Inspiring

Question

Mac OS X Version

Forum|Forum|17 years ago
March 9, 2008
32 replies
24238 views

Seems like it's a broad enough request that it could stand a thread of its own.

I think this weekend I *might* break down and put Leopard on my PowerBook, which means no Classic, and I'd have to use Frame for Windows in one of the virtualization products. Uck.

Feature request

This topic has been closed for replies.

jmedef

Participant

Well -

Just noticed FM 10 has been available... was hoping Adobe finally woke up from their clue-coma and come out with a Mac version, cuz I hauled my last PC out of the house last month. I write a lot of tech manuals and I have to say, after 15 years on Solaris, I'm HATING MS Word: I doesn't scale at all and it crashed on me today - 4 times.

I want Framemaker and I don't want to have to use a P.O.S. operating system to get my work done.

WTF is wrong with Adobe? Why don't they just turn the Solaris src over to the creative commons and let one of us desperate hackers beat that product back into submission? Criminy, I'll even take version 7, just get me off Word =[

tlmurray23Author

Inspiring

If Adobe had a heart they would release the Mac and Linux versions to the Commons. Back in the day, I heard many a developer claim it wouldn't take but a few months to come up with a Mac and (modern) Linux version. Another fellow had contacted me for my thoughts on whether he should get funding to make a pass at buying it.

Mike Wickham

Inspiring

If Adobe had a heart they would release the Mac and Linux versions to

the Commons.

If you ask me, that's a ridiculous request. Free versions of FrameMaker

could potentially steal sales from the for-sale version. It's akin to

asking Apple to give away PC and Linux versions of Aperture.

tlmurray23Author

Inspiring

I have a new MacBook Pro with Snow Leopard. I installed SheepShaver to run FrameMaker, and it works darned well, surprisingly perky.

Paolo T

Known Participant

Tim,

I agree the most recent version of SheepShaver runs very well. The only problem is that I have messed-up keyboard layouts (by looking at the Keyboard diagram, it seems that physical keys are remapped to other keys, possibly due to the ANSI and ISO different layouts).

I must report that, recently, I did a middle-sized project with InDesign CS5. Despite some oddities (for example, continuing to warn about broken cross-references, when they are perfectly fine; or not allowing for direct composition of pictures plus captions and connecting lines in a frame) it adds most of the things we have always asked for in FrameMaker. Object styles, faithful preview, print styles, a smart way of managing conditions, cross-references and variables, multimedia integration, smart export to Html or the new e-book formats - just to name a few. And, it works like a charm on the Mac (with perfect integration with the other apps of the suite).

Conversion of files via the RTF format is possible, despite having to reconnect all linked pictures. I don't know if ID can already suit all projects, but for sure it does with mines. CS5 is good enough for technical manuals. So much, that returning to the PC side for using FrameMaker looks like a travel in the past. Really a shame: just look at the different sizes of files (ID generates huge files), and you understand how good FM could have been, if not abandoned.

Paolo

peter minneapolis

Participating Frequently

Paolo Tramannoni wrote:
Tim,
I agree the most recent version of SheepShaver runs very well. The only problem is that I have messed-up keyboard layouts (by looking at the Keyboard diagram, it seems that physical keys are remapped to other keys, possibly due to the ANSI and ISO different layouts).
I must report that, recently, I did a middle-sized project with InDesign CS5. Despite some oddities (for example, continuing to warn about broken cross-references, when they are perfectly fine; or not allowing for direct composition of pictures plus captions and connecting lines in a frame) it adds most of the things we have always asked for in FrameMaker. Object styles, faithful preview, print styles, a smart way of managing conditions, cross-references and variables, multimedia integration, smart export to Html or the new e-book formats - just to name a few. And, it works like a charm on the Mac (with perfect integration with the other apps of the suite).
Conversion of files via the RTF format is possible, despite having to reconnect all linked pictures. I don't know if ID can already suit all projects, but for sure it does with mines. CS5 is good enough for technical manuals. So much, that returning to the PC side for using FrameMaker looks like a travel in the past. Really a shame: just look at the different sizes of files (ID generates huge files), and you understand how good FM could have been, if not abandoned.
Paolo

In addition to the RTF methods already mentioned, here's a little more info:

* You can copy from InDesign and paste into FrameMaker. This seems to be an RTF via clipboard operation, although my default clipboard format preference is: ClipboardFormatsPriorities=FILE, EMF, DIB, BMP, MIFW, MIF, RTF, OLE 2, META, UNICODE TEXT, TEXT

* FrameMaker's RTF import offers two options - MS RTF, and Japanese RTF.

The examples below show the differences:

InDesign original:

FrameMaker results of copy/paste, MS Word RTF import, Japanese RTF import:

It's interesting to see that InDesign drop caps are automatically converted to anchored frames by FrameMaker, and how different the Japanese conversion is. For both the MS Word import and the Japanese RTF import, Retain Original Formatting and Using Current Document's Catalog produce the same import results.

Regarding the appropriateness of InDesign and FrameMaker for tech publishing (or anything else):

* While FrameMaker's typographic abilities are less profound than InDesign's, at this time, and FrameMaker's layout abilities are weaker than InDesign's, and FrameMaker layouts also require more manual effort than InDesign to accomplish the same fancy stuff, one basic question is "How much does the the presence of creative visual increase the value or delivery of the technical information to its intended audience?

* While InDesign's layout and design features trump FrameMaker's, InDesign's currently quite weak in creating help systems, especially context-sensitive help that links to user interface objects in applications. Currently, InDesign is also weak in content reuse via content-management systems.

* InDesign can do XML-based database publishing pretty well without third-party tools, and without too much setup effort. FrameMaker's built-in database publishing ability requires lots of setup with variables and significant preparation of the source data.

* Both applications can incorporate multi-media content, and their development in this area is ongoing.

Many of us would love to have FrameMaker on Mac (my examples above are created under Windows XP SP3 running on Parallels Desktop 5, on a MBPro 6MB RAM, running Snow Leopard. It takes a while to get used to the virtual machine application (I previously had used VMware Fusion2.) There are times when the internal memory shuffling and checkpoint-snapshots stalls the action, but, hey, there's always a new release of virtualizers to improve on that<G>.

HTH

Regards,

Peter

_______________________

Peter Gold

KnowHow ProServices

Paolo T

Known Participant

Well, here is another reason why FrameMaker on Mac is a need, more than a preference.

Today, we could finally compare the old version of a manual created with the Adobe Minion font on a Mac, against the new version, where fonts were replaced with Adobe Minion Pro on Windows XP. The new version looks rougher, grainier, less harmonic. In two words, less professionaly typeset.

I don't know if someone did a similar test, but in my experience, working on the Windows version of FrameMaker will make us look as if we were working with a standard wordprocessor, and knew nothing about typography.

Paolo

tlmurray23Author

Inspiring

Well, that's really a function of the font and you're comparing Type 1 on Mac with OpenType in Windows. Type 1 in Mac and Windows look the same, at least to me. (Although something else could be amiss, since even the T1 and OT really should look very much the same.) Frame is not exactly known for its typographic elegance anyway!

Paolo T

Known Participant

Tim, shouldn't OpenType fonts be even more accurate than Type 1? And yes, they are not exactly the same font (Minion agains Minion Pro), but I wonder why the older font looks better than the new one.

Paolo T

Known Participant

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

peter minneapolis

Participating Frequently

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

tlmurray23Author

Inspiring

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.

Paolo T

Known Participant

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

tlmurray23Author

Inspiring

I have a write-up about color in Mac FrameMaker on my web site. Go to www.techknowledgecorp.com/help, and look along the left column for "working with color". I hope that it helps.

fogharty

Known Participant

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 ass. 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.

MichaelKazlow

Legend

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...

Anonymous

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

Doc Raman

Participating Frequently

The forums were finally updated, maybe the OSX version is next

I love my fantasy world.

Pages continues to improve and can now embed math equations. That has finally become my main tool, although I'd buy FM for OSX in a millisecond if it was released.

_newmanic_

Participant

Just tried the new version of Frame 9 for a week at a contract job. What an annoying interface. When I watched the Adobe "online tutorial" a month ago, the Adobe spokesman went on and on about how cool the new interface is, how it solves all the problems the Windows-centric geeks were complaining about. Well, the Apple version of the interface allowed many of those windows to display under (not always remain on top and get in the way of your working document). To me, the interface "enhancements" get in the way and do things automatically "for" me like I hate. They should have spent a fraction of the effort they did enhancing the interface to work like all the other new apps to instead port the app to Mac OS X. Even the graphic designer I was working with said she didn't like the new interface for the InDesign upgrade. People don't like change. (Does anybody know where to find anything on the new version of (f)Word?) But drastic change on the interface and nothing substantive in the functionality (like a Mac version, duh!) is not going to win much applause here.

tlmurray23Author

Inspiring

Orisino: As much as I can't stand government getting in the way of business, well ... there should be a law that you put your code out to open source in situations like these.

_Orisinio_Ribaldi_

Participant

You can also run Windows on Intel Macs with the free Virtual Box virtualization software from Sun Micro. I run OpenSolaris, Solaris, and Linux under Mac OS X 10.5.5 on a MacBook Pro. Don't run Windows because I have a separate XP laptop I can use when I must.

Adobe now seems dedicated to not porting FM to Mac OS X for religious reasons. They've crammed FM into a tech communications box, assuming that only large Windows- or Sun-centric organizations want to use it -- indeed, that they have to use it. The result will be the slow constriction and eventual demise of FM.

Adobe, I beg you -- if you don't want to port to Mac OS X or Linux, then open-source FM and let someone else do it! The big corporations will still buy your version to obtain support.

Now, to go about converting all of those Frame documents I have into OpenOffice .... Sigh.

Show more replies

Sign up

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Sign in to Adobe Community

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Scanning file for viruses.

This file cannot be downloaded