vic@zen.UUCP (Victor Gavin) (11/21/88)
In article <831@io.UUCP> david@io.UUCP (David Weinberger x5563) writes: >Let me add some information to Robert Scott's message. (I work for Interleaf.) > >o TPS on Sun, Digital and Apollo goes for $2,500 for the Core version (text >and graphics.) > >o Interleaf Publisher is available on 386's and on the Macintosh II for >$2,495. It is feature-for-feature the same as TPS 3.0. (We've just shipped TPS >4.0.) That means it combines full word processing, diagramming, data-driven >charts, automatic page layout, network workgroup tools, long document >management capabilities, tables and even a line art image editor. Doesn't anybody write document preperation systems for Hewlett-Packard bit-mapped displays? Don't you like them ? Is there something wrong with them ? I'm serious about this. When I hear about a new funky piece of software I find that I'll probably never be able to run it without someone buying me a Sun workstation. The Sun workstation (as far as I can see) has very little to separate it performance-wise and market-wise for a publishing system. Please will some one explain it to me? vic -- Victor Gavin Zengrange Limited vic@zen.co.uk Greenfield Road ..!mcvax!ukc!zen.co.uk!vic Leeds LS9 8DB +44 532 489048 England
irf@kuling.UUCP (Bo Thide) (11/23/88)
In article <1429@zen.UUCP> vic@zen.UUCP (Victor Gavin) writes: >In article <831@io.UUCP> david@io.UUCP (David Weinberger x5563) writes: >>Let me add some information to Robert Scott's message. (I work for Interleaf.) >> >>o TPS on Sun, Digital and Apollo goes for $2,500 for the Core version (text >>and graphics.) >Doesn't anybody write document preperation systems for Hewlett-Packard >bit-mapped displays? > >Don't you like them ? Is there something wrong with them ? > >I'm serious about this. When I hear about a new funky piece of software I find >that I'll probably never be able to run it without someone buying me a Sun >workstation. The Sun workstation (as far as I can see) has very little to >separate it performance-wise and market-wise for a publishing system. > Yes, I have noticed the same strange thing. Very few people (apart from those who have HP workstations themselves) mention HP as an alternative when they are discussing application software like DTP. I can't understand why. HP has a large installed base (according to Datapro 1987 they sold *more* workstations in Europe than Sun did!), the HP screens are excellent (a side-by-side test I did very clearly showed that they were much better than Sun's rather 'hazy' screens), the price/performance seems to be more advantageous (the 9000/370 has roughly twice the performance of a Sun 3/260 at about the same price; the same is true for the 9000/835 relative to the Sun 3/260), and with HP-UX you get Native Language Support which is so nice for our secretaries who create most of our documents and who can do that communicating with the software in their native tongue (Swedish) by just setting the enviroment variable LANG to 'swedish'! What's more, few people can question HPs outstanding quality. In fact, I have been in contact with Ann Arbor Text who produces the 'Publisher', a TeX-based DTP software which seems very interesting indeed. Of course, they've chosen to write it for Sun's propietary NeWS windowing system first. They promised a X Windows version and I have been nagging them about this for many months now. Of course, HP did the only sensible thing choosing X thereby following a well-established standard. If you are interested in getting a TeX package that runs on HP9000s, pleas contact me by e-mail. I can send it for free. -Bo ^ Bo Thide'-------------------------------------------------------------- | | Swedish Institute of Space Physics, S-755 91 Uppsala, Sweden |I| [In Swedish: Institutet f|r RymdFysik, Uppsalaavdelningen (IRFU)] |R| Phone: (+46) 18-403000. Telex: 76036 (IRFUPP S). Fax: (+46) 18-403100 /|F|\ INTERNET: bt@irfu.se UUCP: ...!enea!kuling!irfu!bt IP: 192.36.174.1 ~~U~~ -----------------------------------------------------------------sm5dfw
richard@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Richard Foulk) (11/25/88)
[posted to comp.text, followups to comp.sys.hp] } Doesn't anybody write document preperation systems for Hewlett-Packard } bit-mapped displays? } } Don't you like them ? Is there something wrong with them ? } } I'm serious about this. When I hear about a new funky piece of software I find } that I'll probably never be able to run it without someone buying me a Sun } workstation. The Sun workstation (as far as I can see) has very little to } separate it performance-wise and market-wise for a publishing system. When you buy computing equipment there are many things you must take into consideration in order to make a good decision. Many machines end up as a "voice crying in the wilderness", as no one bothers to port their software to them. So if you don't plan to write all your own software you have to consider how popular the machine is or is expected to become. HP makes reasonable equipment. But it's not usually very innovative. And it's often over-priced. So it isn't usually as popular as some of its competitors. At this point HP has to play catch up. So even if they seem competitive now their reputation gets in their way. If I was choosing which machines to port a product to, HP would certainly be near the bottom of the list. Simply not a big enough market. (What we need is a good package from the GNU people.)
vic@zen.UUCP (Victor Gavin) (11/27/88)
In article <2703@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> richard@uhccux.UUCP (Richard Foulk) writes: >} Doesn't anybody write document preperation systems for Hewlett-Packard >} bit-mapped displays? >} >HP makes reasonable equipment. But it's not usually very innovative. >And it's often over-priced. So it isn't usually as popular as some >of its competitors. All my experience with HP shows them to be very innovative, reliable and extremely helpful. And this is in the UK :-> >At this point HP has to play catch up. So even if they seem competitive >now their reputation gets in their way. I would even say that they've ``caught up''. When was the last time that you had a look at the workstation market. HP has a massive presence. They vie with Sun (having beaten Apollo and DEC) for the top share. With the advent of X-windows which everyone and their dog is supplying, doesn't it make sense to write workstation applications using X. Then to port the software (in an ideal world) all you have to do is change the system specific information (ie is it a BSD or SYSV box). vic -- Victor Gavin Zengrange Limited vic@zen.co.uk Greenfield Road ..!mcvax!ukc!zen.co.uk!vic Leeds LS9 8DB +44 532 489048 England
eik@os.is (Einar Kjartansson) (12/05/88)
In article <901@kuling.UUCP>, irf@kuling.UUCP (Bo Thide) writes: > from those who have HP workstations themselves) mention HP as an alternative > when they are discussing application software like DTP. I can't understand > why. HP has a large installed base (according to Datapro 1987 they sold > *more* workstations in Europe than Sun did!), the HP screens are excellent This is a general situation that applies to both hardware and software, the availability of both third party hardware and software for HP computers is very limited. I think this is the result of a deliberate policy that at least some part of the HP organization pursues. HP does not really want its customers to use their products with anybody elses products and they discourage the availabilty and use of any software that could possibly compete with any of their own products. Graphics is a good example of this. Before we purchased our 9000/840 computer we were told that we would be able to use Starbase graphics software with our equipment which included HP pen plotters, Tektronics 4014 compatable graphics terminals, HP laserjet printers and Versatek electrostatic plotter. After the system arrived we found that tools for writing starbase drivers on the 800 series were not available, and would not be. Also that HP did not consider "terminal graphics" of strategic importance and had no plan to support 4014 terminals (which means over 90 persent of low cost graphics terminals and and terminal emulators for PCs) So we were in a situation where whe had a huge, software package that cost close to $10000 and it supported only one type of device. The result was that we wrote starbase off and wrote our own interface that suppored all our devices. Most of the graphics is now done using PC with tectronics 4014 emulators with hardcopy on the HP laserjet. The HPGL plotters are mostly unused because when the users are given a choise between a laserjet and a penplotters, they almost always pick the laserjet, because it is faster, more convenient and produces sharper results. (Nobody seems to want color badly enaugh to hassle with the pen plottes.) In this case the above mentioned attitude of HP goes so far that in order to protect the mechanical plotter sales they discourage its customer from using a superior HP product, the laserjet. No wonder why there is not much third party support ! -- Einar Kjartansson | eik@os.is Orkustofnun (National Energy Authority) | eik@geysir.uucp Grensasvegi 9, IS-108 Reykjavik, Iceland | mcvax!hafro!geysir!eik Phone: 354-1-83600 Fax: 354-1-688896 Home: 354-1-16407
mbk@hpsemc.HP.COM (Miles Kehoe) (12/08/88)
>This is a general situation that applies to both hardware and software, >the availability of both third party hardware and software for HP computers >is very limited. I think this is the result of a deliberate policy that >at least some part of the HP organization pursues. >HP does not really want its customers to use their products with anybody >elses products and they discourage the availabilty and use of any software >that could possibly compete with any of their own products. >Graphics is a good example of this. Einar writes that HP seems to discourage third parties from working with (and on) HP platforms... I'm sure it seems that way but, in fact, we have a number of organizations working full-time to not only encourage third parties to support HP equipment, but we are also providing in-depth technical services to those third parties. I'd suggest that, while supply side economics are big here in the US (thanks to our President's philosophy), I feel demand side economics works better with software. Continue to work with your HP contacts to encourage vendors... but also talk to the vendor yourself. When the vendor sees he or she is missing business by not supporting the HP platform, you will start to see more software. I'll agree that HP can do alot better, and there are those of us in HP who are working towards that goal. But customers can help too by letting the software companies know you want an hp platform, and voting for their software with your dollars. Miles Kehoe HP