Even if Quark for OS X came out tomorrow, a lot of business would of been lost to Adobe Indesign 2. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
<strong>Even if Quark for OS X came out tomorrow, a lot of business would of been lost to Adobe Indesign 2. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
True but alot of business have and will be staying with Quark. Apple needs Quark on OSX ASAP.
I think that has a lot more to do with when Quark6 arrives than with when Apple releases new hardware.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You missed my point. In a nutshell:
-Apple said it would discontinue OS 9 booting in January.
-New Machines came out... in January.
-Then they said they would have a machine that boots OS 9 until July (I believe.)
-Hence, new machines in July? I think the chances are pretty good based on the other end date and result.
Then I'm just theorizing that the current pricing is a possible sign that they are going to come out with something that would be considered a big step up, and the prices would go back to aproximately what they were before.
They would not hold back great new machines for Quark. Wouldn't happen. But I can't see them making the effort to get 970 based machines botting classic.
<strong>There have been a few press releases and "official statements" about the POWER5 and POWER6, and seperate ones about how the 970 is the first of a line of processors, another one mentioned 980 and 990, etc. Just because they don't spell it out for you and handhold you through reading it doesn't mean it isn't straightforward, however. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Which is why searching for PPC980 on IBM's site returns bupkiss? Ditto for the PPC990 (although PPC turns up quite a few and 990 nets you lots of info about the RS6000 990.)
No offense, but I think you may be conflating results from rumor sites and geek.com or something. IBM has released very little info about the Power5 aside from a press release in 2002 and another this year that they have booted one up on assembly lang code. And I have scoured the visible portions of the website for hints and gotten nothing.
Are there developer docs you're looking at that you could share with us?
Which is why searching for PPC980 on IBM's site returns bupkiss? Ditto for the PPC990 (although PPC turns up quite a few and 990 nets you lots of info about the RS6000 990.)
No offense, but I think you may be conflating results from rumor sites and geek.com or something. IBM has released very little info about the Power5 aside from a press release in 2002 and another this year that they have booted one up on assembly lang code. And I have scoured the visible portions of the website for hints and gotten nothing.
Are there developer docs you're looking at that you could share with us?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Searching the IBM site often seems to miss things, especially content on slides. I can't remember where the reference to 980, 990, etc was -- it may have been an interview with an IBM rep on a news site like c|net. I do specifically remember it was an IBM guy being quoted, however.
If I did, hypothetically, have access to developer docs I probably couldn't tell you. And if I did have sources who leaked me information I would have to protect them. As it is some sources might think I say to much, but then they don't know what else I know, do they? <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> Rumourmongering can be so much fun.
-Apple said it would discontinue OS 9 booting in January.
-New Machines came out... in January.
-Then they said they would have a machine that boots OS 9 until July (I believe.)
-Hence, new machines in July? I think the chances are pretty good based on the other end date and result.</strong><hr></blockquote>Is there a point. Apple said that all new machines introduced after January 1 would boot only into MacOS X. Apple continues to sell old machines that can boot into MacOS 9. Apple says that those machines will be discontinued in June. Where is the controversy? You seem to have inferred from this that Apple will replace the MacOS 9-bootable machines in July with new machines. Well, the replacements for the those have already been introduced and Apple is struggling to ship them.
[quote]Originally posted by MrSparkle:
<strong>Then I'm just theorizing that the current pricing is a possible sign that they are going to come out with something that would be considered a big step up, and the prices would go back to aproximately what they were before.</strong><hr></blockquote>With the introduction of Apple's latest towers, it lowered prices in this segment of its product line. Those prices are not going back up. The only way that you will see a more expensive Mac is for the fruit company to introduce a line medium-range to high-end workstations. However, the workstation market has a lot of downward pressure from x86 computers running Linux. The Macintosh prices today are not going up.
[quote]Originally posted by MrSparkle:
<strong>They would not hold back great new machines for Quark. Wouldn't happen. But I can't see them making the effort to get 970 based machines botting classic.</strong><hr></blockquote>The PPC 970 is fully 32-bit compatible. Why do you think that it will have any difficulty at all running Classic apps?
Oddly enough, yes. Which is why I mentioned that the next one is indeed this year.
. <--Point
<--Scott's head.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh god you are so ****ing stupid it annoys me. Listen you tool I do mean the one in 2004. The point I am making is that if Apple plans to have the 970 out in the next year then they will tell us about it before the "next" (2004) WWDC which means we will hear about at "this" (2003) WWCD. Yes I know my wording of "this" and "next" is out of sync with some people. Others would agree with me.
Stop being such a troll. Your reply to me adds nothing to this thread. Shut up.
<strong>Would Apple really hold onto 9 just for Quark?
Lot's of folks are moving to InDesign and liking it just fine.
It seems dubious to me that Apple would be holding up the progression of it's towers and OS plans just for Quark.
Correct me if I'm wrong.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You must not work for a company with a big publishing department. These guys have worked on Quark since it came out and it'll require more ear twisting than that to switch them to, IMO, the superior InDesign (I mean you can make press-ready PDF's straight from ID2 for God's sake!).
<strong>Oh god you are so ****ing stupid it annoys me. Listen you tool I do mean the one in 2004. The point I am making is that if Apple plans to have the 970 out in the next year then they will tell us about it before the "next" (2004) WWDC which means we will hear about at "this" (2003) WWCD. Yes I know my wording of "this" and "next" is out of sync with some people. Others would agree with me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And you are still missing the point. I don't care what you were suggesting. I didn't ask Transcendental Ocotothorpe if the PPC970 would ship "next" year. I asked if it would ship before this WWDC. Nor do I give a damn when you think it will ship since you aren't TO who supposedly has an informed opinion. Unlike youself, who is still willing to offer an opinion despite the fact that no one asked you to, he may really have a source in the know.
Oh, and don't blame me if you are incapable of an un-ambiguous post.
[quote]<strong>Stop being such a troll. Your reply to me adds nothing to this thread. Shut up.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Again, don't blame me for your own pecadillos. If I had wanted uninformed speculation I would have asked for it. As it is, your last three posts have been a complete waste of bandwidth. Good day, sir.
<strong>With the introduction of Apple's latest towers, it lowered prices in this segment of its product line. Those prices are not going back up. The only way that you will see a more expensive Mac is for the fruit company to introduce a line medium-range to high-end workstations. However, the workstation market has a lot of downward pressure from x86 computers running Linux. The Macintosh prices today are not going up. </strong><hr></blockquote>
They have done this many times. If they feel the feutures of a new tower justify jacking up the price, they will. I think if they came out with 970 based towers you would see the prices go back to something like: $1800,$2500 and $3,300 like they have been in the recent past.
[quote]Originally posted by Mr. Me:
<strong>The PPC 970 is fully 32-bit compatible. Why do you think that it will have any difficulty at all running Classic apps?</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>Would Apple really hold onto 9 just for Quark?
Lot's of folks are moving to InDesign and liking it just fine.
It seems dubious to me that Apple would be holding up the progression of it's towers and OS plans just for Quark.
Correct me if I'm wrong.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is a discussion over at macintouch that is very level headed on trying to justify the move to OSX. Most posts (chosen by the editor) are really well written. I think the essence of the posts is that the emperor has no clothes without a speed bump to hide the performance loss from going to OSX. I think Apple is going to (if it already doesn't) have a lot of trouble moving hardware with OSX. It may not be holding on to 9 just because of Quark, but because of the trouble it is having convincing the core of its market to make the jump to X and still needs to stay on the hardware upgrade cycle.
Again, don't blame me for your own pecadillos. If I had wanted uninformed speculation I would have asked for it. As it is, your last three posts have been a complete waste of bandwidth. Good day, sir.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not blaming you for my "pecadillos" I'm blaming you for being an asshole troll. STFU already.
I misspoke I meant to say OS 9 not Classic.</strong><hr></blockquote>Apple has already stated that computers introduced after January 1, 2003 will not boot into MacOS 9. So that is already a resolved issue.
You must not work for a company with a big publishing department. These guys have worked on Quark since it came out and it'll require more ear twisting than that to switch them to, IMO, the superior InDesign (I mean you can make press-ready PDF's straight from ID2 for God's sake!).</strong><hr></blockquote>
I work for a company that develops books for most of the big publishers in the US, so I do get a bit of info on the direction that these companies are moving in major software choices since they dictate what we use to produce books. I can state with confidence that the industry is looking at solutions other than Quark right now, and it is not the OS that is driving this, it is XML, and WEB based "companion" publishing of books.
As to the programs that are being evaluated, it is more than just Quark and ID. I know of one company that is seriously looking at FrameMaker (not OS X right?), and we are beginning to see some pilot work come in based off of this dicision. InDesign is also being seriously looked at. Right now however all of the companies are using Quark 4 for most of their production.
I'm not sure of the OS choice of most of these companies for internal production, but we are still on OS 9.2. I dont see a move to OS X till the end of this year at the earliest for our company due to workflow concerns and cost of upgrading a few hundred computers at 4 locations (Editorial, Design, Production, Imaging/Scanning, Prepress, and Multi-media/WEB development). Quark workflows are well established for both traditional delivery of Quark files or PDF's using Distiller.
As far as I know the direction for the industry is still in flux. I dont see any clear winners at this point in time, most of the solutions have their pluses and minuses. One thing that I do see that will be used to drive these decisions is the ease of integrating XML into the workflow so that the publishers can easily reprupose editorial content for print and web deliveries.
I work for a company that develops books for most of the big publishers in the US, so I do get a bit of info on the direction that these companies are moving in major software choices since they dictate what we use to produce books. I can state with confidence that the industry is looking at solutions other than Quark right now, and it is not the OS that is driving this, it is XML, and WEB based "companion" publishing of books.
As to the programs that are being evaluated, it is more than just Quark and ID. I know of one company that is seriously looking at FrameMaker (not OS X right?), and we are beginning to see some pilot work come in based off of this dicision. InDesign is also being seriously looked at. Right now however all of the companies are using Quark 4 for most of their production.
I'm not sure of the OS choice of most of these companies for internal production, but we are still on OS 9.2. I dont see a move to OS X till the end of this year at the earliest for our company due to workflow concerns and cost of upgrading a few hundred computers at 4 locations (Editorial, Design, Production, Imaging/Scanning, Prepress, and Multi-media/WEB development). Quark workflows are well established for both traditional delivery of Quark files or PDF's using Distiller.
As far as I know the direction for the industry is still in flux. I dont see any clear winners at this point in time, most of the solutions have their pluses and minuses. One thing that I do see that will be used to drive these decisions is the ease of integrating XML into the workflow so that the publishers can easily reprupose editorial content for print and web deliveries.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I hear you. We even looked at the offering from <a href="http://www.softmagic.com"; target="_blank">Soft Magic's M</a> It has technically what we are looking for (DTP workflow management) but I find the publishing tool a little lacking. but good clean design and best of all OS X native.
<strong>I know of one company that is seriously looking at FrameMaker (not OS X right?)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Unfortunately, FM 7 works in Classic. But from the print/web integration standpoint it is far superior than QuarkXPress or InDesign. If you make books like all sorts of documentation, FM becomes a better choice. And though the number of its users is plain zero compared to QXP, the fact FM works in Classic is holding back some large corporate clients.
I think Steve is simply afraid of admitting it. He mentions only Quark but remembers both FrameMaker and Acrobat (full version) too.
Comments
<strong>Even if Quark for OS X came out tomorrow, a lot of business would of been lost to Adobe Indesign 2. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
True but alot of business have and will be staying with Quark. Apple needs Quark on OSX ASAP.
<strong>
I think that has a lot more to do with when Quark6 arrives than with when Apple releases new hardware.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You missed my point. In a nutshell:
-Apple said it would discontinue OS 9 booting in January.
-New Machines came out... in January.
-Then they said they would have a machine that boots OS 9 until July (I believe.)
-Hence, new machines in July? I think the chances are pretty good based on the other end date and result.
Then I'm just theorizing that the current pricing is a possible sign that they are going to come out with something that would be considered a big step up, and the prices would go back to aproximately what they were before.
They would not hold back great new machines for Quark. Wouldn't happen. But I can't see them making the effort to get 970 based machines botting classic.
<strong>There have been a few press releases and "official statements" about the POWER5 and POWER6, and seperate ones about how the 970 is the first of a line of processors, another one mentioned 980 and 990, etc. Just because they don't spell it out for you and handhold you through reading it doesn't mean it isn't straightforward, however.
Which is why searching for PPC980 on IBM's site returns bupkiss? Ditto for the PPC990 (although PPC turns up quite a few and 990 nets you lots of info about the RS6000 990.)
<a href="http://www.ibm.com/search?en=utf&v=11&lang=en&cc=us&lv=c&q=PPC980&x=0 &y=0" target="_blank">Search results.</a>
No offense, but I think you may be conflating results from rumor sites and geek.com or something. IBM has released very little info about the Power5 aside from a press release in 2002 and another this year that they have booted one up on assembly lang code. And I have scoured the visible portions of the website for hints and gotten nothing.
Are there developer docs you're looking at that you could share with us?
<strong>
Which is why searching for PPC980 on IBM's site returns bupkiss? Ditto for the PPC990 (although PPC turns up quite a few and 990 nets you lots of info about the RS6000 990.)
<a href="http://www.ibm.com/search?en=utf&v=11&lang=en&cc=us&lv=c&q=PPC980&x=0 &y=0" target="_blank">Search results.</a>
No offense, but I think you may be conflating results from rumor sites and geek.com or something. IBM has released very little info about the Power5 aside from a press release in 2002 and another this year that they have booted one up on assembly lang code. And I have scoured the visible portions of the website for hints and gotten nothing.
Are there developer docs you're looking at that you could share with us?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Searching the IBM site often seems to miss things, especially content on slides. I can't remember where the reference to 980, 990, etc was -- it may have been an interview with an IBM rep on a news site like c|net. I do specifically remember it was an IBM guy being quoted, however.
If I did, hypothetically, have access to developer docs I probably couldn't tell you. And if I did have sources who leaked me information I would have to protect them. As it is some sources might think I say to much, but then they don't know what else I know, do they? <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> Rumourmongering can be so much fun.
<strong>
Two things. 1) The question was directed at Transcendental Octothorpe who claims to actually know, and 2) the next WWDC is this year, not next.
<a href="http://developer.apple.com/wwdc/"; target="_blank">http://developer.apple.com/wwdc/</a></strong><hr></blockquote>;
1) I can answer any question I want here and 2) don't you think they're going to have a WWDC EVERY YEAR?
<strong>1) I can answer any question I want here and</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, you certainly can. But if they're all going to be as scintillating as your last two posts let me know, and I'll start ignoring you now.
[quote]<strong> 2) don't you think they're going to have a WWDC EVERY YEAR?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oddly enough, yes. Which is why I mentioned that the next one is indeed this year.
. <--Point
<strong>You missed my point. In a nutshell:
-Apple said it would discontinue OS 9 booting in January.
-New Machines came out... in January.
-Then they said they would have a machine that boots OS 9 until July (I believe.)
-Hence, new machines in July? I think the chances are pretty good based on the other end date and result.</strong><hr></blockquote>Is there a point. Apple said that all new machines introduced after January 1 would boot only into MacOS X. Apple continues to sell old machines that can boot into MacOS 9. Apple says that those machines will be discontinued in June. Where is the controversy? You seem to have inferred from this that Apple will replace the MacOS 9-bootable machines in July with new machines. Well, the replacements for the those have already been introduced and Apple is struggling to ship them.
[quote]Originally posted by MrSparkle:
<strong>Then I'm just theorizing that the current pricing is a possible sign that they are going to come out with something that would be considered a big step up, and the prices would go back to aproximately what they were before.</strong><hr></blockquote>With the introduction of Apple's latest towers, it lowered prices in this segment of its product line. Those prices are not going back up. The only way that you will see a more expensive Mac is for the fruit company to introduce a line medium-range to high-end workstations. However, the workstation market has a lot of downward pressure from x86 computers running Linux. The Macintosh prices today are not going up.
[quote]Originally posted by MrSparkle:
<strong>They would not hold back great new machines for Quark. Wouldn't happen. But I can't see them making the effort to get 970 based machines botting classic.</strong><hr></blockquote>The PPC 970 is fully 32-bit compatible. Why do you think that it will have any difficulty at all running Classic apps?
<strong>
Oddly enough, yes. Which is why I mentioned that the next one is indeed this year.
. <--Point
Oh god you are so ****ing stupid it annoys me. Listen you tool I do mean the one in 2004. The point I am making is that if Apple plans to have the 970 out in the next year then they will tell us about it before the "next" (2004) WWDC which means we will hear about at "this" (2003) WWCD. Yes I know my wording of "this" and "next" is out of sync with some people. Others would agree with me.
Stop being such a troll. Your reply to me adds nothing to this thread. Shut up.
<strong>Would Apple really hold onto 9 just for Quark?
Lot's of folks are moving to InDesign and liking it just fine.
It seems dubious to me that Apple would be holding up the progression of it's towers and OS plans just for Quark.
Correct me if I'm wrong.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You must not work for a company with a big publishing department. These guys have worked on Quark since it came out and it'll require more ear twisting than that to switch them to, IMO, the superior InDesign (I mean you can make press-ready PDF's straight from ID2 for God's sake!).
<strong>Oh god you are so ****ing stupid it annoys me. Listen you tool I do mean the one in 2004. The point I am making is that if Apple plans to have the 970 out in the next year then they will tell us about it before the "next" (2004) WWDC which means we will hear about at "this" (2003) WWCD. Yes I know my wording of "this" and "next" is out of sync with some people. Others would agree with me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And you are still missing the point. I don't care what you were suggesting. I didn't ask Transcendental Ocotothorpe if the PPC970 would ship "next" year. I asked if it would ship before this WWDC. Nor do I give a damn when you think it will ship since you aren't TO who supposedly has an informed opinion. Unlike youself, who is still willing to offer an opinion despite the fact that no one asked you to, he may really have a source in the know.
Oh, and don't blame me if you are incapable of an un-ambiguous post.
[quote]<strong>Stop being such a troll. Your reply to me adds nothing to this thread. Shut up.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Again, don't blame me for your own pecadillos. If I had wanted uninformed speculation I would have asked for it. As it is, your last three posts have been a complete waste of bandwidth. Good day, sir.
Lemon Bon Bon
[ 02-24-2003: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
<strong>With the introduction of Apple's latest towers, it lowered prices in this segment of its product line. Those prices are not going back up. The only way that you will see a more expensive Mac is for the fruit company to introduce a line medium-range to high-end workstations. However, the workstation market has a lot of downward pressure from x86 computers running Linux. The Macintosh prices today are not going up. </strong><hr></blockquote>
They have done this many times. If they feel the feutures of a new tower justify jacking up the price, they will. I think if they came out with 970 based towers you would see the prices go back to something like: $1800,$2500 and $3,300 like they have been in the recent past.
[quote]Originally posted by Mr. Me:
<strong>The PPC 970 is fully 32-bit compatible. Why do you think that it will have any difficulty at all running Classic apps?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I misspoke I meant to say OS 9 not Classic.
<strong>Would Apple really hold onto 9 just for Quark?
Lot's of folks are moving to InDesign and liking it just fine.
It seems dubious to me that Apple would be holding up the progression of it's towers and OS plans just for Quark.
Correct me if I'm wrong.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is a discussion over at macintouch that is very level headed on trying to justify the move to OSX. Most posts (chosen by the editor) are really well written. I think the essence of the posts is that the emperor has no clothes without a speed bump to hide the performance loss from going to OSX. I think Apple is going to (if it already doesn't) have a lot of trouble moving hardware with OSX. It may not be holding on to 9 just because of Quark, but because of the trouble it is having convincing the core of its market to make the jump to X and still needs to stay on the hardware upgrade cycle.
<strong>
Again, don't blame me for your own pecadillos. If I had wanted uninformed speculation I would have asked for it. As it is, your last three posts have been a complete waste of bandwidth. Good day, sir.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not blaming you for my "pecadillos" I'm blaming you for being an asshole troll. STFU already.
<strong>
I misspoke I meant to say OS 9 not Classic.</strong><hr></blockquote>Apple has already stated that computers introduced after January 1, 2003 will not boot into MacOS 9. So that is already a resolved issue.
<strong>I'm not blaming you for my "pecadillos" I'm blaming you for being an asshole troll. STFU already.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Eat me.
<strong>
You must not work for a company with a big publishing department. These guys have worked on Quark since it came out and it'll require more ear twisting than that to switch them to, IMO, the superior InDesign (I mean you can make press-ready PDF's straight from ID2 for God's sake!).</strong><hr></blockquote>
I work for a company that develops books for most of the big publishers in the US, so I do get a bit of info on the direction that these companies are moving in major software choices since they dictate what we use to produce books. I can state with confidence that the industry is looking at solutions other than Quark right now, and it is not the OS that is driving this, it is XML, and WEB based "companion" publishing of books.
As to the programs that are being evaluated, it is more than just Quark and ID. I know of one company that is seriously looking at FrameMaker (not OS X right?), and we are beginning to see some pilot work come in based off of this dicision. InDesign is also being seriously looked at. Right now however all of the companies are using Quark 4 for most of their production.
I'm not sure of the OS choice of most of these companies for internal production, but we are still on OS 9.2. I dont see a move to OS X till the end of this year at the earliest for our company due to workflow concerns and cost of upgrading a few hundred computers at 4 locations (Editorial, Design, Production, Imaging/Scanning, Prepress, and Multi-media/WEB development). Quark workflows are well established for both traditional delivery of Quark files or PDF's using Distiller.
As far as I know the direction for the industry is still in flux. I dont see any clear winners at this point in time, most of the solutions have their pluses and minuses. One thing that I do see that will be used to drive these decisions is the ease of integrating XML into the workflow so that the publishers can easily reprupose editorial content for print and web deliveries.
<strong>
I work for a company that develops books for most of the big publishers in the US, so I do get a bit of info on the direction that these companies are moving in major software choices since they dictate what we use to produce books. I can state with confidence that the industry is looking at solutions other than Quark right now, and it is not the OS that is driving this, it is XML, and WEB based "companion" publishing of books.
As to the programs that are being evaluated, it is more than just Quark and ID. I know of one company that is seriously looking at FrameMaker (not OS X right?), and we are beginning to see some pilot work come in based off of this dicision. InDesign is also being seriously looked at. Right now however all of the companies are using Quark 4 for most of their production.
I'm not sure of the OS choice of most of these companies for internal production, but we are still on OS 9.2. I dont see a move to OS X till the end of this year at the earliest for our company due to workflow concerns and cost of upgrading a few hundred computers at 4 locations (Editorial, Design, Production, Imaging/Scanning, Prepress, and Multi-media/WEB development). Quark workflows are well established for both traditional delivery of Quark files or PDF's using Distiller.
As far as I know the direction for the industry is still in flux. I dont see any clear winners at this point in time, most of the solutions have their pluses and minuses. One thing that I do see that will be used to drive these decisions is the ease of integrating XML into the workflow so that the publishers can easily reprupose editorial content for print and web deliveries.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I hear you. We even looked at the offering from <a href="http://www.softmagic.com"; target="_blank">Soft Magic's M</a> It has technically what we are looking for (DTP workflow management) but I find the publishing tool a little lacking. but good clean design and best of all OS X native.
<strong>I know of one company that is seriously looking at FrameMaker (not OS X right?)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Unfortunately, FM 7 works in Classic. But from the print/web integration standpoint it is far superior than QuarkXPress or InDesign. If you make books like all sorts of documentation, FM becomes a better choice. And though the number of its users is plain zero compared to QXP, the fact FM works in Classic is holding back some large corporate clients.
I think Steve is simply afraid of admitting it. He mentions only Quark but remembers both FrameMaker and Acrobat (full version) too.
Now everything depends on PPC 970.