Article mentioning FrameMaker 3

[frameexpert]

Here is a link to a recent article that mentions FrameMaker and shows a screenshot of version 3.0.

https://blog.mozilla.org/en/internet-culture/why-are-hyperlinks-blue-revisited/

[K.Daube]

Intereting quote - and interesting theme anyway.

[Be.eM]

Thanks for that ride on the time machine… FrameMaker 3.1 on Mac was the first version I've been working with. On a Mac Quadra 800, later converted to a PowerMac 8100 🙂

Bernd

[frameexpert]

Mine was 3 point something on a Mac SE30 with an external, portrait, grayscale monitor.

[Matt-Tech Comm Tools]

I like the reference to both Framaker and Framemaker in that post!

I was supporting Fm on the Mac at a commercial printer in 93 or so, but can't remember how they versioned it back then.

[Barb Binder]

Oh, that's fun, Rick. Thanks for sharing. That's the version I started with, too. 

~Barb

[Bob_Niland]

I also started on FM3, on Unix (HP-UX), and bought a copy for Windows 3.1 at home (as in those days Frame Technology was still trying to break into the mass WP/DTP market, so FM was fairly cheap).

I probably still have the Windows floppies & codeword around here somewhere (as they were needed for later upgrades in those days). I don't presently have a machine that could run Win3.1 or Win95 (which would be needed, as FM3 is likely awash in 16-bit x86 code, and perhaps also need RealMode drivers).

One thing the software industry has been pretty competent about is forward compatibility. Any later version of FM can open the .fm & .book binaries of any earlier version (±system font issues, and some cautionary dialogs). FM goes a step further, in that earlier FMs can open the MIFs of later ones, if the MIFs exist or can be created). There's no reason to be able to run old versions, other than tech support for users still on them.