RE: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX
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 @ Mac/UNIX
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.
Re: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX
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
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.
RE: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX
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
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 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/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
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.
RE: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX
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.
RE: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX
-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
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.
Re: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX
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.
Re: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX
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 @ 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/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
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
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.
RE: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX
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.
