Skip to main content
tlmurray23
tlmurray23
Inspiring
March 9, 2008
Question

Mac OS X Version

  • March 9, 2008
  • 32 replies
  • 24269 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.
This topic has been closed for replies.

32 replies

Show previous replies
Dave Creamer of IDEAS
Community Expert
Dave Creamer of IDEASCommunity Expert
Community Expert
December 5, 2008
In my experience, most of the companies that are prone to use FrameMaker often have strict IT departments that want to standardize on one platform--Windows.

Even though Macs have about 50% or more of the graphics world, the need or want of FrameMaker on that platform is small. For those creating long documentation, InDesign CS4 is getting close to Frame's capabilities, including cross references and conditional text. It still is missing some useful Frame features, however.

Don't forget that you don't need Parallels to run Windows software--you can use Boot Camp that comes with Leopard. The only problem is you have to reboot to use it. I use Parallels 4 to access my Boot Camp partition (without rebooting) and have not experienced major slow-downs compared to version 3. The best thing I like about version 4 is that it breaks the 2 GB RAM limit.
David Creamer: Community Expert (ACI and ACE 1995-2023)
F
fmc ri
Participant
December 4, 2008
Running Windows Frame under Parallels is not too awful. You can use some Mac keyboard shortcuts (e.g. copy and paste). You also can import Mac Illustrator files directly into a Frame doc, even though the Illustrator file is on the Mac. However, to be able to see the art in Frame, save the Illustrator file in a Tiff format instead of a Mac format (do a Save As and look for the format choices).

I just installed Parallels 4. Seems much slower than 3 when running Frame.
MichaelKazlow
MichaelKazlow
Legend
December 4, 2008
Parallel 4 has the ability to use two cores rather than just one. I must
admit that I think Parallels 4 is a step backwards. If the usual
upgrades don't improve performance I see fusion in my future.

BTW, it is not FrameMaker that is using the Mac shortcuts it is
Parallels making the conversion. You can add your own shortcuts to the
ones in Parallels.

Mike
tlmurray23
tlmurray23Author
Inspiring
December 3, 2008
TJ Dalton: Using a Windows version of Frame is what I'm going to have to do as well. In your Parallels situation, if you have an Illustrator file that's in a folder of on your Mac, can you import it into the Windows Frame? Does it not see the Mac files?
R
R__VanDyke
Known Participant
June 18, 2008
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.

As for me, IF the date when it will finally be accepted that an OS-X version of FrameMaker will never happen could be clearly identified, AND I could find a bookmaker to take the bet, THEN I'd bet a large pile of chips on "It's never going to happen."

No matter how much makeup is troweled over its age lines, FrameMaker is a wheezing end-of-life product. Adobe's grudging support and half-hearted feature additions to the Windows version of FrameMaker are nothing more than the propping up the old cash cow until she finally expires.

Now a twenty-first century FrameMaker replacement that also runs on OS-X -- that's something worth petitioning for. If the odds of that happening sound thin, it's a better bet than an OS-X version of FrameMaker...

Cheers,
RBV
tlmurray23
tlmurray23Author
Inspiring
July 8, 2009

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.

_
_Charles_Kindall_
Known Participant
June 17, 2008
I fifteenhundredth the nomination....Just check out the numbers on the Petition site.
_
_TJ_Dalton_
Participant
June 14, 2008
I'm with you guys (Tim, Joel, Frank). I would love an OS X version of FrameMaker!

I run a separate Windows system just for FM these days. A waste of hardware resources, imho.

FM runs OK in Parallels Desktop on my MacBookPro OS X system in a pinch or on the road, which is great.

But an OS X version of FM that is well integrated with AI and Photoshop would be a vast improvement. I'd pay double price for a Mac OS X version.
F
fmc ri
Participant
May 6, 2008
I, too, vote for a Mac OS X version of Framemaker. As an authoring tool, InDesign is no replacement. My publisher is abandoning Framemaker in favor of LaTeX, because there is no Mac OSX version of Framemaker.

Meanwhile, I need to finish up a project using Framemaker 7 in Classic. I would love to upgrade to Leopard on a new Mac, but I don't want to buy a PC version of Framemaker to use for a few more months. Is there no other choice?
_
_Joel_Wilhelm_
Participant
April 30, 2008
With the advent of air, I don't see why Frame can't be made to run on Macs. I'd like to see some sort of suite with Buzzword and Frame integrated. I think it would be killer on Macs and PCs.
tlmurray23
tlmurray23Author
Inspiring
April 25, 2008
> As long-document features in ID continue to improve, It's not a stretch to think of it as a FM replacement

If it ever comes to pass that InDesign is the replacement for Frame ... well, I hope to be retired by then. Either that, or InDesign will have been written in Assembler, because compared to Frame, InDesign in a computer feels like a battleship in a bathtub.
P
peter minneapolis
Participating Frequently
April 24, 2008
Hi, Tim:

> The point is that there is a major market for a reliable Macintosh document application that can put a numbered list where you want it.

Numbered lists in InDesign CS3 are the equal of FM's, though cross-references are lacking without a third-party tool.

As long-document features in ID continue to improve, It's not a stretch to think of it as a FM replacement for those who don't need to create help systems from a single source.

Regards,

Peter Gold
KnowHow ProServices
Show more replies
Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement
Using the community Terms of use Privacy Cookie preferences Do not sell or share my personal information ad choicesAdChoices