tom@njitcccc.UUCP (Thomas A. Moulton) (05/09/86)
I work for a company that has a couple of IBM PC's and am looking for some programs that will allow us to create proposals and such that have text and graphics mixed at will, our sales types have used MAC's in the past and are pushing to get a MAC, what they have speced out comes out to be about $10K, in a effort to provide their needs I'd really like to solve their needs with a PC, I know there are graphics packages out there, but I haven't been able to find one that will handle text as well as they handle the graphics, bold, justification etc, with being able to add a phrase, move text blocks, without having to break my back to make it pretty again... please help relive my ignorance, (up to $1-2K for the package...) [no this is not a request for a special application!!! hi hi] Thanks... -- Thomas A. Moulton, W2VY SatPac, 50 Rockefeller Plaza, NY, NY (212) 621-1882 topaz!andromeda!njitcccc!tom
steves@kepler.UUCP (Steve Schlich) (05/13/86)
The closest thing you'll find to Macintosh on the IBM is MS Windows. It's
slower and blurrier and nowhere near as slick, but then...
--
You've got to start young if you're going to stick it out.
--Firesign Theater
Steve Schlich, MicroPro Product Development
{lll-crg,ihnp4!ptsfa,dual,well,pyramid}!micropro!kepler!stevessam@cci632.UUCP (Sam Mantel) (05/20/86)
In article <122@njitcccc.UUCP>, tom@njitcccc.UUCP (Thomas A. Moulton) writes: > I work for a company that has a couple of IBM PC's and am looking > for some programs that will allow us to create proposals and such that > have text and graphics mixed at will, our sales types have used MAC's > in the past and are pushing to get a MAC, what they have speced out comes > out to be about $10K, in a effort to provide their needs I'd really like > to solve their needs with a PC, I know there are graphics packages out > there, but I haven't been able to find one that will handle text as well > as they handle the graphics, bold, justification etc, with being able to > add a phrase, move text blocks, without having to break my back to make > it pretty again... > > please help relive my ignorance, (up to $1-2K for the package...) > [no this is not a request for a special application!!! hi hi] > Thanks... Dear Tom, Please forgive my shortness, but I don't think anyone could relieve your ignorance. You can't expect a Ford Pinto to sprout wings and fly like a Lear. Sam Mantel -- Roch, NY
peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (05/21/86)
> The closest thing you'll find to Macintosh on the IBM is MS Windows. It's > slower and blurrier and nowhere near as slick, but then... And Microsoft Windows has a couple of weird design flaws that are starting to get my goat. o They seem to have modified the EXEC function, so that you can't even open up a COMMAND.COM window & have it behave normally (which is extremely important if you want to be able to play reversi while waiting for Lattice/Microsoft 'C' to finish compiling in the corner). Why not just implement "new window EXEC" as a Windows call & leave the old exec alone? o They don't time-slice, so if you have a compute-bound task in one window you can give up trying to use your PC for anything else while it's running. But as far as relative slickness goes, I'll take MS-Windows over Finder any day... or at least until the day that multitasking Finder comes along. -- -- Peter da Silva -- UUCP: ...!shell!{baylor,graffiti}!peter; MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076
dpz@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (David P. Zimmerman) (05/25/86)
>> The closest thing you'll find to Macintosh on the IBM is MS Windows. It's >> slower and blurrier and nowhere near as slick, but then... > >And Microsoft Windows has a couple of weird design flaws that are starting >to get my goat. > > o They seem to have modified the EXEC function, so that you can't > even open up a COMMAND.COM window & have it behave normally (which > is extremely important if you want to be able to play reversi while > waiting for Lattice/Microsoft 'C' to finish compiling in the corner). > Why not just implement "new window EXEC" as a Windows call & leave > the old exec alone? > > o They don't time-slice, so if you have a compute-bound task in one > window you can give up trying to use your PC for anything else while > it's running. > >But as far as relative slickness goes, I'll take MS-Windows over Finder any >day... or at least until the day that multitasking Finder comes along. These aren't the newsgroups to gripe about MS-Windows (net.micro.pc would be better for this than net.micro and net.micro.mac), but I'll just add my $.02. Windows does time-slice, but not when it is accessing the disk. As far as compute-bound programs go, if you have 3 windows open, each window would get 33% of the CPU, and logically each application would have a performance degradation depending on how CPU-bound it is and if there is any disk-accessing going on. I agree about the modified EXEC - I don't like it. When all you want is to run a simple program in a small window, it is a pain to either have to make a PIF for it or let it take over the whole screen. Slow: If what you're running it on makes it slow, you probably don't need Windows. MS-Windows is for management of large quantities of hard disk storage and memory, and it runs best with both. Windows on a 256K AT&T 6300 with 2 disk drives is unbearably slow. Just *loading* Windows brings the machine to its knees. Windows on an IBM PCAT with extended memory and a 20 meg hd is incredibly fast. Poetry in motion. Blurry: where did you get that? On a CGA it is sharp with 2 colors. On an EGA it is sharp with 4 colors. On an EGA w/256K it is sharp with 16 colors. It all depends on what you want to put out for a display. Maybe you have a dirty screen. Slickness: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I like Finder 5.2. I like the Sun 3 workstation desktop even better. Davidann -- Name: David P. Zimmerman Nickname: "Davidann" (don't ask) Cute quote: " (well, *I* think it's cute!) Arpa: dzimmerman@blue.rutgers.edu Uucp: ...{harvard, allegra, seismo}!topaz!dpz