InCopy vs structured FrameMaker?

Jump to First Reply
Posted:
in Mac Software edited January 2014
Has anyone here used both Incopy and the structured (i.e. SGML/XML) part of Framemaker? How do they compare? For instance, I know that FM interprets markup through an EDD layer: what does Incopy do in this regard? But overall, I suppose that I'm really just after broad impressions of power, usability, etc.



I ask this because I'm a Framemaker user who is trying to glean some insights as to what we can expect down the track in FM8 and beyond. My current expectation is that 8 will be the last major new version of FM, and that more long document, authoring, and single-sourcing features will be built into the Indesign/Incopy combo, eventually supplanting FM.



I love Framemaker, but I think it is starting to show its age a bit. I suppose that we'll all have a pretty good idea about its future when FM8 is eventually released. If it just seems like an incremental upgrade, then this suggests that Adobe's energies are being focused elsewhere. On the other hand, if FM8 proves to be a major update, then this shows that Adobe is making the effort to continue developing it properly.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 15
    thebimbothebimbo Posts: 29member
    You mean InDesign, don't you??
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 2 of 15
    jkbjkb Posts: 18member
    No, InCopy is a companion app to InDesign sold through speciality VARs.



    From what I'm hearing, FrameMaker 8 will not run on the Mac under OS 9 or X.



    jkb
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 3 of 15
    boy_analogboy_analog Posts: 315member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jkb

    No, InCopy is a companion app to InDesign sold through speciality VARs.



    From what I'm hearing, FrameMaker 8 will not run on the Mac under OS 9 or X.



    jkb




    What? No Framemaker for the Mac? Are you serious?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 4 of 15
    othelloothello Posts: 1,054member
    not what i heard...
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 5 of 15
    boy_analogboy_analog Posts: 315member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by othello

    not what i heard...



    I'm inclined to agree. If anything, Framemaker on the Mac makes more sense than it used to, given that more code could be shared with the unix version.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 6 of 15
    thebimbothebimbo Posts: 29member
    Further to last post... even more bizarre is the fact that FrameMaker existed under NeXTstep - and worked very well - and so why there is no version for MacosX is very puzzling - maybe Adobe management just doesn't know what work they did in the past...
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 7 of 15
    boy_analogboy_analog Posts: 315member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by thebimbo

    Further to last post... even more bizarre is the fact that FrameMaker existed under NeXTstep - and worked very well - and so why there is no version for MacosX is very puzzling - maybe Adobe management just doesn't know what work they did in the past...



    Actually, that much has been explained in the frameuser forum. Frame has a development cycle of about two years, and version 7 was near release when OSX was introduced.



    Othello seems to know someone with a little inside info, and I've got no reason to doubt him. At one time he said that carbonized update was being readied, and passing remarks from some Adobe people in frameusers seemed to back up that suggestion. More recently though, he has said that the carbonized update has been nixed, so it looks like we'll just have to wait until 8.



     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 8 of 15
    othelloothello Posts: 1,054member
    yeah, its gone strangely quiet on the FM8 (and the whole carbon issue). the little bit of info i got came quite freely via someone i know at adobe. but since then its been very 'mum's the word'



    so its either coming (and in a big way)



    or not at all



    the whole OS X and Unix FM issue is interesting (well to me anyway). i've run FM 6 on Unix and its rock solid. but the font issue meant it wasn't a runner -- i actually used it to do a lot of processing/MIF stuff, where the missing font errors didn't matter. but i bet its still a considerable port to OS X...



    side note: one drunken conversation with a different adobe person (in the font division) 2 years ago. frame to be binned and merged into InDesign...



    oh, and anyone wonder what app this is (can't be ID as it has plenty of opentype/unicode support, and i doubt its frame...)

    http://www.atypi.org/40_conferences/...l?presentid=58
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 9 of 15
    cowerdcowerd Posts: 579member
    Quote:

    oh, and anyone wonder what app this is (can't be ID as it has plenty of opentype/unicode support, and i doubt its frame...)

    http://www.atypi.org/40_conferences...ml?presentid=58



    Illustrator 11. Finally getting OTF support.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 10 of 15
    othelloothello Posts: 1,054member
    the most obvious answer!
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 11 of 15
    johnsonwaxjohnsonwax Posts: 462member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by othello

    side note: one drunken conversation with a different adobe person (in the font division) 2 years ago. frame to be binned and merged into InDesign...



    Yeah, looking at the construction of ID, it seemed pretty obvious that FM functionality would be slowly integrated via plug-in (ID is basically nothing more than a plug-in hub - it does almost nothing on it's own) until FM was no longer needed. It's not there yet, but you can see it building.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 12 of 15
    boy_analogboy_analog Posts: 315member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by othello



    side note: one drunken conversation with a different adobe person (in the font division) 2 years ago. frame to be binned and merged into InDesign...







    OMG you've done a JYD!!



     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 13 of 15
    boy_analogboy_analog Posts: 315member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by johnsonwax

    Yeah, looking at the construction of ID, it seemed pretty obvious that FM functionality would be slowly integrated via plug-in (ID is basically nothing more than a plug-in hub - it does almost nothing on it's own) until FM was no longer needed. It's not there yet, but you can see it building.



    Yes, I'm starting to think that you're right, especially in view of other comments in this thread. Previously, I had been persuaded that despite ID's plug-in architecture, some design choices in its main layout engine meant that it wasn't especially well suited to taking over Frame's jobs. Sorry to be so vague: the explanation frankly went over my head, but the person writing it seemed to know what he/she was talking about, so I was inclined to accept it.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 14 of 15
    cowerdcowerd Posts: 579member
    Quote:

    Yeah, looking at the construction of ID, it seemed pretty obvious that FM functionality would be slowly integrated via plug-in (ID is basically nothing more than a plug-in hub - it does almost nothing on it's own) until FM was no longer needed. It's not there yet, but you can see it building.



    Most of Adobe's "layout oriented" apps are moving this direction. Adobe has a common libs across Illustrator, PS InDesign and even Acrobat. InDesign is just not packaged as neatly.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 15 of 15
    boy_analogboy_analog Posts: 315member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by cowerd

    Most of Adobe's "layout oriented" apps are moving this direction. Adobe has a common libs across Illustrator, PS InDesign and even Acrobat. InDesign is just not packaged as neatly.



    I just had an interesting thought in this connection. It's a matter of record that FM8 is being developed in India, where InDesign 2 was developed. This has generally been interpreted as a simple cost-cutting measure, but I'm wondering afresh what it would mean if some of the key personnel from the ID2 project are being put to work on FM8.



    If so, this would suggest that some kind of integration between ID and FM is in store. Perhaps some of ID's libraries will be added to FM, or perhaps it's a matter of adding FM's functionality to ID. If the former, then FM8 would be a transitional app, sharing a significant amount of code with ID. If the latter, it would mean that FM8 will be pretty much a brand-new ballgame, like the transition from OS9 to OSX.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.