When someone thinks "graphics," they may think of Apple, but they
probably aren't thinking about FrameMaker, whose graphics capability is
little changed since the 1990s. There is no support for transparency or
actual layers, and FrameMaker still wants to pump graphics through the
Windows GDI, which converts CMYK to RGB. (This latter problem can be
overcome by using EPS or PDF graphics, which pass around the GDI when
passed to PDF.)
I imagine that the main reason they don't sell FM for Macs anymore is
that there were too few Mac users to justify further support. Jeff is
right, though. Lots of people run it comfortably in virtual machines on
newer Macs. So you are not out in the cold.
I run FrameMaker under Windows using (Parallels on one machine and Virtual Box on another). Would I prefer a Mac version you bet. Not going to happen anytime soon. FrameMaker under Windows on Parallels and VB is very usable. My biggest complaint is that i preferred the keyboard short cuts, but I have gotten over that. The old Mac code is too old to port to current machines. It would require nearly a complete rewrite. Which might be a good idea even under Windows, but isn't going to happen anytime soon. Frame 7.x-Frame 12 all work under emulation. I'd rather have it work under emulation than not at all. I have been using Frame since 3.2 on a Mac. We just have to get used to some programs are not available on a Mac and others are not available under Windows [BBEdit, Graphic Converter, AppleScript, OmniGraffle, OmniFocus).
> The old Mac code is too old to port to current machines.
It's not just a codebase problem. It's a platform market problem.
Frame's ostensible competitor has a codebase that's some 15 years younger, and it's also Windows-only (and somewhat arrogantly oblivious about it - they don't even tell you what platform you must have to run their stuff).
The question becomes one of: what are the demographics of future content-creator platforms? Some of the platforms that FM used to run on (various Unix RISCs) are now entirely gone. The abortive port to Linux failed to become a product (might have been intended to fail). Desktop Mac may or may not be a key part of future Apple plans.
Windows, alas, is being massively bungled by Microsoft, who arguably accelerated the demise of the desktop PC with Windows 8. A c|net news article today is headlined "New Microsoft VP consigns the PC to irrelevance". Well, you know who to thank for that, Mr. Elop. Sure, content consumer computing is increasingly ISA- and OS-agnostic. Consumer code needs to run on ARM and x86, on at least 3 different OS'es.
Adobe is in the content creator business for revenue products. Creator development/authoring platforms are no longer the same as consumer platforms. Adobe needs to keep an eye on where this is all headed, and needs a Plan B in case MS continues to screw up desktop Windows. If CS and TS were to be ported to a second platform, it's not clear that Mac is the optimal target. It might be to Linux again (whether Android or some other distro is an open question), perhaps on ARM-64. Does Linux have CMYK model yet? or color management?
I still miss FrameMaker every time I have to type a document of any sort. A real pity that Adobe bought it and killed it, as they did with so many products over the years.
Since I'm not the CEO of Adobe I can't make a definitive statement, but I'll say that you will never see a version of FrameMaker for the Mac.
> ... but I'll say that you will never see a version of FrameMaker for the Mac.
I won't bet against that. As I recall, big part of what made the Mac unattractive for Adobe to support was the ISA churn. If I'm not mistaken, the last native FM code for Mac was for the 68K. You had to run in 68K emulation on PPC, and still do now on x86.
It's also interesting that FM is still 32-bit code. The platform it started on (Sun, also 68K then) went 64-bit (on SPARC) a decade before Windows did, but even Windows has now had 64-bit variants for 9 years. I'm guessing that the code base is contaminated with 32-bit assumptions and is far from a simple re-compile for 64-bit. /* since nothing will ever get this big, we'll just use bit 31 to flag ... */
Something Adobe might be missing -- or better yet, ignoring -- is where costs come from. During development, a great deal of time, and thus money, is spent deciding how it's going to work, and that part is done. A handful of good coders and some Hot Pockets could turn this into a 64-bit code base that could compile for the various *NIXes and throw on the proper UI in no time.
I also could not help but notice that one of the questions on one of the Adobe surveys about Frame asked "what do you want to see?" and one of the check boxes was a Mac version.