work on OS X across MacIntel and PowerPC platforms, Adobe has to migrate 
> their code base to XCode, the Apple development system. That process is, as I 
> understand it, well under way for the CS 2 applications.
>
> 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 all the 
> more complex, and might involve a major re-coding effort. All this ups cost 
> and reduces margins.
>
> --
> Steve
> ___
>
>

-- 
Art Campbell art.campbell at 
gmail.com
  "... In my opinion, there's nothing in this world beats a '52 Vincent
   and a redheaded girl." -- Richard Thompson
 No disclaimers apply.
 DoD 358

Frame's future

[Steve Rickaby]

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 Data General played catch-up with DEC in the early 
days of sixteen-bit minicomputers.

Moral: If you want to achieve the impossible, make sure that no-one involved 
believes that it *is* impossible.

I personally regret that what I thought at least started out as a relevant 
technical discussion has been perceived as flogging a dead horse. I also run a 
mixed shop of Macs and PCs, and operate a horses-for-courses platform policy. 
Over the years I have used FrameMaker on Unix, Mac and PC. There is nothing 
wrong with FrameMaker on PC, per se, it's just that all that Windows nastiness 
spoils it. And I mean, *really* spoils it.

We do indeed have out own platform for this sort of discussion, and I will 
attempt to refrain from platform specifics in future.

-- 
Steve

Frame's future

[Gordon McLean]

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
addressee. If you have received this communication in error please remove it 
and inform us via
telephone or email. Although we take all possible steps to ensure mail and 
attachments
are free from malicious content, malware and viruses, we cannot accept any 
responsibility
whatsoever for any changes to content outwith our administrative bounds. The 
views represented
within this mail are solely the view of the author and do not reflect the views 
of the organisation
as a whole.

Graham Technology plc
Registered in Scotland company no. SC143434
Registered Office India of Inchinnan, Renfrewshire, Scotland PA4 9LH

http://www.grahamtechnology.com

Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

[Sam Beard]

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 IE for Mac was running quite well on Mac OS
X, but it was also the equivalent of at least one version behind Windows
IE, IIRC. Safari is generally well-regarded, as are the others listed
above. And, with MS pushing IE's "integration" into the Windows OS,
there wasn't really a desire on their part to continue work on something
without much tangible return. IE for Windows gets stuck into the Windows
OS in such a way that it's VERY difficult to fully disentangle it from
the OS and to fully use another browser instead. I've heard of many
times where someone THINKS they've disabled IE as a default browser, but
then something happens that launches IE instead of something else. As
always, YMMV greatly from this.

Samuel I. Beard, Jr.
Technical Writer
OI Analytical
979 690-1711 Ext. 222
sbeard at oico.com


-Original Message-
From: framers-bounces+sbeard=oico@lists.frameusers.com
[mailto:framers-bounces+sbeard=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 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. 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 how to get a document to print on a Mac, even under the 
>>>formidably taxing OSX. It just chose not to put them to work on 
>>>FM, because there was little demand for its previous, non-OSX, 
>>>new-feature-thin FM upgrades. Terrific.
>>
>>There may be other factors at work here. To create universal 
>>binaries that will work on OS X across MacIntel and PowerPC 
>>platforms, Adobe has to migrate their code base to XCode, the Apple 
>>development system. That process is, as I understand it, well under 
>>way for the CS 2 applications.
>>
>>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 all the more complex, and 
>>might involve a major re-coding effort. All this ups cost and 
>>reduces margins.
>
>Who's side are you on, Steve ;-)
>
>In the early '90s, I made many a manual with Adobe FrameMaker 3.0 
>for NeXTSTEP.
>
>Hang on. Aren't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both built on BSD?
>
>Hang on. Aren't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both built on the Mach kernel?
>
>Hang on. Aren't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both object-orientated
environments?
>
>Hang on. Don't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both support Objective-C?
>
>Hang on. NeXTSTEP used Display PostScript, Mac OS X uses PDF. Isn't 
>PDF based on PostScript?
>
>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
><http://www.fm4osx.org/>

___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as sbeard at oico.com.

Send list messages to framers at lists.frameusers.com.

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
framers-unsubscribe at lists.frameusers.com
or visit
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/sbeard%40oico.com

Send administrative questions to listadmin at frameusers.com. Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Frame's future

[Bodvar Bjorgvinsson]

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 Mac lobby has made its positionknown elsewhere as well. There 
> are plenty of venues where you can rattle on about being abandoned by a large 
> corporation that made a perfectly sensible business decision that you 
> disapprove of.
> Feel free to flame me offline, but please stop clogging up thousands of 
> inboxes with the froth from relentlessly flogging this dead horse.
>
> john
>

I totally disagree. Adobe is not quite a dead horse, and they needs
some serious flogging -- and advise.
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".
This is a book about setting your goal, knowing your stuff and
focusing on the project more than how much profit you are going to
make by the end of the year.

I would without a doubt say that FrameMaker could have been their 747.
And it still can. But Adobe must learn to look away from the petty
things, like minor losses in the Mac and *n*x environments and to take
on the world in similar way as Joe Sutter and his collegues did. I
believe Adobe is slowly discovering what they already have in
FrameMaker. They should study it more. I am sure they will find that
they are sitting on a chest of fortune here.
This good a software should be selling on most platforms, also Linux,
just because it is so much faster to work with than the software that
seems to scare Adobe off: TeX/LaTeX! (And now I am flogging them!)

Bodvar

Re: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

[Art Campbell]

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:

>"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 how to get a 
document to print on a Mac, even under the formidably taxing OSX. It just chose 
not to put them to work on FM, because there was little demand for its previous, 
non-OSX, new-feature-thin FM upgrades. Terrific.

There may be other factors at work here. To create universal binaries that will 
work on OS X across MacIntel and PowerPC platforms, Adobe has to migrate their 
code base to XCode, the Apple development system. That process is, as I 
understand it, well under way for the CS 2 applications.

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 all the 
more complex, and might involve a major re-coding effort. All this ups cost and 
reduces margins.

--
Steve
___




--
Art Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 "... In my opinion, there's nothing in this world beats a '52 Vincent
  and a redheaded girl." -- Richard Thompson
No disclaimers apply.
DoD 358
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

RE: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

[Sam Beard]

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 IE for Mac was running quite well on Mac OS
X, but it was also the equivalent of at least one version behind Windows
IE, IIRC. Safari is generally well-regarded, as are the others listed
above. And, with MS pushing IE's "integration" into the Windows OS,
there wasn't really a desire on their part to continue work on something
without much tangible return. IE for Windows gets stuck into the Windows
OS in such a way that it's VERY difficult to fully disentangle it from
the OS and to fully use another browser instead. I've heard of many
times where someone THINKS they've disabled IE as a default browser, but
then something happens that launches IE instead of something else. As
always, YMMV greatly from this.

Samuel I. Beard, Jr.
Technical Writer
OI Analytical
979 690-1711 Ext. 222
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 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. 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 how to get a document to print on a Mac, even under the 
>>>formidably taxing OSX. It just chose not to put them to work on 
>>>FM, because there was little demand for its previous, non-OSX, 
>>>new-feature-thin FM upgrades. Terrific.
>>
>>There may be other factors at work here. To create universal 
>>binaries that will work on OS X across MacIntel and PowerPC 
>>platforms, Adobe has to migrate their code base to XCode, the Apple 
>>development system. That process is, as I understand it, well under 
>>way for the CS 2 applications.
>>
>>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 all the more complex, and 
>>might involve a major re-coding effort. All this ups cost and 
>>reduces margins.
>
>Who's side are you on, Steve ;-)
>
>In the early '90s, I made many a manual with Adobe FrameMaker 3.0 
>for NeXTSTEP.
>
>Hang on. Aren't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both built on BSD?
>
>Hang on. Aren't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both built on the Mach kernel?
>
>Hang on. Aren't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both object-orientated
environments?
>
>Hang on. Don't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both support Objective-C?
>
>Hang on. NeXTSTEP used Display PostScript, Mac OS X uses PDF. Isn't 
>PDF based on PostScript?
>
>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
><http://www.fm4osx.org/>

___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/sbeard%40oico.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

RE: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

[David Creamer]

> 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 showing corporate IT departments
that supporting Macs is not that difficult (and won't endanger their job
security). I still run into much ignorance in IT departments when it comes
to using and supporting the Mac--even after 6 years of OS X with all its
UNIX underpinnings.

If there were more Macs in the corporate world, I suspect there would have
been a re-written Frame. However, even if the percentages changed over the
next few years, I doubt that Frame will be re-written for the Mac; I image
there will be a new (or improved) cross-platform option by then--either from
Adobe or another company.

David Creamer
I.D.E.A.S. - Results-Oriented Training
http://www.IDEAStraining.com
Adobe Certified Trainer & Expert (since 1995)
Authorized Quark Training Provider (since 1988)
Markzware, Enfocus, FileMaker Certified
Apple Consultant Network member (since 1990)


___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

[David Creamer]

> 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 showing corporate IT departments
that supporting Macs is not that difficult (and won't endanger their job
security). I still run into much ignorance in IT departments when it comes
to using and supporting the Mac--even after 6 years of OS X with all its
UNIX underpinnings.

If there were more Macs in the corporate world, I suspect there would have
been a re-written Frame. However, even if the percentages changed over the
next few years, I doubt that Frame will be re-written for the Mac; I image
there will be a new (or improved) cross-platform option by then--either from
Adobe or another company.

David Creamer
I.D.E.A.S. - Results-Oriented Training
http://www.IDEAStraining.com
Adobe Certified Trainer & Expert (since 1995)
Authorized Quark Training Provider (since 1988)
Markzware, Enfocus, FileMaker Certified
Apple Consultant Network member (since 1990)

RE: Frame's future

[Gordon McLean]

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
addressee. If you have received this communication in error please remove it 
and inform us via
telephone or email. Although we take all possible steps to ensure mail and 
attachments
are free from malicious content, malware and viruses, we cannot accept any 
responsibility
whatsoever for any changes to content outwith our administrative bounds. The 
views represented
within this mail are solely the view of the author and do not reflect the views 
of the organisation
as a whole.

Graham Technology plc
Registered in Scotland company no. SC143434
Registered Office India of Inchinnan, Renfrewshire, Scotland PA4 9LH

http://www.grahamtechnology.com


___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Re: Frame's future

[Steve Rickaby]

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 Data General played catch-up with DEC in the early 
days of sixteen-bit minicomputers.

Moral: If you want to achieve the impossible, make sure that no-one involved 
believes that it *is* impossible.

I personally regret that what I thought at least started out as a relevant 
technical discussion has been perceived as flogging a dead horse. I also run a 
mixed shop of Macs and PCs, and operate a horses-for-courses platform policy. 
Over the years I have used FrameMaker on Unix, Mac and PC. There is nothing 
wrong with FrameMaker on PC, per se, it's just that all that Windows nastiness 
spoils it. And I mean, *really* spoils it.

We do indeed have out own platform for this sort of discussion, and I will 
attempt to refrain from platform specifics in future.

-- 
Steve
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Re: Frame's future

[Bodvar Bjorgvinsson]

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 
well-organized Mac lobby has made its positionknown elsewhere as well. There 
are plenty of venues where you can rattle on about being abandoned by a large 
corporation that made a perfectly sensible business decision that you 
disapprove of.
Feel free to flame me offline, but please stop clogging up thousands of inboxes 
with the froth from relentlessly flogging this dead horse.

john



I totally disagree. Adobe is not quite a dead horse, and they needs
some serious flogging -- and advise.
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".
This is a book about setting your goal, knowing your stuff and
focusing on the project more than how much profit you are going to
make by the end of the year.

I would without a doubt say that FrameMaker could have been their 747.
And it still can. But Adobe must learn to look away from the petty
things, like minor losses in the Mac and *n*x environments and to take
on the world in similar way as Joe Sutter and his collegues did. I
believe Adobe is slowly discovering what they already have in
FrameMaker. They should study it more. I am sure they will find that
they are sitting on a chest of fortune here.
This good a software should be selling on most platforms, also Linux,
just because it is so much faster to work with than the software that
seems to scare Adobe off: TeX/LaTeX! (And now I am flogging them!)

Bodvar
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Frame's future

[John Sgammato]

You know - I'm in the business of communicating, not pontificating. 
I work in Windows because our product runs on Windows, our customers run on 
Windows, and my tools run on Windows. I live in the real world, I work there, 
and I get paid there. 
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 Mac lobby has made its positionknown elsewhere as well. There 
are plenty of venues where you can rattle on about being abandoned by a large 
corporation that made a perfectly sensible business decision that you 
disapprove of. 
Feel free to flame me offline, but please stop clogging up thousands of inboxes 
with the froth from relentlessly flogging this dead horse.

john



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 PCs
because they're the corporate norm, but they still suck (for those of you
who think I'm a MacAddict, I've never owned one, I just know anything based
on unix must be better than the bloated goat Microsoft has built on DOS,
which was never a real OS).

--Sean Pollock
UGS Corp.

-Original Message-
From: framers-bounces+spolloc1=hotmail@lists.frameusers.com
[mailto:framers-bounces+spolloc1=hotmail.com at lists.frameusers.com] 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 14:00, 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 machines? They stabbed you in the back, 
>> too,
>> didn't they? Had Apple not made such a drastic change in its 
>> operating system, I'll bet Adobe would have made the last two 
>> FrameMaker point-upgrades available for Macs, too.

> Apple gave us something better. Adobe gave us nothing.

> Paul

Sorry, Mike. I think your comment deserves a better response.

Mac OS 9 was a fine OS in its day, but its time had come. We wanted a 
modern OS with pre-emptive multitasking, memory protection, and so 
on, especially those of us that had had first-hand experience of 
these things with NeXTSTEP in the early '90s. We started with Macs 
because that was the only show in town for DTP and WYSIWYG manual 
making, and the tools then were FrameMaker, PageMaker, or Quark. 
Believe it or not, Apple had 15.5% of the Japanese PC market in 1994, 
which had fallen to 6% by 1999. In the mid-'90s, with the success of 
Windows 95, Apple's failure to deliver a next-generation OS, and 
falling market share, I drew up contingency plans as to what we'd do 
if Apple disappeared. In a nutshell, the plan consisted of switching 
to Windows. Then, in late 1997, NeXT and Steve Jobs executed what I 
believe was a reverse takeover, and I knew then that we'd be getting 
NeXTSTEP or something even better on our Macs. Mac OS X was released 
in 2001. Adobe said it was porting its apps to Mac OS X, so we 
waited. But Adobe never delivered, discontinued Mac FrameMaker, and 
suggested that we switch to Windows. But having used NeXTSTEP and Mac 
OS X, we don't want to switch to Windows just to run FrameMaker 
(cost, training, security, viruses, etc). My contingency plans ended 
up in the dustbin.

As for the Classic environment, this was a transition tool to allow 
developers time to port their apps over to Mac OS X. Most did, 
including Adobe for most of its apps. Anyway, running Classic apps on 
an Intel Mac would require emulation and in my experience that means 
slow. This is a technical obstacle. Producing FrameMaker for Mac OS X 
on an Intel Mac would require a little effort by Adobe. At the 
moment, they don't have the will.

Of course, you have to remember that Apple today is not the Apple we 
used to know. When Steve Jobs returned in 1997, a new Apple was born. 
Pretty much like what happened at Adobe when the co-founders stepped 
aside in 2000 and a new CEO was appointed. Both companies continue 
with the same name, but their DNA, culture, and direction changed big 
time.

I'm passionate about my work and the tools I use to do it, and I want 
the best tools for the job, which is why I use FrameMaker and Mac. 
That's my op

Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

[qui...@airmail.net]

It's basically the same reasons that they decided that they didn't 
want to do it in the first place, several years ago. The real reason 
is that the user base was too small for their desired ROI.

I suppose that the only way Adobe could put this to bed would be to 
display their figures 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 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 how to get a document to print on a Mac, even under the 
>>  > formidably taxing OSX. It just chose not to put them to
>>  work on FM, 
>>  > because there was little demand for its previous, non-OSX, new-
>>  > feature-thin FM upgrades. Terrific.
>>  >
>>  > There may be other factors at work here. To create universal 
>>  > binaries that will work on OS X across MacIntel and PowerPC 
>>  > platforms, Adobe has to migrate their code base to XCode,
>>  the Apple 
>>  > development system. That process is, as I understand it,
>>  well under 
>>  > way for the CS 2 applications.
>>  >
>>  > 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 all the more complex, and 
>>  > might involve a major re-coding effort. All this ups cost and 
>>  > reduces margins.
>>
>>  Who's side are you on, Steve ;-)
>>
>>  In the early '90s, I made many a manual with Adobe FrameMaker
>>  3.0 for 
>>  NeXTSTEP.
>>
>>  Hang on. Aren't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both built on BSD?
>>
>>  Hang on. Aren't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both built on the Mach kernel?
>>
>>  Hang on. Aren't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both object-orientated 
>>  environments?
>>
>>  Hang on. Don't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both support Objective-C?
>>
>>  Hang on. NeXTSTEP used Display PostScript, Mac OS X uses PDF. Isn't 
>>  PDF based on PostScript?
>>
>>  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 are totally irrelevant to the situation
>at hand.
>
>   - Dov

Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

[qui...@airmail.net]

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. 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 how to get a document to print on a Mac, even under the 
>>>formidably taxing OSX. It just chose not to put them to work on 
>>>FM, because there was little demand for its previous, non-OSX, 
>>>new-feature-thin FM upgrades. Terrific.
>>
>>There may be other factors at work here. To create universal 
>>binaries that will work on OS X across MacIntel and PowerPC 
>>platforms, Adobe has to migrate their code base to XCode, the Apple 
>>development system. That process is, as I understand it, well under 
>>way for the CS 2 applications.
>>
>>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 all the more complex, and 
>>might involve a major re-coding effort. All this ups cost and 
>>reduces margins.
>
>Who's side are you on, Steve ;-)
>
>In the early '90s, I made many a manual with Adobe FrameMaker 3.0 
>for NeXTSTEP.
>
>Hang on. Aren't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both built on BSD?
>
>Hang on. Aren't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both built on the Mach kernel?
>
>Hang on. Aren't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both object-orientated environments?
>
>Hang on. Don't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both support Objective-C?
>
>Hang on. NeXTSTEP used Display PostScript, Mac OS X uses PDF. Isn't 
>PDF based on PostScript?
>
>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
>

Frame's future

[qui...@airmail.net]

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 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, I don't really see that there is a rush to real
>>  cost-effectiveness. Why not look around for alternatives?
>
>Because it's the right way to do it and I like to look at my face in
>the miror.
>
>John Posada
>Senior Technical Writer
>
>"I think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you've 
>never actually known what the question is."

Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

[Paul Findon]

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

Frame's future

[Paul Findon]

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 machines? They stabbed you in the back,  
>> too,
>> didn't they? Had Apple not made such a drastic change in its  
>> operating system, I'll bet Adobe would have made the last two  
>> FrameMaker point-upgrades available for Macs, too.

> Apple gave us something better. Adobe gave us nothing.

> Paul

Sorry, Mike. I think your comment deserves a better response.

Mac OS 9 was a fine OS in its day, but its time had come. We wanted a  
modern OS with pre-emptive multitasking, memory protection, and so  
on, especially those of us that had had first-hand experience of  
these things with NeXTSTEP in the early '90s. We started with Macs  
because that was the only show in town for DTP and WYSIWYG manual  
making, and the tools then were FrameMaker, PageMaker, or Quark.  
Believe it or not, Apple had 15.5% of the Japanese PC market in 1994,  
which had fallen to 6% by 1999. In the mid-'90s, with the success of  
Windows 95, Apple's failure to deliver a next-generation OS, and  
falling market share, I drew up contingency plans as to what we'd do  
if Apple disappeared. In a nutshell, the plan consisted of switching  
to Windows. Then, in late 1997, NeXT and Steve Jobs executed what I  
believe was a reverse takeover, and I knew then that we'd be getting  
NeXTSTEP or something even better on our Macs. Mac OS X was released  
in 2001. Adobe said it was porting its apps to Mac OS X, so we  
waited. But Adobe never delivered, discontinued Mac FrameMaker, and  
suggested that we switch to Windows. But having used NeXTSTEP and Mac  
OS X, we don't want to switch to Windows just to run FrameMaker  
(cost, training, security, viruses, etc). My contingency plans ended  
up in the dustbin.

As for the Classic environment, this was a transition tool to allow  
developers time to port their apps over to Mac OS X. Most did,  
including Adobe for most of its apps. Anyway, running Classic apps on  
an Intel Mac would require emulation and in my experience that means  
slow. This is a technical obstacle. Producing FrameMaker for Mac OS X  
on an Intel Mac would require a little effort by Adobe. At the  
moment, they don't have the will.

Of course, you have to remember that Apple today is not the Apple we  
used to know. When Steve Jobs returned in 1997, a new Apple was born.  
Pretty much like what happened at Adobe when the co-founders stepped  
aside in 2000 and a new CEO was appointed. Both companies continue  
with the same name, but their DNA, culture, and direction changed big  
time.

I'm passionate about my work and the tools I use to do it, and I want  
the best tools for the job, which is why I use FrameMaker and Mac.  
That's my opinion and others will no doubt disagree, but that's for  
them to decide. I'm not an evangelist and am perfectly happy buying  
computers from a company that sells a couple of million a month.  
Market share is moot. Of course, many members of this list probably  
have no control whatsoever over what hardware or software they use.  
Like all those Nortel employees that now use PTC Arbortext.

Let's not forget that this is not just an OS issue. Apple makes some  
of the best hardware in town, and I want to work with it.

Funny how it's some of the Windows users that are kicking off about  
fellow FrameMaker users and resorting to cliched stereotypes. What  
have they got to complain about? They've still got FrameMaker, and  
version 8.0 just around the corner.

Incidentally, we still use FrameMaker 6.0. There's been nothing  
compelling enough for us to change since. In hindsight, if I'd know  
Adobe would sight lack of Mac sales as a reason for no FrameMaker for  
Mac OS X, I would have bought every upgrade going.

Paul

Frame's future

[Sean Pollock]

Mike,

At least you have a real OS. Most of us in the business world use PCs
because they're the corporate norm, but they still suck (for those of you
who think I'm a MacAddict, I've never owned one, I just know anything based
on unix must be better than the bloated goat Microsoft has built on DOS,
which was never a real OS).

--Sean Pollock
UGS Corp.

-Original Message-
From: framers-bounces+spolloc1=hotmail@lists.frameusers.com
[mailto:framers-bounces+spolloc1=hotmail.com at lists.frameusers.com] 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 14:00, 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 machines? They stabbed you in the back,  
>> too,
>> didn't they? Had Apple not made such a drastic change in its  
>> operating system, I'll bet Adobe would have made the last two  
>> FrameMaker point-upgrades available for Macs, too.

> Apple gave us something better. Adobe gave us nothing.

> Paul

Sorry, Mike. I think your comment deserves a better response.

Mac OS 9 was a fine OS in its day, but its time had come. We wanted a  
modern OS with pre-emptive multitasking, memory protection, and so  
on, especially those of us that had had first-hand experience of  
these things with NeXTSTEP in the early '90s. We started with Macs  
because that was the only show in town for DTP and WYSIWYG manual  
making, and the tools then were FrameMaker, PageMaker, or Quark.  
Believe it or not, Apple had 15.5% of the Japanese PC market in 1994,  
which had fallen to 6% by 1999. In the mid-'90s, with the success of  
Windows 95, Apple's failure to deliver a next-generation OS, and  
falling market share, I drew up contingency plans as to what we'd do  
if Apple disappeared. In a nutshell, the plan consisted of switching  
to Windows. Then, in late 1997, NeXT and Steve Jobs executed what I  
believe was a reverse takeover, and I knew then that we'd be getting  
NeXTSTEP or something even better on our Macs. Mac OS X was released  
in 2001. Adobe said it was porting its apps to Mac OS X, so we  
waited. But Adobe never delivered, discontinued Mac FrameMaker, and  
suggested that we switch to Windows. But having used NeXTSTEP and Mac  
OS X, we don't want to switch to Windows just to run FrameMaker  
(cost, training, security, viruses, etc). My contingency plans ended  
up in the dustbin.

As for the Classic environment, this was a transition tool to allow  
developers time to port their apps over to Mac OS X. Most did,  
including Adobe for most of its apps. Anyway, running Classic apps on  
an Intel Mac would require emulation and in my experience that means  
slow. This is a technical obstacle. Producing FrameMaker for Mac OS X  
on an Intel Mac would require a little effort by Adobe. At the  
moment, they don't have the will.

Of course, you have to remember that Apple today is not the Apple we  
used to know. When Steve Jobs returned in 1997, a new Apple was born.  
Pretty much like what happened at Adobe when the co-founders stepped  
aside in 2000 and a new CEO was appointed. Both companies continue  
with the same name, but their DNA, culture, and direction changed big  
time.

I'm passionate about my work and the tools I use to do it, and I want  
the best tools for the job, which is why I use FrameMaker and Mac.  
That's my opinion and others will no doubt disagree, but that's for  
them to decide. I'm not an evangelist and am perfectly happy buying  
computers from a company that sells a couple of million a month.  
Market share is moot. Of course, many members of this list probably  
have no control whatsoever over what hardware or software they use.  
Like all those Nortel employees that now use PTC Arbortext.

Let's not forget that this is not just an OS issue. Apple makes some  
of the best hardware in town, and I want to work with it.

Funny how it's some of the Windows users that are kicking off about  
fellow FrameMaker users and resorting to cliched stereotypes. What  
have they got to complain about? They've still got FrameMaker, and  
version 8.0 just around the corner.

Incidentally, we still use FrameMaker 6.0. There's been nothing  
compelling enough for us to change since. In hindsight, if I'd know  
Adobe would sight lack of Mac sales as a reason for no FrameMaker for  
Mac OS X, I would have bought every upgrade going.

Paul
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as spollo

RE: Frame's future

[John Sgammato]

You know - I'm in the business of communicating, not pontificating. 
I work in Windows because our product runs on Windows, our customers run on 
Windows, and my tools run on Windows. I live in the real world, I work there, 
and I get paid there. 
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 Mac lobby has made its positionknown elsewhere as well. There 
are plenty of venues where you can rattle on about being abandoned by a large 
corporation that made a perfectly sensible business decision that you 
disapprove of. 
Feel free to flame me offline, but please stop clogging up thousands of inboxes 
with the froth from relentlessly flogging this dead horse.
 
john



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, but they still suck (for those of you
who think I'm a MacAddict, I've never owned one, I just know anything based
on unix must be better than the bloated goat Microsoft has built on DOS,
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 14:00, 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 machines? They stabbed you in the back, 
>> too,
>> didn't they? Had Apple not made such a drastic change in its 
>> operating system, I'll bet Adobe would have made the last two 
>> FrameMaker point-upgrades available for Macs, too.

> Apple gave us something better. Adobe gave us nothing.

> Paul

Sorry, Mike. I think your comment deserves a better response.

Mac OS 9 was a fine OS in its day, but its time had come. We wanted a 
modern OS with pre-emptive multitasking, memory protection, and so 
on, especially those of us that had had first-hand experience of 
these things with NeXTSTEP in the early '90s. We started with Macs 
because that was the only show in town for DTP and WYSIWYG manual 
making, and the tools then were FrameMaker, PageMaker, or Quark. 
Believe it or not, Apple had 15.5% of the Japanese PC market in 1994, 
which had fallen to 6% by 1999. In the mid-'90s, with the success of 
Windows 95, Apple's failure to deliver a next-generation OS, and 
falling market share, I drew up contingency plans as to what we'd do 
if Apple disappeared. In a nutshell, the plan consisted of switching 
to Windows. Then, in late 1997, NeXT and Steve Jobs executed what I 
believe was a reverse takeover, and I knew then that we'd be getting 
NeXTSTEP or something even better on our Macs. Mac OS X was released 
in 2001. Adobe said it was porting its apps to Mac OS X, so we 
waited. But Adobe never delivered, discontinued Mac FrameMaker, and 
suggested that we switch to Windows. But having used NeXTSTEP and Mac 
OS X, we don't want to switch to Windows just to run FrameMaker 
(cost, training, security, viruses, etc). My contingency plans ended 
up in the dustbin.

As for the Classic environment, this was a transition tool to allow 
developers time to port their apps over to Mac OS X. Most did, 
including Adobe for most of its apps. Anyway, running Classic apps on 
an Intel Mac would require emulation and in my experience that means 
slow. This is a technical obstacle. Producing FrameMaker for Mac OS X 
on an Intel Mac would require a little effort by Adobe. At the 
moment, they don't have the will.

Of course, you have to remember that Apple today is not the Apple we 
used to know. When Steve Jobs returned in 1997, a new Apple was born. 
Pretty much like what happened at Adobe when the co-founders stepped 
aside in 2000 and a new CEO was appointed. Both companies continue 
with the same name, but their DNA, culture, and direction changed big 
time.

I'm passionate about my work and the tools I use to do it, and I want 
the best tools for the job, which is why I use FrameMaker and Mac. 
That's my opinion and others will no doubt disagree, but that's for 
them to decide. I'm not an evangelist and am perfectly happy 

Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

[Paul Findon]

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 are totally irrelevant to the situation
> at hand.

I thought there would be a catch ;-)

Paul

RE: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

[quills]

It's basically the same reasons that they decided that they didn't 
want to do it in the first place, several years ago. The real reason 
is that the user base was too small for their desired ROI.


I suppose that the only way Adobe could put this to bed would be to 
display their figures 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 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 how to get a document to print on a Mac, even under the 
 > formidably taxing OSX. It just chose not to put them to
 work on FM, 
 > because there was little demand for its previous, non-OSX, new-

 > feature-thin FM upgrades. Terrific.
 >
 > There may be other factors at work here. To create universal 
 > binaries that will work on OS X across MacIntel and PowerPC 
 > platforms, Adobe has to migrate their code base to XCode,
 the Apple 
 > development system. That process is, as I understand it,
 well under 
 > way for the CS 2 applications.

 >
 > 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 all the more complex, and 
 > might involve a major re-coding effort. All this ups cost and 
 > reduces margins.


 Who's side are you on, Steve ;-)

 In the early '90s, I made many a manual with Adobe FrameMaker
 3.0 for 
 NeXTSTEP.


 Hang on. Aren't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both built on BSD?

 Hang on. Aren't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both built on the Mach kernel?

 Hang on. Aren't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both object-orientated 
 environments?


 Hang on. Don't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both support Objective-C?

 Hang on. NeXTSTEP used Display PostScript, Mac OS X uses PDF. Isn't 
 PDF based on PostScript?


 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 are totally irrelevant to the situation
at hand.

- Dov

___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Re: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

[quills]

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. 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 how to get a document to print on a Mac, even under the 
formidably taxing OSX. It just chose not to put them to work on 
FM, because there was little demand for its previous, non-OSX, 
new-feature-thin FM upgrades. Terrific.


There may be other factors at work here. To create universal 
binaries that will work on OS X across MacIntel and PowerPC 
platforms, Adobe has to migrate their code base to XCode, the Apple 
development system. That process is, as I understand it, well under 
way for the CS 2 applications.


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 all the more complex, and 
might involve a major re-coding effort. All this ups cost and 
reduces margins.


Who's side are you on, Steve ;-)

In the early '90s, I made many a manual with Adobe FrameMaker 3.0 
for NeXTSTEP.


Hang on. Aren't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both built on BSD?

Hang on. Aren't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both built on the Mach kernel?

Hang on. Aren't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both object-orientated environments?

Hang on. Don't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both support Objective-C?

Hang on. NeXTSTEP used Display PostScript, Mac OS X uses PDF. Isn't 
PDF based on PostScript?


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



___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Re: Frame's future

[quills]

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 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, I don't really see that there is a rush to real
 cost-effectiveness. Why not look around for alternatives?


Because it's the right way to do it and I like to look at my face in
the miror.

John Posada
Senior Technical Writer

"I think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you've 
never actually known what the question is."


___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

RE: Frame's future

[Sean Pollock]

Mike,

At least you have a real OS. Most of us in the business world use PCs
because they're the corporate norm, but they still suck (for those of you
who think I'm a MacAddict, I've never owned one, I just know anything based
on unix must be better than the bloated goat Microsoft has built on DOS,
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 14:00, 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 machines? They stabbed you in the back,  
>> too,
>> didn't they? Had Apple not made such a drastic change in its  
>> operating system, I'll bet Adobe would have made the last two  
>> FrameMaker point-upgrades available for Macs, too.

> Apple gave us something better. Adobe gave us nothing.

> Paul

Sorry, Mike. I think your comment deserves a better response.

Mac OS 9 was a fine OS in its day, but its time had come. We wanted a  
modern OS with pre-emptive multitasking, memory protection, and so  
on, especially those of us that had had first-hand experience of  
these things with NeXTSTEP in the early '90s. We started with Macs  
because that was the only show in town for DTP and WYSIWYG manual  
making, and the tools then were FrameMaker, PageMaker, or Quark.  
Believe it or not, Apple had 15.5% of the Japanese PC market in 1994,  
which had fallen to 6% by 1999. In the mid-'90s, with the success of  
Windows 95, Apple's failure to deliver a next-generation OS, and  
falling market share, I drew up contingency plans as to what we'd do  
if Apple disappeared. In a nutshell, the plan consisted of switching  
to Windows. Then, in late 1997, NeXT and Steve Jobs executed what I  
believe was a reverse takeover, and I knew then that we'd be getting  
NeXTSTEP or something even better on our Macs. Mac OS X was released  
in 2001. Adobe said it was porting its apps to Mac OS X, so we  
waited. But Adobe never delivered, discontinued Mac FrameMaker, and  
suggested that we switch to Windows. But having used NeXTSTEP and Mac  
OS X, we don't want to switch to Windows just to run FrameMaker  
(cost, training, security, viruses, etc). My contingency plans ended  
up in the dustbin.

As for the Classic environment, this was a transition tool to allow  
developers time to port their apps over to Mac OS X. Most did,  
including Adobe for most of its apps. Anyway, running Classic apps on  
an Intel Mac would require emulation and in my experience that means  
slow. This is a technical obstacle. Producing FrameMaker for Mac OS X  
on an Intel Mac would require a little effort by Adobe. At the  
moment, they don't have the will.

Of course, you have to remember that Apple today is not the Apple we  
used to know. When Steve Jobs returned in 1997, a new Apple was born.  
Pretty much like what happened at Adobe when the co-founders stepped  
aside in 2000 and a new CEO was appointed. Both companies continue  
with the same name, but their DNA, culture, and direction changed big  
time.

I'm passionate about my work and the tools I use to do it, and I want  
the best tools for the job, which is why I use FrameMaker and Mac.  
That's my opinion and others will no doubt disagree, but that's for  
them to decide. I'm not an evangelist and am perfectly happy buying  
computers from a company that sells a couple of million a month.  
Market share is moot. Of course, many members of this list probably  
have no control whatsoever over what hardware or software they use.  
Like all those Nortel employees that now use PTC Arbortext.

Let's not forget that this is not just an OS issue. Apple makes some  
of the best hardware in town, and I want to work with it.

Funny how it's some of the Windows users that are kicking off about  
fellow FrameMaker users and resorting to cliched stereotypes. What  
have they got to complain about? They've still got FrameMaker, and  
version 8.0 just around the corner.

Incidentally, we still use FrameMaker 6.0. There's been nothing  
compelling enough for us to change since. In hindsight, if I'd know  
Adobe would sight lack of Mac sales as a reason for no FrameMaker for  
Mac OS X, I would have bought every upgrade going.

Paul
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a b

Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

[Steve Rickaby]

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 logic and 
reason ;-)

-- 
Steve

Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

[Steve Rickaby]

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 and was ill 
for weeks afterwards.

>In the early '90s, I made many a manual with Adobe FrameMaker 3.0 for NeXTSTEP.
>
>Hang on. Aren't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both built on BSD?
>
>Hang on. Aren't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both built on the Mach kernel?
>
>Hang on. Aren't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both object-orientated environments?
>
>Hang on. Don't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both support Objective-C?
>
>Hang on. NeXTSTEP used Display PostScript, Mac OS X uses PDF. Isn't PDF based 
>on PostScript?
>
>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?

All this is true. However, it's the Apple layers above Darwin that would likely 
cause most of the adaptation effort.

-- 
Steve

Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

[Paul Findon]

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 people  
> who know how to get a document to print on a Mac, even under the  
> formidably taxing OSX. It just chose not to put them to work on FM,  
> because there was little demand for its previous, non-OSX, new- 
> feature-thin FM upgrades. Terrific.
>
> There may be other factors at work here. To create universal  
> binaries that will work on OS X across MacIntel and PowerPC  
> platforms, Adobe has to migrate their code base to XCode, the Apple  
> development system. That process is, as I understand it, well under  
> way for the CS 2 applications.
>
> 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 all the more complex, and  
> might involve a major re-coding effort. All this ups cost and  
> reduces margins.

Who's side are you on, Steve ;-)

In the early '90s, I made many a manual with Adobe FrameMaker 3.0 for  
NeXTSTEP.

Hang on. Aren't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both built on BSD?

Hang on. Aren't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both built on the Mach kernel?

Hang on. Aren't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both object-orientated  
environments?

Hang on. Don't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both support Objective-C?

Hang on. NeXTSTEP used Display PostScript, Mac OS X uses PDF. Isn't  
PDF based on PostScript?

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

Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

[Steve Rickaby]

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. So Adobe employs people who know how to get a 
>document to print on a Mac, even under the formidably taxing OSX. It just 
>chose not to put them to work on FM, because there was little demand for its 
>previous, non-OSX, new-feature-thin FM upgrades. Terrific.

There may be other factors at work here. To create universal binaries that will 
work on OS X across MacIntel and PowerPC platforms, Adobe has to migrate their 
code base to XCode, the Apple development system. That process is, as I 
understand it, well under way for the CS 2 applications.

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 all the 
more complex, and might involve a major re-coding effort. All this ups cost and 
reduces margins.

-- 
Steve

Frame's future

[Paul Findon]

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 machines? They stabbed you in the back, too,
> didn't they? Had Apple not made such a drastic change in its  
> operating system, I'll bet Adobe would have made the last two  
> FrameMaker point-upgrades available for Macs, too.

Apple gave us something better. Adobe gave us nothing.

Paul

RE: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

[Chris Borokowski]

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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> It is quite difficult because the "similarities"
> you describe are totally irrelevant to the situation
> at hand.


http://www.dionysius.com
code | tech | docs | leadership


 

Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Re: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

[Paul Findon]

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
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Re: Frame's future

[Paul Findon]

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 machines? They stabbed you in the back,  
too,
didn't they? Had Apple not made such a drastic change in its  
operating system, I'll bet Adobe would have made the last two  
FrameMaker point-upgrades available for Macs, too.



Apple gave us something better. Adobe gave us nothing.



Paul


Sorry, Mike. I think your comment deserves a better response.

Mac OS 9 was a fine OS in its day, but its time had come. We wanted a  
modern OS with pre-emptive multitasking, memory protection, and so  
on, especially those of us that had had first-hand experience of  
these things with NeXTSTEP in the early '90s. We started with Macs  
because that was the only show in town for DTP and WYSIWYG manual  
making, and the tools then were FrameMaker, PageMaker, or Quark.  
Believe it or not, Apple had 15.5% of the Japanese PC market in 1994,  
which had fallen to 6% by 1999. In the mid-'90s, with the success of  
Windows 95, Apple's failure to deliver a next-generation OS, and  
falling market share, I drew up contingency plans as to what we'd do  
if Apple disappeared. In a nutshell, the plan consisted of switching  
to Windows. Then, in late 1997, NeXT and Steve Jobs executed what I  
believe was a reverse takeover, and I knew then that we'd be getting  
NeXTSTEP or something even better on our Macs. Mac OS X was released  
in 2001. Adobe said it was porting its apps to Mac OS X, so we  
waited. But Adobe never delivered, discontinued Mac FrameMaker, and  
suggested that we switch to Windows. But having used NeXTSTEP and Mac  
OS X, we don't want to switch to Windows just to run FrameMaker  
(cost, training, security, viruses, etc). My contingency plans ended  
up in the dustbin.


As for the Classic environment, this was a transition tool to allow  
developers time to port their apps over to Mac OS X. Most did,  
including Adobe for most of its apps. Anyway, running Classic apps on  
an Intel Mac would require emulation and in my experience that means  
slow. This is a technical obstacle. Producing FrameMaker for Mac OS X  
on an Intel Mac would require a little effort by Adobe. At the  
moment, they don't have the will.


Of course, you have to remember that Apple today is not the Apple we  
used to know. When Steve Jobs returned in 1997, a new Apple was born.  
Pretty much like what happened at Adobe when the co-founders stepped  
aside in 2000 and a new CEO was appointed. Both companies continue  
with the same name, but their DNA, culture, and direction changed big  
time.


I'm passionate about my work and the tools I use to do it, and I want  
the best tools for the job, which is why I use FrameMaker and Mac.  
That's my opinion and others will no doubt disagree, but that's for  
them to decide. I'm not an evangelist and am perfectly happy buying  
computers from a company that sells a couple of million a month.  
Market share is moot. Of course, many members of this list probably  
have no control whatsoever over what hardware or software they use.  
Like all those Nortel employees that now use PTC Arbortext.


Let's not forget that this is not just an OS issue. Apple makes some  
of the best hardware in town, and I want to work with it.


Funny how it's some of the Windows users that are kicking off about  
fellow FrameMaker users and resorting to cliched stereotypes. What  
have they got to complain about? They've still got FrameMaker, and  
version 8.0 just around the corner.


Incidentally, we still use FrameMaker 6.0. There's been nothing  
compelling enough for us to change since. In hindsight, if I'd know  
Adobe would sight lack of Mac sales as a reason for no FrameMaker for  
Mac OS X, I would have bought every upgrade going.


Paul
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Re: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

[Paul Findon]

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 are totally irrelevant to the situation
at hand.


I thought there would be a catch ;-)

Paul
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

[Ann Zdunczyk]

>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
all the more complex, and might involve a major re-coding effort. All this
ups cost and reduces margins. 

If I remember correctly this is why it was easier to create InDesign from
scratch rather than upgrade Pagemaker code anymore. I know someone out there
will correct me if I am wrong.

Z


**
Ann Zdunczyk
President
a2z Publishing, Inc.
Language Layout & Translation Consulting
Phone: (336)922-1271
Fax:   (336)922-4980
Cell:  (336)456-4493
http://www.a2z-pub.com
**

Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

[Chris Borokowski]

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 because the "similarities"
> you describe are totally irrelevant to the situation
> at hand.


http://www.dionysius.com
code | tech | docs | leadership




Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/

Re: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

[Syed Zaeem Hosain]

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 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.

Yes, grass-roots efforts to make changes sometimes work, but this one
(i.e., trying to get Adobe to provide recent versions of FrameMaker
on a Mac) has failed multiple times. Let's move on and get over it.


[rest deleted for brevity]


Combs, Richard wrote:

Steve Rickaby wrote:


___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

[Syed Zaeem Hosain]

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 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.
> 
> Yes, grass-roots efforts to make changes sometimes work, but this one
> (i.e., trying to get Adobe to provide recent versions of FrameMaker
> on a Mac) has failed multiple times. Let's move on and get over it.

[rest deleted for brevity]

> Combs, Richard wrote:
>> Steve Rickaby wrote:

RE: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

[Steve Rickaby]

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 logic and 
reason ;-)

-- 
Steve
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

RE: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

[Dov Isaacs]

 

> -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 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 how to get a document to print on a Mac, even under the  
> > formidably taxing OSX. It just chose not to put them to 
> work on FM,  
> > because there was little demand for its previous, non-OSX, new- 
> > feature-thin FM upgrades. Terrific.
> >
> > There may be other factors at work here. To create universal  
> > binaries that will work on OS X across MacIntel and PowerPC  
> > platforms, Adobe has to migrate their code base to XCode, 
> the Apple  
> > development system. That process is, as I understand it, 
> well under  
> > way for the CS 2 applications.
> >
> > 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 all the more complex, and  
> > might involve a major re-coding effort. All this ups cost and  
> > reduces margins.
> 
> Who's side are you on, Steve ;-)
> 
> In the early '90s, I made many a manual with Adobe FrameMaker 
> 3.0 for  
> NeXTSTEP.
> 
> Hang on. Aren't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both built on BSD?
> 
> Hang on. Aren't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both built on the Mach kernel?
> 
> Hang on. Aren't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both object-orientated  
> environments?
> 
> Hang on. Don't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both support Objective-C?
> 
> Hang on. NeXTSTEP used Display PostScript, Mac OS X uses PDF. Isn't  
> PDF based on PostScript?
> 
> 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 are totally irrelevant to the situation
at hand.

- Dov
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

[Dov Isaacs]

> -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 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 how to get a document to print on a Mac, even under the  
> > formidably taxing OSX. It just chose not to put them to 
> work on FM,  
> > because there was little demand for its previous, non-OSX, new- 
> > feature-thin FM upgrades. Terrific.
> >
> > There may be other factors at work here. To create universal  
> > binaries that will work on OS X across MacIntel and PowerPC  
> > platforms, Adobe has to migrate their code base to XCode, 
> the Apple  
> > development system. That process is, as I understand it, 
> well under  
> > way for the CS 2 applications.
> >
> > 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 all the more complex, and  
> > might involve a major re-coding effort. All this ups cost and  
> > reduces margins.
> 
> Who's side are you on, Steve ;-)
> 
> In the early '90s, I made many a manual with Adobe FrameMaker 
> 3.0 for  
> NeXTSTEP.
> 
> Hang on. Aren't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both built on BSD?
> 
> Hang on. Aren't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both built on the Mach kernel?
> 
> Hang on. Aren't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both object-orientated  
> environments?
> 
> Hang on. Don't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both support Objective-C?
> 
> Hang on. NeXTSTEP used Display PostScript, Mac OS X uses PDF. Isn't  
> PDF based on PostScript?
> 
> 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 are totally irrelevant to the situation
at hand.

- Dov

RE: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

[Dov Isaacs]

The other Adobe applications use a common graphics
subystem based on Adobe's AGM, CoolType, ACE, and other
Core Technology components used for the various interfaces
described below. FrameMaker is not based on these components
and cannot leverage the MacOS X portation work done for 
those products for a FrameMaker portation. Plus, at this 
point, a migration of development tools to xCode would need 
to be done from Code Warrior, a double whammy in terms of 
time and cost.

- Dov
 

> -Original Message-
> From: Graeme R Forbes
> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 8:39 AM
> To: framers@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, Illustrator, InDesign, etc. etc. So Adobe employs people who 
> know how to get a document to print on a Mac, even under the 
> formidably taxing OSX. It just chose not to put them to work on FM, 
> because there was little demand for its previous, non-OSX, 
> new-feature-thin FM upgrades. Terrific.
> 
> Graeme Forbes
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

[Dov Isaacs]

The other Adobe applications use a common graphics
subystem based on Adobe's AGM, CoolType, ACE, and other
Core Technology components used for the various interfaces
described below. FrameMaker is not based on these components
and cannot leverage the MacOS X portation work done for 
those products for a FrameMaker portation. Plus, at this 
point, a migration of development tools to xCode would need 
to be done from Code Warrior, a double whammy in terms of 
time and cost.

- Dov


> -Original Message-
> From: Graeme R Forbes
> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 8:39 AM
> To: framers at 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, Illustrator, InDesign, etc. etc. So Adobe employs people who 
> know how to get a document to print on a Mac, even under the 
> formidably taxing OSX. It just chose not to put them to work on FM, 
> because there was little demand for its previous, non-OSX, 
> new-feature-thin FM upgrades. Terrific.
> 
> Graeme Forbes

Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

[Combs, Richard]

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 production base such as XCode would be all 
> the more complex, and might involve a major re-coding effort. 
> All this ups cost and reduces margins.

Give it up, Steve. You're using logic and reason, and the True Believers
aren't swayed by those. In fact, references to "cost" and "margins" are
downright offensive to the Keepers of the Dogma. Hang the cost -- Adobe
shouldn't "betray the faith"! 

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! ;-) 

Richard


--
Richard G. Combs
Senior Technical Writer
Polycom, Inc.
richardDOTcombs AT polycomDOTcom
303-223-5111
--
rgcombs AT gmailDOTcom
303-777-0436
--

Re: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

[Syed Zaeem Hosain]

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.

Yes, grass-roots efforts to make changes sometimes work, but this one
(i.e., trying to get Adobe to provide recent versions of FrameMaker
on a Mac) has failed multiple times. Let's move on and get over it.

FWIW, I have been using FrameMaker since 1988 - off and on - on old
Sun 3's running SunOS, through the latest version running on my laptop
on Windows XP. Including a brief stint on a Mac, although not for any
serious large document.

The point is that it is the application that is important - not the OS.
The OS and platform are merely tools to get the job done (and ultimately
so is the application too!).

I use whatever *application* makes the task at hand easier. So, I have
three different computers in my office - two Windows systems and a
Sun Solaris system (no Mac, because I have no particular need for an
application that is specific to that platform/OS only). Depending on
what I need to do, I reach for a different keyboard and mouse and focus
on the task.

Yes, if, for some strange reason, someday, Adobe drops FrameMaker as
a product, I will also change and will find another solution and make
it work for what I need done - warts and all - because that is life.

Regards,

Z

Combs, Richard wrote:

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 production base such as XCode would be all 
the more complex, and might involve a major re-coding effort. 
All this ups cost and reduces margins.


Give it up, Steve. You're using logic and reason, and the True Believers
aren't swayed by those. In fact, references to "cost" and "margins" are
downright offensive to the Keepers of the Dogma. Hang the cost -- Adobe
shouldn't "betray the faith"! 


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! ;-) 


Richard


--
Richard G. Combs
Senior Technical Writer
Polycom, Inc.
richardDOTcombs AT polycomDOTcom
303-223-5111
--
rgcombs AT gmailDOTcom
303-777-0436
--


___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

[Syed Zaeem Hosain]

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.

Yes, grass-roots efforts to make changes sometimes work, but this one
(i.e., trying to get Adobe to provide recent versions of FrameMaker
on a Mac) has failed multiple times. Let's move on and get over it.

FWIW, I have been using FrameMaker since 1988 - off and on - on old
Sun 3's running SunOS, through the latest version running on my laptop
on Windows XP. Including a brief stint on a Mac, although not for any
serious large document.

The point is that it is the application that is important - not the OS.
The OS and platform are merely tools to get the job done (and ultimately
so is the application too!).

I use whatever *application* makes the task at hand easier. So, I have
three different computers in my office - two Windows systems and a
Sun Solaris system (no Mac, because I have no particular need for an
application that is specific to that platform/OS only). Depending on
what I need to do, I reach for a different keyboard and mouse and focus
on the task.

Yes, if, for some strange reason, someday, Adobe drops FrameMaker as
a product, I will also change and will find another solution and make
it work for what I need done - warts and all - because that is life.

Regards,

Z

Combs, Richard wrote:
> 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 production base such as XCode would be all 
>> the more complex, and might involve a major re-coding effort. 
>> All this ups cost and reduces margins.
> 
> Give it up, Steve. You're using logic and reason, and the True Believers
> aren't swayed by those. In fact, references to "cost" and "margins" are
> downright offensive to the Keepers of the Dogma. Hang the cost -- Adobe
> shouldn't "betray the faith"! 
> 
> 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! ;-) 
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> --
> Richard G. Combs
> Senior Technical Writer
> Polycom, Inc.
> richardDOTcombs AT polycomDOTcom
> 303-223-5111
> --
> rgcombs AT gmailDOTcom
> 303-777-0436
> --

Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

[Graeme R Forbes]

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 how to get a document to print on a Mac, even under the 
formidably taxing OSX. It just chose not to put them to work on FM, 
because there was little demand for its previous, non-OSX, 
new-feature-thin FM upgrades. Terrific.

Graeme Forbes

RE: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

[Combs, Richard]

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 production base such as XCode would be all 
> the more complex, and might involve a major re-coding effort. 
> All this ups cost and reduces margins.

Give it up, Steve. You're using logic and reason, and the True Believers
aren't swayed by those. In fact, references to "cost" and "margins" are
downright offensive to the Keepers of the Dogma. Hang the cost -- Adobe
shouldn't "betray the faith"! 

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! ;-) 

Richard


--
Richard G. Combs
Senior Technical Writer
Polycom, Inc.
richardDOTcombs AT polycomDOTcom
303-223-5111
--
rgcombs AT gmailDOTcom
303-777-0436
--




___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Re: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

[Steve Rickaby]

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 and was ill 
for weeks afterwards.

>In the early '90s, I made many a manual with Adobe FrameMaker 3.0 for NeXTSTEP.
>
>Hang on. Aren't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both built on BSD?
>
>Hang on. Aren't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both built on the Mach kernel?
>
>Hang on. Aren't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both object-orientated environments?
>
>Hang on. Don't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both support Objective-C?
>
>Hang on. NeXTSTEP used Display PostScript, Mac OS X uses PDF. Isn't PDF based 
>on PostScript?
>
>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?

All this is true. However, it's the Apple layers above Darwin that would likely 
cause most of the adaptation effort.

-- 
Steve
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Re: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

[Paul Findon]

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 people  
who know how to get a document to print on a Mac, even under the  
formidably taxing OSX. It just chose not to put them to work on FM,  
because there was little demand for its previous, non-OSX, new- 
feature-thin FM upgrades. Terrific.


There may be other factors at work here. To create universal  
binaries that will work on OS X across MacIntel and PowerPC  
platforms, Adobe has to migrate their code base to XCode, the Apple  
development system. That process is, as I understand it, well under  
way for the CS 2 applications.


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 all the more complex, and  
might involve a major re-coding effort. All this ups cost and  
reduces margins.


Who's side are you on, Steve ;-)

In the early '90s, I made many a manual with Adobe FrameMaker 3.0 for  
NeXTSTEP.


Hang on. Aren't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both built on BSD?

Hang on. Aren't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both built on the Mach kernel?

Hang on. Aren't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both object-orientated  
environments?


Hang on. Don't NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X both support Objective-C?

Hang on. NeXTSTEP used Display PostScript, Mac OS X uses PDF. Isn't  
PDF based on PostScript?


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

___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

RE: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

[Ann Zdunczyk]

>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
all the more complex, and might involve a major re-coding effort. All this
ups cost and reduces margins. 

If I remember correctly this is why it was easier to create InDesign from
scratch rather than upgrade Pagemaker code anymore. I know someone out there
will correct me if I am wrong.

Z


**
Ann Zdunczyk
President
a2z Publishing, Inc.
Language Layout & Translation Consulting
Phone: (336)922-1271
Fax:   (336)922-4980
Cell:  (336)456-4493
http://www.a2z-pub.com
**


___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

RE: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

[Steve Rickaby]

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. So Adobe employs people who know how to get a 
>document to print on a Mac, even under the formidably taxing OSX. It just 
>chose not to put them to work on FM, because there was little demand for its 
>previous, non-OSX, new-feature-thin FM upgrades. Terrific.

There may be other factors at work here. To create universal binaries that will 
work on OS X across MacIntel and PowerPC platforms, Adobe has to migrate their 
code base to XCode, the Apple development system. That process is, as I 
understand it, well under way for the CS 2 applications.

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 all the 
more complex, and might involve a major re-coding effort. All this ups cost and 
reduces margins.

-- 
Steve
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

RE: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

[Graeme R Forbes]

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 how to get a document to print on a Mac, even under the 
formidably taxing OSX. It just chose not to put them to work on FM, 
because there was little demand for its previous, non-OSX, 
new-feature-thin FM upgrades. Terrific.


Graeme Forbes
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Frame's future

[Mike Wickham]

> 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 they? Had Apple not made such a drastic change in its operating 
system, I'll bet Adobe would have made the last two FrameMaker 
point-upgrades available for Macs, too.

Mike Wickham

Re: Frame's future

[Paul Findon]

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 machines? They stabbed you in the back, too,
didn't they? Had Apple not made such a drastic change in its  
operating system, I'll bet Adobe would have made the last two  
FrameMaker point-upgrades available for Macs, too.


Apple gave us something better. Adobe gave us nothing.

Paul
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Re: Frame's future

[Mike Wickham]

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 they? Had Apple not made such a drastic change in its operating 
system, I'll bet Adobe would have made the last two FrameMaker 
point-upgrades available for Macs, too.


Mike Wickham


___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Re: Frame's future

[John Posada]

> 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, I don't really see that there is a rush to real 
> cost-effectiveness. Why not look around for alternatives?

Because it's the right way to do it and I like to look at my face in
the miror.

John Posada
Senior Technical Writer

"I think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you've never 
actually known what the question is."
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Frame's future

[John Posada]

> 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, I don't really see that there is a rush to real 
> cost-effectiveness. Why not look around for alternatives?

Because it's the right way to do it and I like to look at my face in
the miror.

John Posada
Senior Technical Writer

"I think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you've never 
actually known what the question is."

Frame's future

[qui...@airmail.net]

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, we'll go to a company who has never acknowledged us for an
>untested product "that looks promising", simply because we're pissed
>at the other guy.
>
>And this is the justification upon which you spend your company's
>money?
>
>Shame on you.
>
>John Posada
>Senior Technical Writer

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.

Considering that most companies are still using Windows XP and in 
some cases are only now switching to it from W2K, and how most IT 
departments are  not supporting workflows with an eye to making work 
easier for us, I don't really see that there is a rush to real 
cost-effectiveness. Why not look around for alternatives?

Scott

Re: Frame's future

[quills]

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, we'll go to a company who has never acknowledged us for an
untested product "that looks promising", simply because we're pissed
at the other guy.

And this is the justification upon which you spend your company's
money?

Shame on you.

John Posada
Senior Technical Writer


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.


Considering that most companies are still using Windows XP and in 
some cases are only now switching to it from W2K, and how most IT 
departments are  not supporting workflows with an eye to making work 
easier for us, I don't really see that there is a rush to real 
cost-effectiveness. Why not look around for alternatives?


Scott
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Frame's future

[Paul Findon]

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.
> Therefore, we'll go to a company who has never acknowledged us for an
> untested product "that looks promising", simply because we're pissed
> at the other guy.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, John. Perhaps I didn't make myself  
clear.

Yes, I would rather use another company's product. That's human  
nature. 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. If Blaze turns out not to be a viable alternative,  
like the many other possible alternatives I've looked at over the  
last 3 years, I'm fully prepared to continue with the devil I know.

> And this is the justification upon which you spend your company's
> money?

No.

> Shame on you.

Thanks for the judgement, John - kinda thing my mother used to say.

Paul

Frame's future

[Paul Findon]

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 our frustrations is that there is no  
FrameMaker alternative on the Mac. The general feeling is that if  
we're forced to use Windows, be it via virtualization, Boot Camp, or  
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.

Don't worry. Hopefully, there will be an introductory cross-grade  
offer for Windows FrameMaker users, too.

Paul

Frame's future

[Art Campbell]

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 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:
> >
> > 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: info at madcapsoftware.com
> > Sales: sales at madcapsoftware.com
> >
> >
> > Perhaps we can work out a deal for the nearly 4,000 FrameMaker users
> > who've signed the FrameMaker for Mac OS X petition, such as an
> > introductory discount on Blaze or the MadPak Authoring Suite, which
> > will no doubt include Blaze when it's released.
> >
> > Incidentally, there's an interesting podcast at Tech Writer Voices
> > with Mike Hamilton, Madcap's VP, Product Managemen, giving a Flare
> > Demo to the Suncoast Chapter.
> >  > demo-to-the-suncoast-chapter/>
> >
> > Paul
> > 
> > ___
> >
> >
> > You are currently subscribed to Framers as paulpehrson at gmail.com.
> >
> > Send list messages to framers at lists.frameusers.com.
> >
> > To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> > framers-unsubscribe at lists.frameusers.com
> > or visit
> > http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/paulpehrson%40gmail.com
> >
> > Send administrative questions to listadmin at frameusers.com. Visit
> > http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Paul Pehrson
> Midvale, UT
> www.paulpehrson.com   blog.paulpehrson.com
> ___
>



-- 
Art Campbell art.campbell at 
gmail.com
  "... In my opinion, there's nothing in this world beats a '52 Vincent
   and a redheaded girl." -- Richard Thompson
 No disclaimers apply.
 DoD 358

Frame's future

[Peter Gold]

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

Re: Frame's future

[William Gaffga]

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 compelling reason to force a move. Now that we are  
EOL'd by Adobe's lack of support for the Mac we need to look at  
transition options.


Frankly, FrameMaker, as much as I like it, is showing its age and the  
PC version has quirks that are a PITA (fonts, keybd shortcuts ...).  
So, if we need to make a jump, why not look at MadCap and be excited?  
Their workflow seems to be better than our current FM -> WebWorks (we  
use a PC for that).


I know of a few others in similar situations. So, for at least some,  
it is about logic.

Then again, I dare anyone to try and take my G5 from me :-)

Will.

On Feb 28, 2007, at 7:59 AM, 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.

Cheers,
Art

___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Frame's future

[William Gaffga]

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 compelling reason to force a move. Now that we are  
EOL'd by Adobe's lack of support for the Mac we need to look at  
transition options.

Frankly, FrameMaker, as much as I like it, is showing its age and the  
PC version has quirks that are a PITA (fonts, keybd shortcuts ...).  
So, if we need to make a jump, why not look at MadCap and be excited?  
Their workflow seems to be better than our current FM -> WebWorks (we  
use a PC for that).

I know of a few others in similar situations. So, for at least some,  
it is about logic.
Then again, I dare anyone to try and take my G5 from me :-)

Will.

On Feb 28, 2007, at 7:59 AM, 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.
>
> Cheers,
> Art

Re: Frame's future

[Paul Findon]

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.
Therefore, we'll go to a company who has never acknowledged us for an
untested product "that looks promising", simply because we're pissed
at the other guy.


Sorry for the misunderstanding, John. Perhaps I didn't make myself  
clear.


Yes, I would rather use another company's product. That's human  
nature. 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. If Blaze turns out not to be a viable alternative,  
like the many other possible alternatives I've looked at over the  
last 3 years, I'm fully prepared to continue with the devil I know.



And this is the justification upon which you spend your company's
money?


No.


Shame on you.


Thanks for the judgement, John - kinda thing my mother used to say.

Paul
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

RE: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

[Chris Borokowski]

I should've known that. Thanks for an informative
summary!

--- Dov Isaacs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Although MacOS X has UNIX underpinnings, the
> difficult
> stuff relating to user interfaces, font access,
> output,
> etc. is all exclusive to MacOS X and has no real
> similarity
> to Solaris, the other platform on which FrameMaker
> is still
> supported (other than Windows). And of course, you
> have
> differences 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 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > One of our frustrations is
> > > that there is no  
> > > FrameMaker alternative on the Mac.
> 


http://www.dionysius.com
code | tech | docs | leadership


 

Bored stiff? Loosen up... 
Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.
http://games.yahoo.com/games/front
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Re: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

[Chris Borokowski]

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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One of our frustrations is
> that there is no  
> FrameMaker alternative on the Mac.



http://www.dionysius.com
code | tech | docs | leadership



 

Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

[Chris Borokowski]

I should've known that. Thanks for an informative
summary!

--- Dov Isaacs  wrote:

> Although MacOS X has UNIX underpinnings, the
> difficult
> stuff relating to user interfaces, font access,
> output,
> etc. is all exclusive to MacOS X and has no real
> similarity
> to Solaris, the other platform on which FrameMaker
> is still
> supported (other than Windows). And of course, you
> have
> differences 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 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 considered Linux?
> > 
> > --- Paul Findon  wrote:
> > > One of our frustrations is
> > > that there is no  
> > > FrameMaker alternative on the Mac.
> 


http://www.dionysius.com
code | tech | docs | leadership




Bored stiff? Loosen up... 
Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.
http://games.yahoo.com/games/front

Re: Frame's future

[Peter Gold]

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
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Re: Frame's future

[Art Campbell]

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 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 PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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 the nearly 4,000 FrameMaker users
> who've signed the FrameMaker for Mac OS X petition, such as an
> introductory discount on Blaze or the MadPak Authoring Suite, which
> will no doubt include Blaze when it's released.
>
> Incidentally, there's an interesting podcast at Tech Writer Voices
> with Mike Hamilton, Madcap's VP, Product Managemen, giving a Flare
> Demo to the Suncoast Chapter.
>  demo-to-the-suncoast-chapter/>
>
> Paul
> 
> ___
>
>
> You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> or visit
> http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/paulpehrson%40gmail.com
>
> Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
> http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
>
>


--
Paul Pehrson
Midvale, UT
www.paulpehrson.com   blog.paulpehrson.com
___





--
Art Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 "... In my opinion, there's nothing in this world beats a '52 Vincent
  and a redheaded girl." -- Richard Thompson
No disclaimers apply.
DoD 358
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

RE: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

[Dov Isaacs]

Although MacOS X has UNIX underpinnings, the difficult
stuff relating to user interfaces, font access, output,
etc. is all exclusive to MacOS X and has no real similarity
to Solaris, the other platform on which FrameMaker is still
supported (other than Windows). And of course, you have
differences 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 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > One of our frustrations is
> > that there is no  
> > FrameMaker alternative on the Mac.
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

[Dov Isaacs]

Although MacOS X has UNIX underpinnings, the difficult
stuff relating to user interfaces, font access, output,
etc. is all exclusive to MacOS X and has no real similarity
to Solaris, the other platform on which FrameMaker is still
supported (other than Windows). And of course, you have
differences 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 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 considered Linux?
> 
> --- Paul Findon  wrote:
> > One of our frustrations is
> > that there is no  
> > FrameMaker alternative on the Mac.

Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

[Chris Borokowski]

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 alternative on the Mac.



http://www.dionysius.com
code | tech | docs | leadership





Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091

Re: Frame's future

[John Posada]

> 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 acknowledged us for an
untested product "that looks promising", simply because we're pissed
at the other guy.

And this is the justification upon which you spend your company's
money?

Shame on you.

John Posada
Senior Technical Writer

"I think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you've never 
actually known what the question is."
___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.

Frame's future

[John Posada]

> 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 acknowledged us for an
untested product "that looks promising", simply because we're pissed
at the other guy.

And this is the justification upon which you spend your company's
money?

Shame on you.

John Posada
Senior Technical Writer

"I think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you've never 
actually known what the question is."

Re: Frame's future

[Paul Findon]

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 our frustrations is that there is no  
FrameMaker alternative on the Mac. The general feeling is that if  
we're forced to use Windows, be it via virtualization, Boot Camp, or  
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.


Don't worry. Hopefully, there will be an introductory cross-grade  
offer for Windows FrameMaker users, too.


Paul

___


You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

or visit 
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com

Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.