R. VanDyke wrote:
I find it both amazing and sad that some still cling to the fantasy that Adobe is going to respond to the emotional pleas of a relative handful of OS-X users by investing in a parallel development team for a product that's so clearly on its last legs.
Your metaphor places the blame on natural aging, which living things can patch, for a while, but in the end cannot avoid.
FrameMaker has been allowed to age, but this aging is the fault of Adobe, not the application. There is no universal, unavoidable natural aging process of software that must push users to move to something else. If an application works well, it can be adjusted to move along with changes in technology. There is no reason why an application that provides a particular service cannot survive ... well, indeed, forever? Think of it like this: I need to produce literature with running heads, lists, cross-references, and so on, and not until the day when we have no need for those things will there any good reason to believe that FrameMaker must die. There could be competitors and other ways to accomplish those needs, but that's not the point and none of those force the death of an application.
But for an application to live and thrive it must be properly maintained. The day Adobe bought Frame they should have began chunking up the code to allow for cross-platform use and ease of maintenance, but instead they did as you said: They troweled makeup over the cracks and put on some bright red lipstick, took us on a date, then dumped us on the side of the road to walk home. If the code was such a mess that a ground-up rewrite was needed, then so be it. For a product that size it would have ended up being one of the cheaper application development cycles in history. Why? Because in development, just designing the darn thing -- decided what it's going to do -- consumes a lot of time and money, and that part was done, as were the logic algorithms.
I don't know what drives Adobe into thinking that the Mac and Linux community don't need and won't buy a product like FrameMaker.
I'm late to the party, but I would love FM for OSX.
We are now switching from a complicated process where we takes MS Word files and use FM to convert them to xml, then run PERL scripts on the xml to create html files, and also create fm files so we basically have a single-source web/print process.
I use fm to layout the print, and it just works great! No other program that I know of will allow you to create a book, then gather separate files into the book and be able to paginate all of them at once, create indexes and table of contents, markers for automatic section naming, etc. If there is one for the Mac OS, please let me know.
I think FM, with a few tweaks and better graphic placement, could kick InDesign's ***. And InDesign is basically a tarted-up version of PageMaker, lest we forget.
But we are leaving FM 7.0 behind, and I really can't see switching to Windows for the dubious benefit of just running FM.
Again, if anyone knows a decent program for single source publishing that will run on Mac/Windows, please let me know.
Adobe, you really don't know what you have with FrameMaker. It could give Quark a run for its money if marketed the right way.
I'm with you where a Mac OS X native version of Frame is concerned. However, If you really like Frame, then running Windows via Parallels or Fusion to run Frame is worth it. Just to run Frame. That is what I do. The added benefit of the TCS with Robohelp, Captivate, Acrobat Pro Extended, and Photoshop Extended really make running Windows on a Mac worthwhile. At least until Adobe sees the light...
At least for me, there is no added value in the TCS. Photoshop Extended and Acrobat Pro are already in the CS for Mac; and I don't need RoboHelp or Captivate, since interactive help and manuals can be done with much more modern (and inexpensive) tools on the Mac. Frankly, I would only need FrameMaker for Mac, and would not see any problem if the TCS is not ported.
Paolo
A few days ago I've done the switch from FM6 Mac to FM9 Win. Not happy to give money to Adobe again, but after a long research, I could not find any alternative to Frame. Since then, I'm trying to solve a color matching problem, because all my old documents now print to PDF with wrong colors.
It's funny enough to read a hint from Adobe themselves to this problem. Since it seems that the problem resides in the way Windows does (not) manage CMYK color, they suggest to edit in Windows, and then print with the Mac (or Unix) version. Ah, ah.
http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/324/324220.html
Paolo
After more than one month using FrameMaker 9 under Windows XP, I'm more and more convinced this is the wrong platform on which to use this otherwise excellent program.
FrameMaker 9 greatly improves on the old versions. The new user interface is well conceived and can actually save time. Hierarchical books (sort of Nisus or Mellel's outliner, or Scrivener's Binder) are something I've desired for a long time. And there are several refinements here and there that makes it, again, the well-conceived tech writing tool it has always been.
However, some old problems are still there. For example, assigning the "As is" attribute to all parameters in a format search dialog box can only be done with an arcane key combination (Shift-F8); there is still no way to add a colored background to a paragraph, or to put an image under it; file backups are saved in the same directory as the original file, generating confusion; and it seems that typographic quotes are only supported in the English format (at least, I cannot find a way to set them in the German format, nor in the Italian academic «square» format).
But the worse problems are due to running on the Windows platform, not the program itself.
- Inserting diacritical marks is a hassle. On the Mac, you use a combination of Option, or Option-Shift plus a character. In Windows, you only have the Alt Gr key for alternative characters, and there are only a few of them given as standard. I had to modify the "wincmds.cfg" keyboard configuration file to add just some of the basic ones. Someone suggested me to use the wonderful Alt+ASCII numeric code combination...
- Inserting Unicode characters is done through a floating window that tries to simulate the Character Set window on the Mac. Only, it seems to have been programmed on a DOS system, and looks (and acts) as an alien entity in Windows.
- Supplied Unicode characters are way less than those coming as standard on the Mac. Unsophisticated works will probably not need them - I just happen to need them rather often, for various kinds of technical symbols.
- PDF generation has several problems with color matching and line thickness. Never had them on the Mac. ("Take the right tool for your job", they used to say.)
- Standard fonts are bad clones of the most renowned works from classic foundries, like Arial for Helvetica and Times New Roman for Times. The result is a printout looking less pleasant, with slightly uneven character spacing both on paper and onscreen.
- Implemented keyboard shortcuts are just a few. Someone suggested me to use the Esc sequence even for repetitive tasks. Again, I edited the "wincmds.cfg" keyboard configuration to have some more comfort. Among the oddities was the lack of a command to continuously jump down from paragraph to paragraph (Opt-Down in most Mac apps, or Cmd-Down in FrameMaker Mac). You could select paragraphs while scrolling down, but not just jump. Great design.
- Dialog boxes usually open in the upper left corner of the screen. Palettes are on the opposite side. I wonder what was wrong with the Mac centering dialog boxes on the screen.
- I had some crashes (on the Mac, it happened less than ten times in thirteen years). And, I'm trying to understand if the Autosave option does work or not (at least, it is doing nothing now).
In my view, FrameMaker and Windows are the wrong pair matching. With Macs now so commonly seen in offices and labs, I wonder why FrameMaker is not given back to the natural home for a publishing program - the Mac.
Paolo
Paolo Tramannoni wrote:
After more than one month using FrameMaker 9 under Windows XP, I'm more and more convinced this is the wrong platform on which to use this otherwise excellent program.
FrameMaker 9 greatly improves on the old versions. The new user interface is well conceived and can actually save time. Hierarchical books (sort of Nisus or Mellel's outliner, or Scrivener's Binder) are something I've desired for a long time. And there are several refinements here and there that makes it, again, the well-conceived tech writing tool it has always been.
However, some old problems are still there. For example, assigning the "As is" attribute to all parameters in a format search dialog box can only be done with an arcane key combination (Shift-F8); there is still no way to add a colored background to a paragraph, or to put an image under it; file backups are saved in the same directory as the original file, generating confusion; and it seems that typographic quotes are only supported in the English format (at least, I cannot find a way to set them in the German format, nor in the Italian academic «square» format).
But the worse problems are due to running on the Windows platform, not the program itself.
- Inserting diacritical marks is a hassle. On the Mac, you use a combination of Option, or Option-Shift plus a character. In Windows, you only have the Alt Gr key for alternative characters, and there are only a few of them given as standard. I had to modify the "wincmds.cfg" keyboard configuration file to add just some of the basic ones. Someone suggested me to use the wonderful Alt+ASCII numeric code combination...
- Inserting Unicode characters is done through a floating window that tries to simulate the Character Set window on the Mac. Only, it seems to have been programmed on a DOS system, and looks (and acts) as an alien entity in Windows.
- Supplied Unicode characters are way less than those coming as standard on the Mac. Unsophisticated works will probably not need them - I just happen to need them rather often, for various kinds of technical symbols.
- PDF generation has several problems with color matching and line thickness. Never had them on the Mac. ("Take the right tool for your job", they used to say.)
- Standard fonts are bad clones of the most renowned works from classic foundries, like Arial for Helvetica and Times New Roman for Times. The result is a printout looking less pleasant, with slightly uneven character spacing both on paper and onscreen.
- Implemented keyboard shortcuts are just a few. Someone suggested me to use the Esc sequence even for repetitive tasks. Again, I edited the "wincmds.cfg" keyboard configuration to have some more comfort. Among the oddities was the lack of a command to continuously jump down from paragraph to paragraph (Opt-Down in most Mac apps, or Cmd-Down in FrameMaker Mac). You could select paragraphs while scrolling down, but not just jump. Great design.
- Dialog boxes usually open in the upper left corner of the screen. Palettes are on the opposite side. I wonder what was wrong with the Mac centering dialog boxes on the screen.
- I had some crashes (on the Mac, it happened less than ten times in thirteen years). And, I'm trying to understand if the Autosave option does work or not (at least, it is doing nothing now).
In my view, FrameMaker and Windows are the wrong pair matching. With Macs now so commonly seen in offices and labs, I wonder why FrameMaker is not given back to the natural home for a publishing program - the Mac.
Paolo
Hi, Paolo:
If these are your key points of irritation, you might be interested in InDesign CS4. Since my earlier posting, CS4 was released. It's got cross-references, and much-improved numbered-list abilities. You can customize keystroke shortcuts easily. It's fully Unicode capable. Etc.
If you're not doing DITA, working in structured FM, or generating help systems, InDesign might work for you. However, it's not suited to any kind of efficient round-trip workflow from FrameMaker -> InDesign or InDesign -> FrameMaker; this could be the deal breaker.
Whatever the expected sales revenue that might come from reviving FrameMaker on Mac, the development cost would kill any profit.
I'm working on a book for FrameMaker users moving to InDesign, to help smooth the journey. Stay tuned.
Regards,
Peter
_______________________
Peter Gold
KnowHow ProServices
peter@knowhowpro.com wrote:
Whatever the expected sales revenue that might come from reviving FrameMaker on Mac, the development cost would kill any profit.
I disagree. With any application, much of the cost goes into simply figuring out how it's going to work and the underlying algorithms of how to accomplish it; all that has already been done. Further, Frame retails for $1000. If only 1000 licenses were sold through the Adobe store, there's the first million in revenue. It would take some convincing that with all the foundation of Fame that's already there it would take a million to develop it.
Peter, thank you for your answer. I lived in InDesign CS4 for the full 30 days of the demo, and found it not really suitable for my needs. While I liked features like layers and the many import/export filters, it was slow even when just typing, the user interface seems to privilege graphic elements more than text elements, and gave me a general improssion of limited "free flowing". The documents and generated PDF files are huge. I should probably write down a comparison sheet to show my findings during those days.
But I admit that working with (the very good) FrameMaker under (the very bad) Windows is such a hassle, that I might reconsinder my situation and balance between bad and bad.
Contraty to you, and seconding Tim's thinking, I don't think porting would cost so much. Working in the software development industry, I see software as sophisticated as FrameMaker ported by a single developer in three or four months. They already even have a lot of code from CS4 that can be reused for the user interface. My guess is that this move is more politic that other: they are moving all advanced users to a single app, slowly demising this strange thing that is FrameMaker.
I await for your book. It might convince me.
Paolo
North America
Europe, Middle East and Africa
Asia Pacific