Supported operating systems

Please post all questions relating to Help & Manual 6 here!

Moderators: Alexander Halser, Tim Green

Post Reply
User avatar
VictorL
Posts: 904
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 11:03 am
Location: Moscow, Russia

Supported operating systems

Unread post by VictorL »

Hi!
Do H&M's developers plan H&M to work under some exotic operation systems?
To begin with Windows 10, next Mac OS, Lunix and a nontilt Unix?
Telling about the documentation under Mac OS it's a some restrictions to use iType only...
Same to OS written above .
Thanks for answer!
User avatar
Darren Rose
Posts: 204
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:01 pm

Re: Supported operating systems

Unread post by Darren Rose »

I am using it now with Windows 10 Technical Preview - and it is working perfectly fine, no issues at all to report - will continue testing as Windows 10 progresses it's build over next few months
User avatar
Tim Green
Site Admin
Posts: 23155
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2002 9:11 am
Location: Bruehl, Germany
Contact:

Re: Supported operating systems

Unread post by Tim Green »

Help & Manual is a Windows program so you will continue to need to use Windows to run it. This includes the latest version of Windows, i.e. Windows 10, of course. We don't plan on releasing versions for other operating systems like Mac OS X, Linux, Commodore 64, Atari ST, CP/M, Texas Instruments TI99a etc.
Regards,
Tim (EC Software Documentation & User Support)

Private support:
Please do not email or PM me with private support requests -- post to the forum directly.
Simon Dismore
Posts: 454
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 1:29 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: Supported operating systems

Unread post by Simon Dismore »

Tim Green wrote:like Mac OS X, Linux, Commodore 64, Atari ST, CP/M, Texas Instruments TI99a etc.
Interesting to see you haven't definitively rejected AmigaDOS and NeXTSTEP yet!

Are there any known issues running H&M (or anything else e.g. Creative Cloud) on Windows Server? I've just got my hands on a workstation with 24GB RAM and dual Xeons, and I'm wondering whether to configure it with a server OS. All advice appreciated.

Simon
User avatar
Tim Green
Site Admin
Posts: 23155
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2002 9:11 am
Location: Bruehl, Germany
Contact:

Re: Supported operating systems

Unread post by Tim Green »

Hi Simon,
Are there any known issues running H&M (or anything else e.g. Creative Cloud) on Windows Server?
As long as you're actually working on the server machine directly you can install and run HM Pro normally and there are no issues -- it's a normal version of Windows. However, if you want to install it on the server and run it from there on another computer in your network Help & Manual requires a server license.
Interesting to see you haven't definitively rejected AmigaDOS and NeXTSTEP yet!
:mrgreen: Actually, that was really just an offhand list of all the machines I've used myself. I very much wanted an Amiga back in the day but could only afford the Atari then, and the NeXT was even more expensive. I didn't get a BeOS machine either, although it was a gorgeous system in its day. Other machines included the Sinclair ZX81 built from the original kit, the very first Epson "laptop" with a 10-line LCD display, the original Kaypro CP/M luggable with the 5" green screen, an Apricot, an Apple ][ and a wide variety of self-built DOS and Windows machines. My 2008 Mac Pro is still under my desk but gets very little use nowadays, more's the pity...
Regards,
Tim (EC Software Documentation & User Support)

Private support:
Please do not email or PM me with private support requests -- post to the forum directly.
User avatar
VictorL
Posts: 904
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 11:03 am
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: Supported operating systems

Unread post by VictorL »

Darren Rose wrote:I am using it now with Windows 10 Technical Preview - and it is working perfectly fine, no issues at all to report - will continue testing as Windows 10 progresses it's build over next few months
I see Windows 10 will be a great shot as XP time before :)
User avatar
VictorL
Posts: 904
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 11:03 am
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: Supported operating systems

Unread post by VictorL »

Tim Green wrote:...Linux...
Very interesting :wink:
Tim, when I tried to have some working examples for DockBook to install before a final choice I heard from a representative expert it to have for Linux only :|
I was suprised thinking all around documentation is almost under Windows :P
By my guide I didn't call to IBM knowing about DITA to work under... :)
Wonder about Mac OS because its serious users are more and more day by day but as I know the great tool for documentation as Frame as HM it hasn't...
The HM would be the first "Moon spaceman" in the Mac universal :D
User avatar
Tim Green
Site Admin
Posts: 23155
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2002 9:11 am
Location: Bruehl, Germany
Contact:

Re: Supported operating systems

Unread post by Tim Green »

Hi Victor,
VictorL wrote:
Tim Green wrote:...Linux...
The HM would be the first "Moon spaceman" in the Mac universal :D
Help & Manual doesn't have to run on Mac to do that, it just needs to produce Mac documentation formats and it already does that (ePub, WebHelp, RTF, and AppleHelp may come in the future). Also, Help & Manual can already run on a Mac using Parallels or VMWare Fusion, which the majority of professional Mac users have installed already, and also natively with Windows on the Mac using BootCamp.

DocBook and Darwin/DITA are also universal, cross-platform formats. They are not restricted to Linux or any one operating system.
Regards,
Tim (EC Software Documentation & User Support)

Private support:
Please do not email or PM me with private support requests -- post to the forum directly.
User avatar
VictorL
Posts: 904
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 11:03 am
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: Supported operating systems

Unread post by VictorL »

Tim Green wrote:DocBook and Darwin/DITA are also universal, cross-platform formats. They are not restricted to Linux or any one operating system.
First installation, including rendering utility, making utilities, some mappings... depends... :wink:

As soon as possible to update below picture list the user're waiting for... :wink:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
User avatar
Tim Green
Site Admin
Posts: 23155
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2002 9:11 am
Location: Bruehl, Germany
Contact:

Re: Supported operating systems

Unread post by Tim Green »

As soon as possible to update below picture list the user're waiting for...
There is nothing to update here. These are the systems that HM runs on directly, there are no others. If you run HM in a virtual machine like Parallels or VMWare it is still running in one of these versions of Windows. Bootcamp on a Mac must also be running one of these versions of Windows.
Regards,
Tim (EC Software Documentation & User Support)

Private support:
Please do not email or PM me with private support requests -- post to the forum directly.
User avatar
VictorL
Posts: 904
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 11:03 am
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: Supported operating systems

Unread post by VictorL »

Thanks for an informative talking :D
Simon Dismore
Posts: 454
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 1:29 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: Supported operating systems

Unread post by Simon Dismore »

Darren Rose wrote:I am using it now with Windows 10 Technical Preview - and it is working perfectly fine, no issues at all to report - will continue testing as Windows 10 progresses it's build over next few months
I was wondering whether to install it when I read The Register's description of Microsoft's extraordinarily broad data-collection powers. Apparently, if you sign up for the technical preview you authorize them to capture:
  • your name, email address, preferences and interests;
  • browsing, search and file history
  • phone call and SMS data
  • device configuration and sensor data
  • application usage
  • data about the files you open
  • what program features you use most often
  • and "[When you] enter text, we may collect typed characters and use them for purposes such as improving autocomplete and spellcheck features."
It makes the Adobe Digital Editions spying story seem relatively tame!
User avatar
Tim Green
Site Admin
Posts: 23155
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2002 9:11 am
Location: Bruehl, Germany
Contact:

Re: Supported operating systems

Unread post by Tim Green »

Simon Dismore wrote:It makes the Adobe Digital Editions spying story seem relatively tame!
Not really, it's two completely different situations: Adobe is secretly spying on users with a production app, that is a no-go. Microsoft is not spying, they are giving you a beta testing version and are being up-front about collecting all the information they can for the beta test. That is the nature and purpose of a beta test, and is absolutely OK and desirable. You want Microsoft to have all this information because you want them to be able to produce a stable result. You need to be clear that this is a beta and that your actions using it will be transparent to Microsoft. It isn't a free pre-release for you to use privately.

Give Microsoft some credit. Over the past few years they have achieved an impressive turnaround in many ways. They have started really listening to their users and acting on the feedback and they have ruthlessly got rid of people like Steven Sinofsky who opposed listening to users. They are now genuinely committed to cross-platform compatibility and standards compliance, much more than many other leading IT companies. The kind of arrogant disregard for standards you used to see regularly in Internet Explorer is now much more common in Google Chrome. The quality and stability of Microsoft's code has also improved radically.
Regards,
Tim (EC Software Documentation & User Support)

Private support:
Please do not email or PM me with private support requests -- post to the forum directly.
Simon Dismore
Posts: 454
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 1:29 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: Supported operating systems

Unread post by Simon Dismore »

Yes, you're quite correct, not that it does any harm to publicize the Register's story. One of the essential differences is who is at risk. In Microsoft's technical preview, the person who accepts their terms accepts the risk. In the Digital Editions story, we as publishers would be encouraging others to take the risk, and it could be argued that we owe them a duty of care. You might want to update your advice at ePub resources in this respect.

You make a good point about standards in IE, too. I'm not up to speed about Google ignoring standards: where can I find more info about that? They are certainly pushing hard to get stuff like service workers adopted, but is that a bad thing?

It's always interesting to hear your opinions :)
User avatar
Tim Green
Site Admin
Posts: 23155
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2002 9:11 am
Location: Bruehl, Germany
Contact:

Re: Supported operating systems

Unread post by Tim Green »

Hi Simon,
I'm not up to speed about Google ignoring standards: where can I find more info about that?
This is really more a subjective observation in my own web development work: It is becoming more and more frequent that you have to implement workarounds for Chrome for things that work OK everywhere else, and the candidate there was almost always IE in the past.

There are a couple of well-documented issues with Google recently that give pause for thought:

For example, the way Chrome handles the content of iFrames in HTML pages opened locally, without a web browser. All other browsers do the logical thing: They assume that all files coming from the same local folder are in the same domain and are thus OK to load into iFrames. Chrome simply assumes that everything except the current page is from a different domain, thus breaking WebHelp (not just HM's but everyone's) and many other HTML-based applications for local use. It is a lazy, shoddy solution, and despite thousands of protests from web programmers the Chrome team have responded with pig-headed arrogance and refuse to change it in any way. This has been going on for years now.

Then there is the question of SSL certificates signed with SHA-1 security. Google has suddenly decided that they are to be regarded as invalid, starting this November. There is currently nothing at all wrong with SHA-1, there is just a concern that it may become more conceivable to brute-force it within 5-10 years as more computing power becomes available (not possible, just more conceivable). This is known throughout the industry, and Microsoft has already targeted it for phasing out, but has given sites until 2017 to switch to SHA-2 or alternative certificates. That's a completely acceptable time frame, and nobody is complaining about it. Google's sudden November this year target is unnecessary and also hypocritical: All of Google's own sites are still signed with SHA-1 certificates and they are not going to change that. They have simply exempted themselves from their own rule. They can do this, because they are their own signing authority -- they have found a way to re-generate their own certificates to avoid being affected by their own rule. Other website operators don't have that luxury and their users are going to start seeing increasingly worrying warnings about the alleged "insecurity" of their certificates starting in November. This is creating massive and completely unnecessary expense and additional work for web operators all over the world.

Then there is Google's decision that all sites that are not SSL-encrypted are going soon start receiving lower rankings in Google search results. It doesn't matter at all whether the site needs SSL encryption or not. If it doesn't have it, it will get a lower Google ranking, period. Then there is the question of browsers checking for certificate revocation: If you visit a site whose security certificate has been revoked, Chrome will not inform you of that, unlike other browsers. Google claims that certificate revocation checks don't really work and that really checking would cause unacceptable slowdowns. Actually, there are good solutions for this problem, they just don't come from Google.

Many of these issues are arguable in their details, of course. But taken together they show a troublesome, growing pattern of increasing arrogance. As Google becomes more powerful they are increasingly seeing themselves as the arbiters of everything, and that is not a position that any single commercial company should ever be in. They haven't yet gone through the humbling experience of being genuinely challenged for this kind of arrogance that Microsoft has already gone through -- and Microsoft has benefited greatly from the process.
Regards,
Tim (EC Software Documentation & User Support)

Private support:
Please do not email or PM me with private support requests -- post to the forum directly.
Post Reply