[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [New search]
To: Ed Treijs <etreijs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Frame/Acrobat upgrades, was RE: Frame 7.1 with Acrobat 5?
From: Dov Isaacs <isaacs@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 10:26:32 -0800
Ed, (1) I think you should assume that there will not be further patch releases to FrameMaker 7.0, at least on the platforms on which there will be FrameMaker 7.1. (2) Yes, FrameMaker 7.0/7.1 works just fine with Acrobat 6.x (either version) or Distiller 6.x. My comments were indeed aimed at someone who already had full Acrobat 5 installed and was not planning to currently upgrade to an Acrobat 6-based workflow. (3) I would agree that the Acrobat 6.0.1 updater strategy was pretty bone-headed in its need for the original Acrobat 6 disk or install directory. (In a corporate environment, if you installed from a network share, the updater would have attempted to connect to that network share to get the original installation material.) I (and others within Adobe) vociferously complained to the Acrobat development group about that type of bone-headed updater. (4) With regards to temporary disk space, protocols of Windows call for applications and system software to only use the volume and directory specified in the TEMP environment variable. Attempting to go to any other volume is really not kosher by Windows standards. You really don't want an installer to guess what volume to put temporary stuff on without your explicit permission. Quite frankly, for better or worse, the way Windows and other applications and installers work these days, you should assume that you need at least 500 to 700 megabytes of free space on the disk volume used for the temporary directory. (5) Assuming that serious gaffes occurred in the design and implementation of the Acrobat 6.0.1 updater, please understand that any installer and/or updater for Acrobat must, by definition, be fairly complex and possibly require reboots. Why? Acrobat is not a simple application that runs by itself. In order to update the driver (potentially), driver port, and driver plug-in for Distiller, the system's spooling service must be shut down first before the update is made. Because of the interfaces with the browser, the browser cannot be running and especially if the browser is displaying a PDF file. - Dov At 1/7/2004 09:00 AM, Ed Treijs wrote: >> Should not be a problem. Just don't let the installer for >> FrameMaker 7.1 >> install Distiller 6.0.1. FrameMaker 7.0 with all its patches >> and FrameMaker 7.1 >> are setup to recognize and properly deal with either >> Distiller 5.x or 6.x. * >This leads me to two points/questions. > >This summer, we upgraded to FrameMaker 7.0p578 and Acrobat 6.0 from >5.5.6/4.0.5. We write the manuals in Frame and publish them as PDFs for >uers to read on-line (or, probably more likely, print themselves). > >1) With the release of FrameMaker 7.1, does that mean that 7.0 is not going >beyond p578? Our experience has been that 7.0p578 is much more likely to >crash than 5.5.6. (The error numbers are consistent with the numbers others >had posted, but I can't find them just now.) If we have to upgrade to 7.1 >so be it, but I would need to know what the price was if any. As far as I >am concerned, we would be changing in order to reduce 7.0s propensity to >crash, rather than for any new features that 7.1 would include. > >2) I assume Dov's statement above, "Just don't let the installer for >FrameMaker 7.1 install Distiller 6.0.1", is specifically for the person >running Acrobat 5 who originally posed the question. FrameMaker 7.0/7.1 >works just fine with Acrobat Professional 6.0.1, right? > >As a matter of fact, over the holidays my Acrobat 6.0 phoned home (Adobe) >and told me that there was an upgrade available, did I want to install it, I >could keep using Acrobat while running the installer (and other sweet >promises). I clicked "OK"--silly me! > >First, the installer was a stupid dolt about temporary file locations (my C: >space apparently was insufficient, and I don't see where I could convince it >to use D: which has lots of room). I chose to proceed with "no rollback" >(maybe not the finest choice). > >Then the installer insisted that I close MS Internet Explorer (apparently >because I had started Acrobat to read a PDF from a web page). > >THEN the installer insisted that I provide it with the Acrobat 6.0 >installation disk! Now, in a corporate environment, *assuming I have the >installation disk handy is plain daft*. > >I had no choice to cancel out of the installer, having wasted some time. >Only to discover that I had no printers defined on my PC, and apparently no >way to fix this! Fortunately a reboot solved that--the installer had shut >down some printer process or thread in NT. Still, more time wasted. > >I don't see how this upgrade could possibly be considered simple enough to >prompt the user to upgrade on the fly. It isn't, and it shouldn't. > >Well, I'll try it by downloading the upgrade file, getting the CD-ROM, etc. >Presumably it will continue to work with FrameMaker 7.0, or 7.1, or >whatever. > >Ed (software is like sausages--you don't want to be there for the creation >process) Treijs ** To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx ** ** with "unsubscribe framers" (no quotes) in the body. **