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
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
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
ailto: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 Int
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:
MAIL 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 +00
> 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 st
> 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 st
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&
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,
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
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 "sim
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:
>
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
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 logi
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 a
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 Ado
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
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
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
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 describ
>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
al
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 be
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
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
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 logi
> -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 underpin
> -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 underpin
7 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"
>
7 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"
>
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 produc
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.
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.
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 h
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 produ
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 a
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
>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
al
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
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
--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.
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
> F
; > 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
> >
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
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 fut
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 alternati
46 matches
Mail list logo
