ll12+@andrew.cmu.edu (Laura Ann Lemay) (04/28/89)
Yes, I have one, too. I am a writer. I am also a graphic designer. Unlike most of you on the net, I do not use MS Word occasionally -- I spend 90% of my time in MS Word, and the other 10% in Pagemaker. When I first heard about MS Word, it was said it had complete Desktop Publishing capabilities. Cool, I thought, when I graduate, I won't have to break down and buy pagemaker (I've been using my own copy of Word, and pagemaker on an appleshare server). From what I've heard out of previews, MS 4.0 doesn't do nearly as much as it had intended to do. What are the DTP features like? I realize that it can't have nearly the capability of PM, or even Ready, set, go, but is it passable? thanx -- -Laura Lemay ll12+@andrew.cmu.edu
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (04/29/89)
>When I first heard about MS Word, it was said it had complete Desktop >Publishing capabilities. Cool, I thought, when I graduate, I won't have >to break down and buy pagemaker (I've been using my own copy of Word, and >pagemaker on an appleshare server). >From what I've heard out of previews, MS 4.0 doesn't do nearly as much as it >had intended to do. What are the DTP features like? I realize that it >can't have nearly the capability of PM, or even Ready, set, go, but is it >passable? For simple stuff? probably. It's added some things like locking down the location of graphics and wrapping around them. Nothing that would even begin to make me consider giving up my layout program. Writing reports, formal memos, and that sort of stuff -- but any complex design (things beyond a single text document, beyond two column with some graphics) is still going to be beyond it. Chuq Von Rospach =|= Editor,OtherRealms =|= Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com =|= CI$: 73317,635 =|= AppleLink: CHUQ [This is myself speaking. No company can control my thoughts.] Bookends. What a wonderful thought.
frank@mnetor.UUCP (Frank Kolnick) (04/30/89)
In article <gYK7nty00Uh7Q19X5O@andrew.cmu.edu> ll12+@andrew.cmu.edu (Laura Ann Lemay) writes: >... >When I first heard about MS Word, it was said it had complete Desktop >Publishing capabilities. Cool, I thought, when I graduate, I won't have >to break down and buy pagemaker (I've been using my own copy of Word, and >pagemaker on an appleshare server). > >From what I've heard out of previews, MS 4.0 doesn't do nearly as much as it >had intended to do. What are the DTP features like? I realize that it >can't have nearly the capability of PM, or even Ready, set, go, but is it >passable? I think that's a pretty fair assessment. I generally like Word's philosophy and user interface (I said *generally*), but was put off by a few quirks in version 3. The most serious of these was the degradation in typing and display speed in some files. (The closest I could come to explaining this was the use of embedded Postscript pictures and/or fonts that gave Word trouble, like Helvetica Light, but I'm not totally convinced.) There were also a few inconsistencies in the way it handled formatting, such as fractional widths and not applying changes to styles. OK, in a program this complex I could tolerate a few quirks. I avoided the pseudo-page-layout features (such as side-by-side paragraphs) because they were just too awkward to use. And I waited for version 4.0 ... Had 4.0 arrived two weeks earlier, I would have completed my book, which was already in Word 3 format, with it. That would have been a mistake, in retrospect (having had 4.0 for a couple of weeks now.) While 4.0 does an admirable job of making the existing features easy to use, many of its 'fixes' are ad hoc. For example, to speed up scrolling past embedded pictures (it would take two minutes! to scroll past some of my diagrams) you now have the option of displaying a grey box instead of the picture. Not what I had in mind. 4.0 breaks no new ground, as far as I can tell. The inclusion of an obsolete paint/draw program (along with an insulting offer to upgrade it for $50) is pitiable. I'd prefer integrated drawing tools but even a desk accessory such as Canvas DA or DeskDraw is much more useful to me. Same story for the add-on thesaurus and 'macro' capability. Word 4.0 is a fine product, a great *word* processor and perhaps the ultimate refinement of the original Word concept. But perhaps the real question is: has it kept up with the competition? (Are we reminded of Excel?) In contrast, I recently received a demo copy of Nisus, and I'm very impressed so far. It has page-layout capabilities, integrated drawing tools, built-in thesaurus and a well-designed user interface (just a notch above 4.0's). And it's faster and less expensive than Word. (Almost forgot the built-in macro processing and genuine regular expression patter-matching. I find these essential for turning a list of words, for example, into a formatted index. I've been using QUED/M for this purpose.) Anyway, I'll probably stick with Word for letters, small manuals, etc. (I'm using Quark XPress for the book, and it keeps improving by leaps and bounds. Try getting colour separations out of Word!) Which is unfortunate, because I like the product and it has the advantage of having a de facto 'standard' format (e.g., XPress understands Word documents and styles. Who knows when it will recognize Nisus? Same for Sonar, which I use to generate indices. Etc.) 4.0 is such a disappointment. -- Frank Kolnick, consulting for, and therefore expressing opinions independent of, Computer X UUCP: {allegra, linus}!utzoo!mnetor!frank
bmug@garnet.berkeley.edu (BMUG) (05/02/89)
In article <4986@mnetor.UUCP> frank@mnetor.UUCP (Frank Kolnick) writes: (stuff deleted) > >Anyway, I'll probably stick with Word for letters, small manuals, etc. >(I'm using Quark XPress for the book, and it keeps improving by >leaps and bounds. Try getting colour separations out of Word!) >Which is unfortunate, because I like the product and it has the >advantage of having a de facto 'standard' format (e.g., XPress >understands Word documents and styles. Who knows when it will >recognize Nisus? Same for Sonar, which I use to generate indices. Etc.) >4.0 is such a disappointment. For me, the most attractive feature of Word 4.0 is its Table Editor, which is easy-to-use, intuitive, and really very elegant. I'm waiting for someone to come up with a desk accessory (or, since DAs are rumored to be going the way of the passenger pigeon, some kind of module) which duplicates the functionality [if not the Look&Feel :-)] of Word's, and can be used in the Word Processor Of Your Choice (I guess the way it would work would be to construct your table in it and insert the finished thing as a graphic or somesuch into your document), until all the Word Processors of Everyone's Choice provide a similar facility. Leonard? John Heckendorn /\ BMUG ARPA: bmug@garnet.berkeley.EDU A__A 1442A Walnut St., #62 BITNET: bmug@ucbgarnet |()| Berkeley, CA 94709 | | (415) 549-2684 | |
briand@tekig4.LEN.TEK.COM (Brian Diehm) (05/02/89)
In article <gYK7nty00Uh7Q19X5O@andrew.cmu.edu> ll12+@andrew.cmu.edu (Laura Ann Lemay) writes: >I do not use MS Word occasionally -- I spend 90% of my time in MS Word, and >the other 10% in Pagemaker. > >From what I've heard out of previews, MS 4.0 doesn't do nearly as much as it >had intended to do. What are the DTP features like? I realize that it >can't have nearly the capability of PM, or even Ready, set, go, but is it >passable? Well, despite my griping about Word 4.0 here on the net, it is indeed passable. It is an impressive program. If you were never exposed to PageMaker or Interleaf or anything else, it would do nicely. If you have been exposed to real page layout, this won't do. In your case, only you can REALLY judge this one --- it's that close a call. I personally would continue to use PageMaker, and I would certainly buy it if I didn't have it. If you are critical about the quality of typesetting, then Word, even Word 4.0, does not come close to the quality of PageMaker. Even when fractional width printing is used, the letterspacing is uneven throughout with Word. I think that it is important to remember these are two different TYPES of programs. Page layout programs are weak in interactive word processing, and word processors do not do top quality page layout. The thing I griped about with 4.0 wasn't the feature set, though some things appear to be incompletely implemented. I mainly griped about the BUGS. Incidentally, until PageMaker 4 comes out, Word 4.0 and PageMaker are not directly compatible. You need to save Word 4.0 files in Word 3.0 compatibility format, or else PageMaker won't recognize them. But then, I have read in print that PageMaker 4.0 will have search and replace. Then you can throw away Word entirely! ;-) (I'm only half kidding here.) -- -Brian Diehm (SDA - Standard Disclaimers Apply) Tektronix, Inc. briand@tekig4.TEK.COM or {decvax,cae780,uw-beaver}!tektronix!tekig4!briand
nedludd@ut-emx.UUCP (charles s. geiger, esq.) (05/02/89)
In article <3949@tekig4.LEN.TEK.COM>, briand@tekig4.LEN.TEK.COM (Brian Diehm) writes: > But then, I have read in print that PageMaker 4.0 will have search > and replace. What else has been seen regarding the new PageMaker? Specifically, does it incorporate any of the typographical controls (tracking, horizontal scaling, etc.) that are now in XPress? Will it show "invisibles" (paragraph markers, spaces, tabs, etc.) like XPress? cheers, from charles s. geiger, esq.
frank@mnetor.UUCP (Frank Kolnick) (05/03/89)
In article <12644@ut-emx.UUCP> nedludd@ut-emx.UUCP (charles s. geiger, esq.) writes: >What else has been seen regarding the new PageMaker? Specifically, >does it incorporate any of the typographical controls (tracking, >horizontal scaling, etc.) that are now in XPress? Will it show >"invisibles" (paragraph markers, spaces, tabs, etc.) like XPress? And the new XPress has a pile of additional features, like built-in (and editable) kerning tables. (Sorry, but I really like XPress and have this urge to enlighten the world at every opportunity. I'll be ok for a while now.) -- Frank Kolnick, consulting for, and therefore expressing opinions independent of, Computer X UUCP: {allegra, linus}!utzoo!mnetor!frank
hammen@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Robert J. Hammen) (05/03/89)
In article <12644@ut-emx.UUCP> nedludd@ut-emx.UUCP (charles s. geiger, esq.) writes: >In article <3949@tekig4.LEN.TEK.COM>, briand@tekig4.LEN.TEK.COM (Brian Diehm) writes: >> But then, I have read in print that PageMaker 4.0 will have search >> and replace. >What else has been seen regarding the new PageMaker? Specifically, I don't believe that Aldus has ever said anything publicly about what will be in the next release of PageMaker. Aldus has been soliciting the requests of its users on the Aldus forum on CompuServe. I do know that full S & R is NOT the most requested feature for PM4; rotation of objects in 1 degree increments is, followed by search & replace, grouping, baseline to baseline leading, custom line weights and styles, etc. If anyone is really interested in this list, send me E-mail, and I'll pass a copy on to you. I just wish they would do something to improve the performance of PM3. Here's my prediction: by the time that PageMaker 4.0 (or whatever) ships, QuarkXPress will have most, if not all, of its features, and will do them better and faster. Robert /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// / Robert Hammen | hammen@csd4.milw.wisc.edu | uwmcsd1!uwmcsd4!hammen / / Delphi: HAMMEN | GEnie: R.Hammen | CI$: 70701,2104 | MacNet: HAMMEN / / Bulfin Printers | 1887 N. Water | Milwaukee WI 53202 | (414) 271-1887 / / 3839 N. Humboldt #204 | Milwaukee WI 53212 | (414) 961-0715 (h) / ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
frank@mnetor.UUCP (Frank Kolnick) (05/04/89)
A few more questions:
1. I have a title page for a manual that uses 36pt Stone semi-bold.
With Word 4.0, the letter-spacing is terrible: letters run into
each other, spacing between some letters is greater than *word*
spacing. This was fine under version 3! I've tried it with and
without fractional widths (the output changes, but just shifts the
problem to different parts of the words). Can I fix this?
2. Is the minimum tab spacing really 1.5pt (or thereabouts)? I'm trying
to create bullets with the bullet symbol followed by a tab followed
by the text. I can't get as close to the bullet as I'd like; if I
try a tab any closer than about 1/8" it bumps the text to the next tab
stop. (I can get a lot closer with XPress, for example, so it's not
the font that causes the problem). This was a quirk with 3 but I'd
hoped it would go away with 4. Am I doing something wrong?
3. It seems that if I use a small font size (in this case, 9pt Helvetica
Light), I can't get the leading below about 12 points. Hence two lines
of text look like two paragraphs. (again, XPress handles this ok)
4. I really detest the new print dialog. I'm used to tabbing from 'copies'
to the page numbers. While the added flexibility of the section range
is welcome, it's also inconsistent on two counts: it differs from
other applications, and it behaves differently (i.e., normally) if the
document only has one section. (Since I'm updating manual pages on
a regular basis, this aberration in typing is enough to make me want
to use a different word processor. There's nothing quite as
frustrating as finding yourself in the midst of printing the wrong
page. BTW, why does Word take so long to cancel printing?)
--
Frank Kolnick,
consulting for, and therefore expressing opinions independent of, Computer X
UUCP: {allegra, linus}!utzoo!mnetor!frank