richard@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Richard Foulk) (11/11/88)
*** Help! What should we buy to do desktop publishing? *** I'm in the process of evaluating various desktop publishing systems and software for use in writing papers pertaining to neurobiology. These papers will contain some figures and plots of data, waveforms, etc. Many of the people at our lab are currently using ibmpc's with various wordprocessors. Though we do have two Sun 3/60 workstations. The question is what is the best hardware/software solution for WYSIWYG editing and figure manipulation. Some have suggested the purchase of a Macintosh. Assuming we're going to buy another machine for this purpose, should we buy a Macintosh or another Sun? What's the best software currently available? I've looked at Interleaf and Framemaker on the Sun a bit. Is there something better? Thanks Richard Foulk richard@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
zeke@eta.unix.ETA.COM (Robert K. Scott) (11/14/88)
In article <2612@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>, richard@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Richard Foulk) writes: > > *** Help! What should we buy to do desktop publishing? *** > > I'm in the process of evaluating various desktop publishing systems > and software for use in writing papers pertaining to neurobiology. > These papers will contain some figures and plots of data, waveforms, > etc. > > Many of the people at our lab are currently using ibmpc's with various > wordprocessors. Though we do have two Sun 3/60 workstations. > IBM PC's? Don't even consider them for DTP, unless you have mighty powerful AT or 386 outfits and want to stand for neanderthal user interfaces and flexibility. > The question is what is the best hardware/software solution for > WYSIWYG editing and figure manipulation. Some have suggested > the purchase of a Macintosh. > > Assuming we're going to buy another machine for this purpose, should > we buy a Macintosh or another Sun? What's the best software currently > available? > > I've looked at Interleaf and Framemaker on the Sun a bit. Is > there something better? > I have used a Macintosh & Pagemaker for 2 years now (I own it). At work, we have both Apollo and SUN workstations running Interleaf TPS, and I have used both WPS (the TPS predecessor) and TPS. First, consider the price. A Macintosh SE with Microsoft Word, Pagemaker 3.0, Microsoft Excel (for data manipulation and charting) and perhaps Cricket Graph if you don't like Excel's graphs, will cost you about 3500-4000 without printer (I think. School discounts may get you more for less). I'm not current on the price for TPS, but my guess is that it would cost you about $3000 per workstation for a license (again, maybe less for academia). Now, on the functionality side of things, there is no question in my mind that the Mac is a superior machine for doing presentation quality materials of just about any sort. My primary justification for this is based on the fact that you can (almost) seamlessly integrate bitmapped (paint) art, object oriented (draw) art, scanned images of various sorts, charts, and processed words from various sources. In your case, you could probably import text and numeric data from the PCs and SUNs, convert it to the package of choice on the Mac, and be able to prepare superb quality documentation. As far as TPS goes, you are very limited in what you can import, and putting various types of art or graphs in to your publication is not a particularly simple operation. Perhaps my long held bias about the functionality of the Mac being one of its chief selling points, but my experience with TPS also guides me to this conclusion. Good luck with your evaluation. -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% From the Final Frontier %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% These are my opinions, of course. Why the hell would my company want them? Robert K. "Zeke" Scott internet: zeke@sunfun.eta.com ETA Systems, Inc. ETC03J uucp: {amdahl,rutgers}!bungia!eta!sunfun!zeke 1450 Energy Park Drive, St. Paul, MN 55108 voice: (612) 642-3493
david@io.UUCP (David Weinberger x5563) (11/17/88)
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.
o Interleaf products are "seamlessly integrated," to use Scott's words. That is,
you work on a WYSIWYG view of a document. The system gives you the appropriate
editor depending on where you cursor is -- text editor, diagramming editor,
image editor, etc. To put a diagram into an Interleaf document, you just copy
it, point, and paste -- two menu picks.
o Interleaf imports a wide variety of text and graphic formats, including
WordStar, troff, Scribe, CalComp, HPGL, TIFF, DCA, RTF, MacDraw, MacPaint,
PICT, and lots more.
Admittedly I'm biased. But it's an honest bias, if you know what I mean ... I
like this software a lot.
----
David Weinberger UUCP: ..!{sun!sunne,mit-eddie}!ileaf!david
Interleaf, Inc. Internet: david@ileaf.com
10 Canal Park, Cambridge, MA 02141 Phone: (617)577-9800 x5563vic@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.)
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