, Richard
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 1:22 PM
To: Art Campbell; a...@alphabyte.co.nz
Cc: framers@lists.frameusers.com; Jim Duszynski
Subject: RE: Any advantage to upgrade-FM7.2 to FM9?
Art Campbell wrote:
> Actually, that was about the point Frame Technology was edging close
> to runnin
I agree with your chronology of official releases, but I'm also
remembering a preview or proof of concept or something similar that
(*I think* -- I didn't record it in my diary) surfaced in the 94-95
time frame. I got a look at it because I was free-lancing for UNIX
World magazine at the time and I
Art Campbell wrote:
> Yup, that was the official release, but there were betas and "escaped"
> releases way before then. Frame Tech was more of a UNIX house and the
> UNIX>Linus porting work was largely done there; Adobe never did much
> with any workstation products
There was no official Linux
Yup, that was the official release, but there were betas and "escaped"
releases way before then. Frame Tech was more of a UNIX house and the
UNIX>Linus porting work was largely done there; Adobe never did much
with any workstation products
Art Campbell
art.campb...@gmail.com
"...
I hope there is!
It took a long time for me to convince my (engineering) manager to upgrade
me from FrameMaker 7.2 (and RoboHelp 6) to Technical Communication Suite
2.
Should have it in a few weeks.
Regards,
Barry Kieffer
Technical Writer
Internet, Military, and Consumer
Art Campbell wrote:
> Actually, that was about the point Frame Technology was edging close
> to running out of money Adobe bought 'em. I think 5.6 was a FT
> remnant, not a path that Adobe started and then backed away from.
Adobe acquired Frame Technology about 1994-5, around the time that FM
OK. I thought Adobe already owned it by then. But my memory is a bit out today
(obviously need more coffee).
Alan
Art Campbell wrote:
> Actually, that was about the point Frame Technology was edging close
> to running out of money Adobe bought 'em. I think 5.6 was a FT
> remnant, not a path tha
Actually, that was about the point Frame Technology was edging close
to running out of money Adobe bought 'em. I think 5.6 was a FT
remnant, not a path that Adobe started and then backed away from.
Art Campbell
art.campb...@gmail.com
"... In my opinion, there's nothing in this wo
Oops, no that was 5.5.6 :}
It ran on Redhat.
Alan
Alan Litchfield wrote:
>
> Bodvar Bjorgvinsson wrote:
>
>>
>> I am waiting for FM for Linux! ;-)
>
> There was one. V5.2(?). I still have a binary for it. It ran very well under X
> and I used it with Windowmaker as well as Gnome.
>
> It was quit
Bodvar Bjorgvinsson wrote:
>
> I am waiting for FM for Linux! ;-)
There was one. V5.2(?). I still have a binary for it. It ran very well under X
and I used it with Windowmaker as well as Gnome.
It was quite good but Adobe decided against proceeding down that route because
there did not appear t
In my line of work of building catalogs, this upgrade has been a big
disappointment. We upgraded for the sole purpose of using 4-color
processing that supposedly this version supported. And it does to some
extent.
However, it does not support spot color or tints even though
documentation su
Rather than relist what's already been mentioned, I think 9 is more
stable than 7, noticably so in book operations. On my system, I think
it may even be a little quicker. I also like the ability to spread the
interface over two monitors, although I dislike the need to do so.
A big plus is the inte
I haven't got as far as FM9, but the upgrade from FM7.2 to FM8 was well
worth it for me because of its support of Boolean operators in condition
expressions. I use conditions a lot and this feature (in conjunction with
FrameScript - the standalone Boolean condition functionality in FM8 isn't
useful
I think it's worth upgrading before falling off the "upgrade path." *If*
in the next version you can only upgrade from 8.0, then you are stuck
using the old version forever unless you want to buy a new version,
which is much more expensive than the upgrade. So every few versions I
think it's wo
Multiple undo is already included in 7.2, bu 7.2 does not accept
unicode, which is almost a must for other languages than English,
German or French (and maybe a couple of other langages).
Better Dita support and a few other things.
Other than the language thing, I too find it hard to justify the c
Jim Duszynski wrote:
>
> Another way to ask the question is, does anyone have any experience with FM
> 7.2 and compatibility with computer system utilities as time goes by?
>
Yes.
--
Alan Litchfield MBus (Hons), MNZCS
AlphaByte
PO Box 1941, 1140, Auckland, New Zealand
http://www.alphabyte.co.n
Multiple undos, track changes.
Thank you,
Gillian Flato
Technical Writer (Software)
nanometrics
1550 Buckeye Dr.
Milpitas, CA. 95035
(408.545.6316
7 408.232.5911
* gfl...@nanometrics.com
-Original Message-
From: framers-boun...@lists.frameusers.com
[mailto:framers-boun...@lists.fra
17 matches
Mail list logo
