[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[New search]
To: Bill Briggs <web@xxxxxxxxxxx>, framers@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Adobe Certified Newsletter -- notice about FrameMaker
From: David Crowe <David.Crowe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 15:48:10 -0400
Delivered-to: jeremyg-freeframers:org-ffarchiv@freeframers.org
In-reply-to: <p0611040bbf02fae6501f@[131.202.8.59]>
References: <20050719182409.97497.qmail@web81610.mail.yahoo.com><p0611040bbf02fae6501f@[131.202.8.59]>
Sender: owner-framers@xxxxxxxxx
This is the first time I've heard a reason that actually made sense to me. But Apple PDF generation is pedestrian. Serious users are going to get Acrobat for the job control, the complete support of the PDF specification, scriptability (complete with annoying bugs). I think Adobe may have exaggerated the damage that OS X would do in the Acrobat sales area. I've never made a PDF on OS X by any other means than distillation through Acrobat Distiller. Mind you I still use a Classic version of Distiller too. The sticker price of Acrobat it a bit much, and while I am elegible for academic pricing, I'll sit it out till I really have to upgrade.
- web
At 11:24 AM -0700 7/19/05, Abbas Zaidi wrote:I have done doc development for Apple for a year, and the reasoning I heard from the old timers was a bit less financial.
I understood that a big part of the reasoning was Apple's decision to enter the PDF generation market, which takes Adobe away from being the only player in the field. Adobe is simply punishing Apple by taking away (reworking a relatively underperforming product, i.e.,) Frame from Apple's PDF-native platform (OSX). Would you support a company that, instead of being greatful for your continued loyalty, decides to emulate (and thus infringe upon) your very bread and butter? Made sense to me when I heard it..
It would augur well for Adobe if they came back to the MacTel platform, and made the skip of OSX only a PPC generation skip. That says loads about foresight in picking the right technology to skip.. just by virtue of it having been such a well-timed and astute move..
Abbas ================================================ Life is for those who can reach out and grab it! http://www.winkinglotus.com/az ================================================
--- Allen <soundbyte@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Allen
waynefb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > I just really wish there was a good replacement for what FrameMaker > does, because once the move to Intel chips happens next year, it > will only be a matter of time before I have to replace my computers > and then Framemaker is toast as well (at least in my book).
I'm finding that many of the jobs I'm interviewing for want Word. I'm starting a short term contract at (big Internet company) and they want it all in Word. I mentioned the instability of the template in Word and the response was, "Yeah, but we need it in Word so it can be used in foreign countries." I guess they never heard of RTF.
But if FrameMaker is toast, what is everyone looking toward? None of the XML based stuff seems really usable. Is it back to LaTex?
** To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx ** ** with "unsubscribe framers" (no quotes) in the body. **
** To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx ** ** with "unsubscribe framers" (no quotes) in the body. **