RE: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

2007-03-03 Thread 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

RE: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

2007-03-02 Thread 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

Re: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

2007-03-02 Thread 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:

RE: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

2007-03-01 Thread 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

RE: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

2007-03-01 Thread 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.

RE: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

2007-03-01 Thread 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

Re: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

2007-03-01 Thread 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

Re: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

2007-03-01 Thread 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.

RE: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

2007-03-01 Thread Dov Isaacs
@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

RE: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

2007-03-01 Thread 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

Re: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

2007-03-01 Thread 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

Re: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

2007-03-01 Thread 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

Re: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

2007-03-01 Thread 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

Re: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

2007-03-01 Thread 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.

RE: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

2007-03-01 Thread quills
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

RE: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

2007-02-28 Thread Dov Isaacs
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

RE: Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

2007-02-28 Thread Chris Borokowski
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