- For those who don't know, Adobe's FrameMaker was/is a dynamite program
for authoring large works.
Unfortunately Adobe never released an OS X-native version of FrameMaker,
and with the advent of Intel-based Macs, users can no longer run the
classic version of FrameMaker since the new MacTel machines can't run
This was sent to me by a hopeful FrameMaker user (~flipper,
Adobe has made a statement, recently, regarding the 'possibility' of
renewing their FrameMaker for the Mac platform. They had released 7.2 for
Windows and Solaris, and were asked about a Macintosh revival. The
comment they made was of the sort that left the door open.
The statement was made last November, at an Adobe event called Adobe
FrameMaker 2005 Chautaugua, held in Raleigh, Karl Matthews, Group Product
Manager of Publishing Technologies at Adobe said that "...if [Adobe]
see's changes in the market and [Adobe] see's an opportunity [in the
Macintosh market for FrameMaker], then we'll respond to that."
Apple Computer, apparently is still using FrameMaker, in OS 9, to produce
their own user guides, and apparently Apple's technical writers are
amongst the folks making noise in the direction of Adobe. So, there is
some serious interest.
There's an online petition for folks who are interested in a version of
FrameMaker for OS X. They ask that people only sign once, as the
signatures are proofread, and all dupes have to be removed manually.
There's also an online site, FrameMaker For OS X.org, with lots of
additional information about the need for a version of FrameMaker for OS
X, that is worth checking out:
And here is the FrameMaker user group mailing list site, for anyone who
Randy B. Singer
Co-Author of: The Macintosh Bible (4th, 5th and 6th editions)
Routine OS X Maintenance and Generic Troubleshooting
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Randy B. Singer <randy@...> wrote:
> Apple Computer, apparently is still using FrameMaker, in OS 9, to produceI've heard quite a few people say that for long and technical documents,
> their own user guides, and apparently Apple's technical writers are
> amongst the folks making noise in the direction of Adobe. So, there is
> some serious interest.
Framemaker is the best choice.
This fits with more general discussion suggesting that many users
requiring depth of implementation of features still rely on Classic for
important parts of their workflow.
Kinda ironic, and IMO not Apple's best business decision, to leave
Classic out of Rosetta. But I hear more about third-party efforts every