It's Here - the Brand New Adobe FrameMaker for Mac OS X Petition Web Site

[Paul]

Dear Supporter,

Apple introduced its first Intel-based Macs in January and intends to
transition the entire range from PowerPC to Intel by the end of the year.
This is significant for Mac FrameMaker users because the new Intel Macs don't
support the Classic environment and cannot run FrameMaker. To mark this
critical phase in our campaign, I've set up a new domain for the FrameMaker
for Mac OS X Web site (fm4osx.org), totally redesigned the site, and added
PDF form letters to make writing to Adobe and Apple really easy. Please take
a look at the new site and write to Adobe and Apple today.

<http://www.fm4osx.org/>

Apparently, after putting all of its efforts into Acrobat and Creative Suite
for the last few years, Adobe has reevaluated its portfolio and is
reinvesting in FrameMaker. The first evidence of this was the September
release of FrameMaker 7.2 for Windows and Solaris. Adobe has also said that
if the market for Mac FrameMaker changes and there's an opportunity, it will
respond. In other words, if enough people let Adobe know that they want
FrameMaker for Mac OS X, they'll make it.

If you haven't already written to Adobe, I urge you to do so now. Even if you
have already written, please write again. The new PDF form letters on the Web
site mean that it will only take a few minutes of your time. I've also
provided address labels.

Apple is still using Classic (Mac OS 9) and FrameMaker 6.0 to produce its own
user guides and I know that its technical writers want FrameMaker for Mac OS
X just as much as we do. Even Adobe is still using it.

If you've not yet signed the petition, please do so now. If you've already
signed, please don't sign again, as it diminishes the petition and I have to
manually remove duplicates. I understand your frustration, but writing to
Adobe would be more constructive.

<http://www.petitiononline.com/fmforosx/petition.html>

If you're not already a member, please join the FrameMaker for Mac OS X
mailing list to keep up to date with the campaign's progress and discuss Mac
FrameMaker-related issues.

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fmforosx/>

The current petition count is 3,245 signatures.

Please forward this message to all concerned.

Thank you for your support!

Paul Findon
FrameMaker for Mac OS X Petition Organizer

[Viktor Haag]

Post by Paul
Apple introduced its first Intel-based Macs in January and
intends to transition the entire range from PowerPC to Intel by
the end of the year. This is significant for Mac FrameMaker
users because the new Intel Macs don't support the Classic
environment and cannot run FrameMaker.

I have a question for Mac users out there, who are also Frame
users. How many of you are using this option to do regular, daily
work:

- Running Frame for Windows inside Virtual PC on a Mac?

- Running Frame for Solaris on a Solaris server, but using your
Macintosh as an X host (i.e. your Mac is a terminal and the
XServer software used to display the application on your Mac)?

I did option two while working with Frame and running Linux a few
years ago, and it worked perfectly fine. However, I have not
tried to use a Mac as an XHost for regular work.

Has anyone actually tried these options for use as a regular work
environment? How useful are they? How stable?

[Gordon Sande]

Post by Viktor Haag

Post by Paul
Apple introduced its first Intel-based Macs in January and
intends to transition the entire range from PowerPC to Intel by
the end of the year. This is significant for Mac FrameMaker
users because the new Intel Macs don't support the Classic
environment and cannot run FrameMaker.

I have a question for Mac users out there, who are also Frame
users. How many of you are using this option to do regular, daily
- Running Frame for Windows inside Virtual PC on a Mac?
- Running Frame for Solaris on a Solaris server, but using your
Macintosh as an X host (i.e. your Mac is a terminal and the
XServer software used to display the application on your Mac)?
I did option two while working with Frame and running Linux a few
years ago, and it worked perfectly fine. However, I have not
tried to use a Mac as an XHost for regular work.
Has anyone actually tried these options for use as a regular work
environment? How useful are they? How stable?

Had 5.5.6 on Mac. Used 7.1 under VPC but not happy. Switched to
7.1 with Timbuktu after trying MS's RDC.

TB2 and RDC are the same notion, but a different implementation,
as using an X host.

TB2 does file transfer etc which were more awkward under RDC. It
is a pain remembering whether it is command-s or control-s for
save, etc, etc. Would greatly prefer a native MaxOsX FrameMaker.

[Viktor Haag]

Hmm -- I never thought of Timbuktu. Thanks, Gordon; I will add this to
the list of things to look into.

[Tim Murray]

Post by Viktor Haag
I have a question for Mac users out there, who are also Frame
users. How many of you are using this option to do regular, daily
- Running Frame for Windows inside Virtual PC on a Mac?

I use it once in a while to do quick font fixes and changes the Mac can't do
as well or as fast. But then I save the file, shut down VPC, and go back to
Classic.

Post by Viktor Haag
Has anyone actually tried these options for use as a regular work
environment? How useful are they? How stable?

Very useful, insofar as font work is orders of magnitude faster. Quite
stable, too. But I do save quite often, as it seems that after I have used
Virtual PC + Frame for many hours, it will crash.

[Ed Ruf]

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 11:09:58 -0500, in comp.text.frame Viktor Haag

Post by Viktor Haag
- Running Frame for Solaris on a Solaris server, but using your
Macintosh as an X host (i.e. your Mac is a terminal and the
XServer software used to display the application on your Mac)?

I have run 5.5.6 on Solaris from a PC running xterm software for
years. I've written 3 300+ page technical reports with a couple of
hundred referenced EPS figures, built TOC, LOF, LOT, no problem.

[Bill Tuthill]

Post by Ed Ruf

Post by Viktor Haag
- Running Frame for Solaris on a Solaris server, but using your
Macintosh as an X host (i.e. your Mac is a terminal and the
XServer software used to display the application on your Mac)?

I have run 5.5.6 on Solaris from a PC running xterm software for
years. I've written 3 300+ page technical reports with a couple of
hundred referenced EPS figures, built TOC, LOF, LOT, no problem.

Yes, it used to be painful on 10baseT ethernet networks, but with
even 100baseT, it is completely fine.

If run on the same subnet (no gateway/router between) it is faster
than WindowsXP on a 2x faster CPU, because Windoze is still prone
to unpredictable delays. Not lockups and blue-screens so much now,
but the whole system just seems to fall asleep for many seconds.
I've never seen Frame-Solaris over-the-net do that.

[Viktor Haag]

For years, I used Frame on Solaris using Linux as the XHost and it was
fast, reliable and stable. I briefly tried using OSX as the XHost, and
it seemd slightly less stable (from an X point of view, not a Frame
point of view), but that was in the early days of Apple's X server.

And that was in the days of Frame 6 -- I haven't tried it with 7.x.

Thanks for the feedback, Bill.

[Paolo Tramannoni]

Post by Viktor Haag
- Running Frame for Windows inside Virtual PC on a Mac?

I can do my work with FM 6.0, so I continue using Frame on a PPC Mac.

Cheers,
Paolo