🚀 go-pugleaf

A. My experience and viewpoint is not that of a professional FrameMaker user. But I have experienced the stability Sean mentions, and it's comforting. 

B. Another productivity factor is FrameMaker's system requirements. I don't have to keep changing everything to run an upgrade. 

C. There's another issue. In my mind, keeping up with technology, and using technology more effectively, has more to do with process than mere features. 

Along these lines, I humbly submit that FrameMaker's multifile "book" orientation is significant. The Internet doesn't care about single file documents. The networked office needs more than single file documents. 

When version 6 came out, I began my experience with FrameMaker. I needed to better understand the different types of content, and I expected an Adobe product to provide a structured environment within which to learn. 

Combined with FrameMaker's automated outputs to PDF and (with WWP) markup, the ability to repurpose and integrate output from diverse applications to polished, everyday paper output makes operational sense. 

In my opinion, Adobe's softspoken expansion of FrameMaker's output automation to different media is risky, but worth the risk. 

The network administrators want application integration. The document (or content or records) management people want repurposing. Most the users don't think at the database level, so where does it leave you? With paper. 

Of course the guys in Redmond support this. The Office is a cash cow. Think those Office users can live without a printer? 

In my eyes, FrameMaker 7 is not mainframe. It's mainstream because it exemplifies a tool straddling many modern processes. Work smarter. 

A. Stability. B. Upgrade cost - time & money. C. Thinking out of the box. 

Thank you. I'll shut up now.