Styler and FOSI

[ebenton]

Given the recent disclosure that PTC will no longer be selling new licenses of Print Composer, I asked one of our PTC/Arbortext account guys about this, and was told that the replacement for Print Composer is supposed to be Styler. Supposedly, Styler can use FOSI. My question about this is, can Styler use the same FOSI instance that Print Composer uses, or does the FOSI need to be converted to something else or modified in some other way? (We do not wish to do this.)
Anybody know anything about this?

[ajordin]

So far as my testing goes, Styler can use an existing FOSI without modification.
However, what Styler does not do is operate in the same way as a floating Print Composer License.

With a floating print composer license, the license would be released when the print job was complete allowing another user to pick it up.
Styler does not seem to do this, once someone picks up the Styler license they hang on to it until they close Arbortext.
This is probably reasonable in that Styler is a stylesheet development tool rather than purely a composition tool in the case of print composer, but that doesn't help if you want to share the license.

To muddy the waters even further, I was led to believe the alternative to print composer was a minimalist version of Publishing Engine with just the print composition tools...


Adrian Jordin - Senior Consultant
Mekon Ltd.
intelligent content solutions
e adrian.jordin@mekon.com<|">mailto:adrian.jordin@mekon.com>| t +44 (0)117 303 5202 | m +44 (0)7515294338| w www.aerospace-defence.com<">http://www.aerospace-defence.com>

Todays content needs agility - www.congility.com

[SimonTaylor]

Hi Ed
Technically a PE per-user license is the correct alternative to Print Composer and the one PTC would (should) recommend.
You don't have to do anything to get the stylesheets to work the same under Styler or PE.
Simon



Simon Taylor
Product Manager
Parametric Technology (UK) Ltd

[ [Twitter Icon] <">http://twitter.com/PTC> [Slide Share Icon] <">http://www.slideshare.net/ptc> [YouTube Icon] <">http://www.youtube.com/user/ptcstudio> [Facebook Icon] <">http://www.facebook.com/PTC.Inc>

[ajordin]

Simon,

As I understand it, PE isn't really a 'low-cost' alternative particularly for the small businesses.
What exactly is the problem with the old Print Composer, anyway?


Adrian Jordin - Senior Consultant
Mekon Ltd.
intelligent content solutions
e adrian.jordin@mekon.com<|">mailto:adrian.jordin@mekon.com>| t +44 (0)117 303 5202 | m +44 (0)7515294338| w www.aerospace-defence.com<">http://www.aerospace-defence.com>

Todays content needs agility - www.congility.com

[SimonTaylor]

Hi Adrian
Granted the full PE isn't ideal for small businesses of just a few users, which is why I said that the 'per user' license is the right one. This is priced to be more appropriate to small businesses or small work groups.
There's not really a problem with the old Print Composer but we found ourselves supporting a number of code branches which delivered virtually the same functionality and was therefore proving an inefficient use of our time and resources.
Thanks
Simon

[DavidS.Taylor]

Simon,

How many 'per user' PE licenses can be purchased for the price of one Print Composer floating license? What are the annual Support costs for the 'per user' PE licenses compared to Print Composer.

'Per user' licensing means a loss of flexibility in how licenses are used in a small business operation, and in many situations can/will significantly increase costs to the business. This raises the question, does PTC want to push away the smaller customers by pricing Arbortext software beyond their means? (It wouldn't be the first time this has been done in the software industry.)

Since PTC took over Arbortext it has become apparent they did not (or would not) recognize that they also took on a responsibility to a large and dedicated user community, one with a long history of communicating and collaborating for the benefit of all Arbortext users. AUGI conventions, the Adepters forum and the friendships that developed between people working to help each other built a unique community. It's unfortunate PTC didn't view this community as an asset and use it to grow the Arbortext market in the overall publishing industry.

Arbortext (or as Ed still calls it, 'Epic') is not the 'service tool' that PTC has pushed it into, it is the best integrated SGML/XML editing and publishing application on the market. There are many Arbortext users who have used it for 15 -20 years for that reason and have stayed with it because up until the PTC era, Arbortext was focused on being a first class editing and publishing application. It's unfortunate that PTC doesn't even market Arbortext any longer except as a 'product and service information' authoring tool.

Arbortext is so much more than that.

David

David S. Taylor

Project Manager, Production and Marketing
Building Regulations | NRC Construction
National Research Council Canada
Building M-23A, Room 114 | 1200 Montreal Road | Ottawa, ON | K1A 0R6
Telephone: +1.613.990.2731 | Fax: +1.613.952.4040
David.S.Taylor@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca<">mailto:David.S.Taylor@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>

[ptc-1908075]

Hi Simon,
Why not just merge the code branches?
Best regards,Suzanne Napoleonwww.FOSIexpert.com"WYSIWYG is last-century technology!"

[kmccain]

Hi,

Just want to mention that I received a quote for new Print Composer licensing from my reseller today. He assures me that PTC is still selling it and plans to support it beyond Editor 6.1 version.