This content has been marked as final. Show 348 replies
I bought PageMaker 7 specifically because I thought it would work with OS X. I have used PageMaker since version 3 on a Macintosh. I cannot afford to spend another $300. for a program I don't need. PageMaker has all the features I need. I do not need InDesign.
Is there any information regarding InDesign Lite? This really makes me angry.
MacUser since 1984
I suggest you contact Adobe Customer Service. It does say on the PageMaker product pages that it works only in Classic mode, but that caveat is easy to miss (in my opinion).
"InDesign Lite" is a figment of various people's imagination. Adobe has said nothing about such a product possibility.
> I bought PageMaker 7 specifically because I thought it would work with OS X.
I guess you should have done your homework before you bought it then....
Of Course a few clicks on the website would have revealed this:
This is where ID lite came from. Marilyn Langfeld "Babushka pm8?" 8/13/03 10:34am
I do not work for Adobe so I have to put my deductive skills to work and look around. Jay beat me to it with these links.
Don, I must agree with willmark you didn't do a good job of research. I've been using Pagemaker since version 4 and find InDesign 10 times better than PM.
along with the link to the free demo that willmark provided it is also a
good idea to checkout the forums of a product BEFORE you buy it.
Morning Buko, hows the spam? Mines way down.
My virus SPAM is all gone.
Now its back to normal. Buy this make it bigger SPAM.
Maybe we should start some Pagemaker for OSX spam!
As a public service, I had elevated this topic to permanent status and arranged for it to appear at or near the top of the list at all times.
I believe PageMaker should really have a OS X version released. After all, Adobe is supposed to be working with Apple, right? Well in the PageMaker documentation it specifically states its for buisness and educational users. (Students). Now, isn't Apple pushing the education market into OS X?
I'm on the Yearbook staff at a local highschool, and the only thing keeping us back from OS X is PageMaker.
What would you have Adobe do with PageMaker's weaknesses? Leave them alone and so introduce an OS X product that won't undo most of its actions? That suffers Bad Record Index problems at the drop of a hat? That doesn't support character styles? That forces you to use the story editor for Find and Replace and Spelling Checking? That won't allow you to put groups or frames inline? The list goes on.
Or would your PM X solve all these problems as well?
Because if so, how will Adobe prevent itself from producing InDesign a second time?
And if not, how are you going to motivate an engineering team to create such a substandard product? Not to mention encourage a marketing and sales team to take it to market.
If you pretend to yourself that InDesign is PageMaker, you'll find more in common than different; although there are some differences. I have created some web pages that provide some guidance on converting from PageMaker to InDesign. My advice would be to grit your teeth and give it another try.
Marcus, Do a search for Pagemaker and OSX and you will lean why PM will never be OSX native. ID is the best you will get. Since ID kicks PM's A$$. that's pretty damn good. The bussiness eductional reference is aimed at the PC world.
From Psychodeathbot on April 2, 2003 in the PM archives,
"To fix the issue with PM and Classic:
Check the permissions on the Temporary Items folder by opening a terminal window and...1)'cd /' to get to root then 2)'ls -l' and look for the above folder. The folder is owned by root, the group is admin and others don't have any access. PM needs to write to this folder for whatever reason, so I modified the folder permissions to allow others read/write access. Note that this requires using either 'su' or 'sudo', two commands that upgrade the user to root at the command line...you can really mess up your system doing this so consider yourself warned. From the command line, do the following: 'sudo chmod o=rw "Temporary Items"'. You will then be asked to enter a password, this should be the admin password (so you'll need to have admin rights on the machine). You will need to put quotes around the folder name since it includes a space. Type 'exit' at the command line and you're done.
In OS9, I believe Temporary Items is re-created by either the system or certain applications (like IE5.1), thus obliterating any changes you make to the perms. For whatever reason, this folder doesn't seem to get re-created by any apps in OSX, if they even use it...I haven't tested it thoroughly...your mileage may vary. The user's machine in this case was humming along fine until I upgraded it to 10.2.4 and ran the permissions update utility from the system cd...I am guessing that the latter horked it up.
I found it by searching on "Mac OSX permissions" in the PM user forum search. Hopefully this will solve my PM Classic problem since ID is not an option at this point.
You find from most of the "pros" here (me included) believe that PageMaker is of a dying, if not already dead breed. PM is highly unlikely to ever see OSX in anyway shape or form. ID3, which is rumored to be imminent in its release, is reported to have a number of PM features that people who still use PM have been asking for such as story editor.
The only reason I say highly unlikely is that one should "never say never"
I have been having this same problem, so I called Adobe tech support and this is what they instructed me to do:
WARNING: Only attempt this after backing up all the work on your machine. If you mess this up, you will have to reinstall your system software.
1. Make sure that you are logged in as an admin user
2. Launch the Terminal application, which came with Mac OSX (found under Applications>Utilities>Terminal)
3. Type in the following EXACTLY at the prompt: sudo chmod -R atrw "/Temporary Items"
4. Hit the Enter key.
5. Type in your password at the next prompt and hit the Enter key.
6. Type in at the next prompt: exit
7. Hit the Enter key.
8. Quit out of Terminal and launch Pagemaker as usual.
This worked for me, and I've been reading posts on this forum for six weeks! I'm using Mac Pagemaker 6.52, and running a G4 Quicksilver with Mac OS 10.2.4. From what Tech Support told me, Pagemaker requires use of an invisible folder called "Temporary Items," which can be locked by OSX. The only way to unlock it is to use the Terminal application.
If this works for you, please post your results on this forum.
> The only way to unlock it is to use the Terminal application.
This is not true.
If you are using 10.2.6 you can set your permisions in the get info window. I think you can do it in 10.2.4 but it is recommended you update there have been quite a few bug fixes in the updates.
How can you get to an invisible folder (that's what Temporary Items is, invisible) from 10.2.6?
Just set the permissions for the disk that OS9 is on. checking "ignore ownership on this volume" usually works.
This would explain why pm works for me on OSX. I have my Os9 apps on a
separate partition, and I login as administrator. Not that I use it much.
Ah, so that's the secret. I can't wait until my company decides on which editorial software they are going to buy. One supports InDesign and Quark, while the other only supports Quark. While Pagemaker is my "old, fuzzy slippers" type of software that I feel most comfortable using, it's high time that we upgrade to the present and take advantage of all the great features of the new software. Plus, OSX is a cool and extremely stable operating system.
Thanks for the posts. Buko, why are you so active on this message board? You must be tired of this subject by now, judging from your comments.
>Buko, why are you so active on this message board? You must be tired of this subject by now, judging from your comments.
I'm an old PM user who has seen the light and moved on to InDesign. But until I switched I enjoyed bucking the system by producing things with PM that folks told me could only be done with Quark. I've been helped here at the Adobe forums and its my way of saying thankyou for the help I received. These forums are much more helpful than tech support most of the time because you are talking to people who have many years of experience using the apps you have questions about.
I also view it as a karmic thing.
Nahhh He just does it because he likes the attention!
Why are people so freaking dedicated to Pagemaker? It's over with. Done. Kaput. Move on.
I don't understand this undying loyalty to an app that has been obsolete for 5+ years if not longer.
I used it for years also. I tried out ID 2 in 2002 when one of my main clients started using it. I switched after one week and have never looked back.
> Why are people so freaking dedicated to Pagemaker? It's over with. Done. Kaput. Move on.
I don't understand this undying loyalty to an app that has been obsolete for 5+ years if not longer.
I often wonder this very thing...
I couldn't open PageMaker 6.5 nor 7.0 in Classic when logged in under one account. The splash screen got to "Loading Clipboard..." and then exited, the icon bounced one time, and then nothing. I found that by setting that account to have administrative privileges, opening PageMaker (either version) under that account, then removing administrative privileges would allow that account to open PageMaker from then on. This change might not be permanent, however, as today one of the machines (out of 7) reverted to not allowing PageMaker to load. I repeated the procedure and it worked. So maybe there's a way to make the change permanent?
There are many people who need a simple but efficient layout program. InDesign is an overkill for them, just like Word is an overkill for all those people who just need a simple but efficient word processor. It is understandable that they are not willing to pay for all the very nice and useful extras they will never use.
Maybe it is as simple as that.
By the way, someone talked about a sort of "light InDesign". Maybe that would be a good solution, should it be feasible.
If you want to keep it simple, I have a solution: only use the 10% of features in InDesign that you need.
Just ignore the rest. Simple, huh?
Count me in that line of reasoning, If you don't need the feature... don't use it.
You forget that that person would be paying for the full 100% of the features, not for the 1% he/she will ever hope to use (your 10% is far too optimistic). It's like buying a fully luxury equipped Mercedes exclusively for taking the kids to school, just because you faithfull old reck will no longer be supported. Simple, huh? Or perhaps you earn enough money to buy the Mercedes anyway?
In any case, if Adobe can produce PhotoDeluxe for people who don't need the full Photoshop, would it be too much to expect a DesignDeluxe for people who don't need the full InDesign? Just an idea -not mine, unfortunately.
Babushka or IDlite will be just for you. Lets hope its not just a figment of someones imagination.
Buko, it's not for me. Two persons posted successive messages saying that they do not understand why there is people clinging to PageMaker. All I was trying to do was to explain one forceful reason for this clinging, but their replies show they don't agree this is a good reason. Their argument seems to come down to "forget PageMaker, buy InDesign, and don't use the features you don't need".
Unfortunately, I think all the Babushka thing is just fireworks -I am afraid nothing will come out of it. And I also think it would be nice to have the InDesign equivalent of PhotoDeluxe, mainly for those probably hundreds if not thousands of teachers and their students who have been using PageMaker for decades and who have neither the money nor the time to move to InDesign.
My point is, and has always been this:
b There is never going to be a OSX version
of PM. I usually say "never say never" to assuage the PM masses who pop in ever once and a while, never to a search and ask the same question over, and over, and over again when will PM for OSX be released.
All it takes is some deductive reasoning.
1) PM is EOF.
2) OSX has been out for 2 years
3) ID3 is imminent in its next release. In that time ID will have been released twice for OSX and PM zero .
4) PM is old code at its core. Adobe already set out to redesign it, they succeeded. The results is InDesign.
5) That leaves very few options if one does not move to ID.
Most of the posts that the PM diehards participate play out like this. I want my PM for OSX, I wanted it yesterday, I dont like ID, its not PM. Ive used PM since 1422 AD and Im not interested in learning a new program after 600 years on PM.
Did I miss anything from the usual I want my PM for OSX rant?
One thing I missed from my last post:
For all those that are threathening to move from PM to something else: just waht are you going to use? Quark 6? Good luck on that one. Framemaker? Ugh. In anycase be prepared to shell out more money thne movbing to ID from PM, and if its Quark, be prepared to shell out nearly a 1,000 US when it is all said and done.
Willmark, we seem to be talking about completely different things. I haven't said a single word about an OS X version of PageMaker. Almost since InDesign made its first appearance, I realized that it was the result of trying to rewrite PageMaker from scratch to avoid problems with code dating from version 1.0 -first one I used. It´s therefore a long time since I accepted we will never see a carbonized PageMaker. And I can even add another reason to your list in support of this unofficial fact: the Adobe User to User Forums Survey (see Acrobat forums) does not include PageMaker in the list of "Adobe Products you use".
Trajan and you published consecutive messages in this thread saying you don't understand why there are so many people clinging to PageMaker. I think I do understand, and have tried to explain why; no ranting coming from here. You now give arguments against things I have not ever said or disputed.
My only other contribution to this one sided discussion has been to comment that it would be nice if Adobe produced a very light version of InDesign precisely in benefit of those who have been faithfull Adobe clients for 400 years, but don't need the full capabilities of InDesign to produce their monthly newsletters or whatever, don't have the money to pay for their upgrades, are too old or to busy or too lazy to face a not so level learning curve ..., and will be forced to move on to OS X sooner or later.
People who need just a plain word processor are not forced to pay for the full parafernalia of MS Word; there are much cheaper and completely satisfactory alternatives. I am glad to see that you agree with me at least in thinking that there are no really valid alternatives to InDesign. Because of this, I see nothing wrong in thinking that, if Adobe can produce PhotoDeluxe for people who have neither the need nor the money for all the wonderful capabilities of Photoshop, they could equally well produce a modest carbonized InDesign based layout program. You seem to think that, instead, all these people should just buy InDesign and simply not use any features they don't need. In this we fully disagree.
Claudio, I usually agree with you so let me further clarify; in addition none of my previous posts were directed at you so please do not take them as such.
My suggestion to use ID is very sound one for a number of reasons
1) Contrary to what many PM users might believe ID has a similar feature set, and interfaces, while not the same is more in line of what they experience now.
2) Cheaper upgrade path. I'm willing to be that when ID3 is released there will be some sort of new upgrade path to ID for those that have PM. Its a way no move forward and PM users should treat it as such, not idly complain that "Adobe is abandoning us".
3) Dave has suggested this many times: Move to ID treat it as PM until you are comfortable. When a PM user feels comfortable move onto some of the new features, thus gaining greater knowledge.
4) This is kind of a personal thing but here's a great thought provoker. Maybe Graphic Design isn't for everyone. This seems to be Adobe's mindset. Adobe seems to be of the mindset that they are going to only push forward a professional OSX client (To everyone who wants to jump on me for this statement: Arguing whether or not PM is professional grade or not is not relevant for this thread.) Again, if you look at intent, its seems to me that Adobe is more interested in the professional graphic design market than the home user, casual user one. Im also speculating that Adobe is trying to funnel those users who use PM into ID to give them even more leverage against Quark in the graphic design market on OSX.
5) It looks like for the casual user that Framemaker is the direct that Adobe is wanting people to go. I will say Framaker is a program I freely admit I do not know a great deal about.
6) PMs current position today came about in a highly unusual set of circumstances that are unlikely to repeat themselves. PM was once a standard before Quarks rise to dominance. PM was cutting edge then. I would say that it is in the backseat now that ID is in its 4th version coming up. PM has become a intermediate design tool by accident, not by design. In other works Aldus did not intend to create a middle-of the road design program, it just happened that way.
While I can understand the frustration of the PM install base I just dont see how this is going to resolve in the I want my PM on OSX camps favor. If anything this is a non-issue, with very few cheap alternatives.
>My only other contribution to this one sided discussion has been to comment that it would be nice if Adobe produced a very light version of InDesign precisely in benefit of those who have been faithfull Adobe clients for 400 years, but don't need the full capabilities of InDesign to produce their monthly newsletters or whatever,
I think these people will get their wish. Adobe has been listening, it may not be the exact answer that PM users want but something close enough that they will end up upgrading and be happy with their new software.
Willmark, I thought that this
>My point is, and has always been this:
meant that you were addressing your observations to me. Sorry I misunderstood you.
Buko, that would be very good news to a fairly large number of people. Let's only hope you are right.
BTW, and this is not addressed to you, I have not been defending the professional designers and the like who bark a lot and threaten to move on to Quark. They don't deserve to be defended; they deserve Quark. As I have said in previous messages, I am thinking of the long time users who have faithfully upgraded probably until v. 6.5.2, who do not earn their money in the graphic arts but produce rather modest layouts for other -perhaps mainly educational- reasons, and who are not willing to pay for a product which passes miles above their heads. At present, they have no alternative that I know of.
"You forget that that person would be paying for the full 100% of the features, not for the 1% he/she will ever hope to use (your 10% is far too optimistic)."
Heck, even I may not use more than 20% of its features. The point is, I like knowing that the remaining 80% are there WHEN AND IF I NEED THEM. Why can't the Painmaker People do this too?
"It's like buying a fully luxury equipped Mercedes exclusively for taking the kids to school, just because you faithfull old reck will no longer be supported. Simple, huh? Or perhaps you earn enough money to buy the Mercedes anyway?"
Yes, of course...most pre-press folks own Mercedes...custom painted CMYK of course...