jdr@sloth.mlb.semi.harris.com (Jim Ray) (03/25/91)
We have a group that is interrested in upgrading their current publishing capabilities ( currently using Mac's ). They are interrested in using frame on a couple of Next's and the existing Mac's to put out black and white glossies. Management has decided ( with their PC wizzard ) that MAC's and Next ( and for that matter any computer other than a PC ) are not acceptable. Instead they have come up with an alternative proposal ( about 200k more expensive ) using PC's exclusively. Now to my questions: 1) What risk is there in going with the Next? I don't expect them to go out of business any time soon -- but is that an unrealistic expectation? 2) Are there "superior" PC solutions in the publishing arena that would compare? The group is pretty set on using Frame though. 3) The "consultant" expressed his concern over that although it was true that MAC's and Next's ( he seem's not not know that the Next is a unix os ) were easier to use from an user-interface point of view, once the "user" became more proficient a more "PC" oriented tool ( somehow he equated textual input to pc's ) would be more efficient for the "user". I don't buy this, even though I haven't been that fond of MAC's myself ( I prefer Unix based machines ). 4) The "consultant" expressed reservations that any non-pc solution could not possibly contain a "documentation" management tool. He wasn't really clear as to what he meant by "documentation management tool". Anyone have any ideas??? 5) I use Frame on Sun's and Dec's and other workstations, and find it quite acceptable. If there are some reasons as to not use a Next machine ( can't come up with any currently ), does anyone out there see anything wrong with using some Unix system like the above instead of PC's? The limitations of PC's don't appeal to me very much. 6) What features on MAC's and Next's that would be superior to PC's given a publishing orientation. Thanks, Jim Ray -- Jim Ray Harris Semiconductor Internet: jdr@semi.harris.com PO Box 883 MS 62B-022 Phone: (407) 729-5059 Melbourne, FL 32901
hades@icefloe.dartmouth.edu (Brian V. Hughes) (03/26/91)
jdr@sloth.mlb.semi.harris.com (Jim Ray) writes: >We have a group that is interrested in upgrading their current >publishing capabilities ( currently using Mac's ). They are >interrested in using frame on a couple of Next's and the existing >Mac's to put out black and white glossies. >Management has decided ( with their PC wizzard ) that MAC's and Next >( and for that matter any computer other than a PC ) are not acceptable. >Instead they have come up with an alternative proposal ( about 200k >more expensive ) using PC's exclusively. >Now to my questions: [ Other Questions Deleted ] >6) What features on MAC's and Next's that would be superior to PC's >given a publishing orientation. I think that I can sum this question up the best out of all of them: WYSIWYG. This is probably the single most important advantage of the Mac and Next over PC type machines(not counting the GUI). I wasn't going to replay to this initially but I thought that this question was one of the more pertinent ones. As for some of the others, when it comes to Desktop Publishing, the mac helped invent it. Before the macintosh publishing had to be done professionally because there were no programs out to allow you to effectively work with a page on an object level. Thats all I have to say on the matter. Later. -- | Hades || Mac Database Admin. | | Brian V. Hughes || CALGB Central Office | | hades@Dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU || Dartmouth Medical Center | | "No, it's not who ya know.... it's who _I_ know." |
jdr@sloth.mlb.semi.harris.com (Jim Ray) (03/26/91)
Thanks to all for replying to my request concerning desktop publishing. The results were not surprising ( much as I was hoping ). The answers only supported my original beliefs that the Next machine would make a fine desktop publishing system. The Next appears to be a good choice for our application. Apparently, they are in decent financial health, they do have the Digital Librarian for "documentation" management tool ( and others are available from other vendors ), they produce a very productive publishing environment, etc.... In other words, it is a very nice desktop publishing system. Thanks again to the following people for their input: Brian V. Hughes (hades@Dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU) Kevin (blissmer@expert.cc.purdue.edu) Steven D. Borrelli (lasteve@rpi.edu) Paul Kunz (pfkeb@EBNEXTK.SLAC.Stanford.EDU) Todd Radel (radel@chopin.edel.edu) Ronald C.F. Antony (rca@cs.brown.edu) Sulistio Muljadi (sulistio@futon.SFSU.EDU) Mikel Evins (mikel@apple.com) Michael Perka (Michael_Perka@NeXT.COM) Bill Chin (bchin@is-next.umd.edu) Doug DeJulio (ddj@zardoz.club.cc.cmu.edu) Kenneth Chang (kchang@ncsa.uiuc.edu) Erik Buck (buckerim@eudcps3.cps.udayton.edu) I plan to post the same article in the "pc" newsgroup to see what their response is. -- Jim Ray Harris Semiconductor Internet: jdr@semi.harris.com PO Box 883 MS 62B-022 Phone: (407) 729-5059 Melbourne, FL 32901
chouw@buster.cps.msu.edu (Wen Hwa Chou) (03/26/91)
In article <1991Mar25.024612.1264@mlb.semi.harris.com> jdr@sloth.mlb.semi.harris.com (Jim Ray) writes: >We have a group that is interrested in upgrading their current >publishing capabilities ( currently using Mac's ). They are >interrested in using frame on a couple of Next's and the existing >Mac's to put out black and white glossies. > >Management has decided ( with their PC wizzard ) that MAC's and Next >( and for that matter any computer other than a PC ) are not acceptable. >Instead they have come up with an alternative proposal ( about 200k >more expensive ) using PC's exclusively. My first suggestion is that have you boss to change a "consultant." There are two reasons that I can think of in prefering PC - 1) The established LAN in your company are either Token Ring or Arcnet. Since you said Mac, so this reason does not fit into your situation. 2) Your boss tries to save money. But with 200K more??? For PC??? Can't imagine what they are proposing to buy. I have helped someone spent 40k in buying 486 with 19" color monitor, 16mb ram, 300mb hard disk, plus two erasible optical and a exabyte. And half of that money is for my pay check and my former company's overhead. For desktop poblishing and staff use, I think NeXT might be the best choice among the Mac's and PC's. (Though I don't have the same feeling when they sit in a Computer Science Department Lab.) It is a much faster, actually easier to configure than PC. Suppose you have an all NeXT environment, there is almost no Unix/Mach specific knowladge needed to setup a new NeXT. But for PC, you will be lucky if you can get all the commercial software work together without any conflict. Wen
gsm@mendelson.com (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) (03/26/91)
jdr@sloth.mlb.semi.harris.com (Jim Ray) asks: > >Now to my questions: > >1) What risk is there in going with the Next? I don't expect them to >go out of business any time soon -- but is that an unrealistic >expectation? The risk in buying Nexts is whether or not YOU think they will remain a viable company. That's a matter of speculation and lots of discussion here. What ever machine you buy, you are taking a chance on the company going out of, or out of the business. With IBM and Apple I think that chance is small. With Next? (you have to call that one) :-) >2) Are there "superior" PC solutions in the publishing arena that >would compare? The group is pretty set on using Frame though. In my opinion the best DTP package is VENTRUA PUBLISHER. It beats the pants of all the others. It is available in MS-DOS, WINDOWS 3, and Mac versions. From what I have seen, Frame is the best the "in how much money can I make on this sale" department. You can run Ventura on a 640k PC/XT with a 20 meg disk. I assume the Mac version would run well on a Plus. Don't even think about running Frame on a box that small. What I have heard as downsides: Quark Express: more features than Pagemaker, but publishing people just don't understand it. PageMaker: Good software to produce short documents, one page adds, etc. It made the Mac a success. :-) Ventura: Better than Pagemaker for long documents, cumbersome for short documents (one pagers). Don't expect to do more than quick fixups on text. It assumes that you will do your text entry with a word processor. Frame: Desktop publishing with mainframe prices (and hardware needs). >3) The "consultant" expressed his concern over that although it was >true that MAC's and Next's ( he seem's not not know that the Next is a >unix os ) were easier to use from an user-interface point of view, >once the "user" became more proficient a more "PC" oriented tool ( >somehow he equated textual input to pc's ) would be more efficient for >the "user". I don't buy this, even though I haven't been that fond of >MAC's myself ( I prefer Unix based machines ). I doesn't matter at all if they use the machine only for one or two tasks. If they are going to use the machine for other things, I think that documentation type people (as opposed to programmer types) would prefer the Mac. >4) The "consultant" expressed reservations that any non-pc solution >could not possibly contain a "documentation" management tool. He >wasn't really clear as to what he meant by "documentation management >tool". Anyone have any ideas??? No, he is Bullsh*ting you. I am a consultant too, and I have seen the "dance" before. "If you can't dazzel them with brilliance, baffle them with bull.." Usually you see these types as "free" consultants from a vendor. Avoid them like the plague. The usually know very little, push their wants on you, and disappear after the sale. If he had a "documentation managment tool" he would only be too glad to show you one. Or refer you to its vendor. Or call them himself for brochures. >5) I use Frame on Sun's and Dec's and other workstations, and find it >quite acceptable. If there are some reasons as to not use a Next >machine ( can't come up with any currently ), does anyone out there >see anything wrong with using some Unix system like the above instead >of PC's? The limitations of PC's don't appeal to me very much. If you are using the machines as dedicated workstations (ie only for documentation) I would get the cheapest platform the stuff runs on. Buy usefull things like: lots of printers, full page displays, tape backups: scanners, and huge hard disks. Don't waste you money on computer horespower that you won't need. I don't see why you would buy a $5000 Next to do what a $2000 Mac or PC would do. >6) What features on MAC's and Next's that would be superior to PC's >given a publishing orientation. None. :-) Since you will probably use the machines for word processing (how else does the text get in?), graphic manuipulation, drawing (Adobe Illustrator alone makes a Mac II worth having in a print shop) and lots of other things, I would look long and hard at Macs. Especailly since Ventura is availble for the Mac. I would also suggest getting at least one AMIGA since they do illustrations very well. I think the best combination would be a UNIX fileserver, an ethernet network MacIIs with full or 2 page monochome displays for set up and text entry, MacIIs with color monitors for illustations. Through in lots of printers and other usefull stuff and its still alot cheaper than Nexts. -- Copyright (C) 1991, Geoffrey S. Mendelson. All Rights Reserved. Except for usenet followups, may not be reproduced without permsission. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Geoffrey S. Mendelson | Computer Software Consulting | Dr. | | (215) 242-8712 | IBM Mainframes, Unix, PCs, Macs | Who | | gsm@mendelson.com | | Fan too!| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | WANTED: PAL VIDEO TAPES (VHS or BETA) inquire within. | | Especialy "missing" Dr Who Episodes. | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
radel@chopin.udel.edu (Todd Radel) (03/26/91)
In article <1991Mar26.053352.13091@mendelson.com> gsm@mendelson.com (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) writes: >In my opinion the best DTP package is VENTRUA PUBLISHER. It beats the >pants of all the others. It is available in MS-DOS, WINDOWS 3, and Mac >versions. From what I have seen, Frame is the best the "in how much money can >I make on this sale" department. You can run Ventura on a 640k PC/XT with a 20 >meg disk. I assume the Mac version would run well on a Plus. Don't even >think about running Frame on a box that small. > >Since you will probably use the machines for word processing >(how else does the text get in?), graphic manuipulation, drawing >(Adobe Illustrator alone makes a Mac II worth having in a print shop) >and lots of other things, I would look long and hard at Macs. Especailly since >Ventura is availble for the Mac. I'm not sure I'd agree ... I don't even have a NeXT yet, but from what I've heard on the net (and thanks to all who responded :-), the NeXT is _the best_ writing and desktop publishing platform around! I'm looking at either a NeXT or a Macintosh ... but the Mac is *way* overpriced and can't compete with the NeXTstation for performance. Plus built-in Ethernet on the NeXT makes networking to PC's a snap.
petrilli@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Chris Petrilli) (03/27/91)
Todd Radel writes: > In my opinion the best DTP package is VENTRUA PUBLISHER. It > beats the pants of all the others. It is available in MS-DOS, > WINDOWS 3, and Mac versions. From what I have seen, Frame is > the best the "in how much money can I make on this sale" > department. You can run Ventura on a 640k PC/XT with a 20 meg > disk. I assume the Mac version would run well on a Plus. Don't > even think about running Frame on a box that small. I disagree... I do graphics design work for a living, and for 90% of the work I do, Ventura Publisher would be in the way. It has alot of limitations that I find unacceptable. Most graphics design people do mainly short (several page) designs, and I do alot of logos, letterhead, corporate image work, which is primarily 1 page projects, for which VP would be useless. I use PageMaker the most, but have to use Illustrator and other programs to get what I want for logos (LetraStudio is quite nice, too bad it's not on the NeXT yet, though TextArt does a truly good job.) > Since you will probably use the machines for word processing > (how else does the text get in?), graphic manuipulation, > drawing (Adobe Illustrator alone makes a Mac II worth having > in a print shop) and lots of other things, I would look long > and hard at Macs. Especailly since Ventura is availble for > the Mac. I would not take a long hard look... at least not too long. I am forced to use a Mac, but not by choice, my choice would be a NeXT, hands down, as Touch Type alone makes the system 10x as useful. I am also opposed to Apple as a company, but then you knew that. And as I said before, VP doesn't make the system. Also Adobe Illustrator will be out this quarter for the NeXT, it FULL Display Postscript glory, and 10x as useful on the NeXT. I'm not sure I'd agree ... I don't even have a NeXT yet, but from what I've heard on the net (and thanks to all who responded :-), the NeXT is _the best_ writing and desktop publishing platform around! I agree wholehartedly... it is simply a matter of time before everything is in place for the NeXT. Quark Xpress is being converted as I understand, and there enough programs that leave everyone else in the dust already that I would not consider any other platform for my work, unfortunately I wasn't working where I am now when the Macintoys were purchased. I'm looking at either a NeXT or a Macintosh ... but the Mac is *way* overpriced and can't compete with the NeXTstation for performance. Plus built-in Ethernet on the NeXT makes networking to PC's a snap. Agreed... the NeXT provides the most bang for the buck, period. If anyone out there wished to discuss this topic farther, mail me. Chris -- + Chris Petrilli | Internet: petrilli@gnu.ai.mit.edu + Insert silly disclaimer drivel here.
songer@orchestra.ecn.purdue.edu (Christopher M Songer) (03/27/91)
gsm@mendelson.com (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) writes: >jdr@sloth.mlb.semi.harris.com (Jim Ray) asks: >> >>Now to my questions: >> >>1) What risk is there in going with the Next? I don't expect them to >>go out of business any time soon -- but is that an unrealistic >>expectation? . . . >>2) Are there "superior" PC solutions in the publishing arena that >>would compare? The group is pretty set on using Frame though. . . . >I don't see why you would buy a $5000 Next to do what a $2000 Mac or PC >would do. . . . Actually, I would have to differ with this analysis. I would stay away from the Mac due to Apple's (over)pricing. Their machines are fine but Apple is very much aware that they are the only mac maker and set their prices accordingly. The mac market NEEDS compatibles to drive the prices down, but Apple has the machine locked tight with legal protection. I would suggest that the choice for today is a PC. With Windows 3 and the associated applications, and with the comparitively low price of relatively high powered PC compatibles -- PC's and applications are cheap, fast and available now. I would also suggest that the choice for tomorrow may well be Next. Lotus went from conception to beta testing with Improv in much less than a year. Adobe Illustrator is coming out this month. While the current software availability is low, that seems to be changing quickly with the impact the new Next line is making. Next's are arguabily the performance per dollar leader right now and as a result, software houses are taking note. -Chris /*I go to and work for Purdue -- I hope never to speak for it.*/
radel@chopin.udel.edu (Todd Radel) (03/27/91)
In article <14365@life.ai.mit.edu> petrilli@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Chris Petrilli) writes: >Todd Radel writes: > > > In my opinion the best DTP package is VENTRUA PUBLISHER. It > > beats the pants of all the others. It is available in MS-DOS, > > WINDOWS 3, and Mac versions. From what I have seen, Frame is > > the best the "in how much money can I make on this sale" Unfortunately, those aren't my words. I was responding to that quote myself; I don't know why Chris decided to attribute someone else's words to me. I don't even agree with the above quote -- and I can spell "Ventura Publisher." ;-)
jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle) (03/27/91)
In article <1991Mar26.195213.12862@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> songer@orchestra.ecn.purdue.edu (Christopher M Songer) writes: > Actually, I would have to differ with this analysis. I would stay >away from the Mac due to Apple's (over)pricing. Their machines are fine >but Apple is very much aware that they are the only mac maker and >set their prices accordingly. The mac market NEEDS compatibles to >drive the prices down, but Apple has the machine locked tight with >legal protection. > > I would suggest that the choice for today is a PC. With Windows 3 and >the associated applications, and with the comparitively low price of >relatively high powered PC compatibles -- PC's and applications are cheap, >fast and available now. > > I would also suggest that the choice for tomorrow may well be Next. >Lotus went from conception to beta testing with Improv in much less than >a year. Adobe Illustrator is coming out this month. While the current >software availability is low, that seems to be changing quickly with >the impact the new Next line is making. Next's are arguabily the >performance per dollar leader right now and as a result, software >houses are taking note. > >-Chris /*I go to and work for Purdue -- I hope never to speak for it.*/ I would agree with your analysis of the Mac as being overpriced TO A DEGREE. Having used Ventura on a PC for the past two summers, however, I would do just about anything in my power to avoid EVER attempting desktop publishing on a PC system again. I used a 20 MHz 286 most of the time, but did use 386s and even 486s on several occasions. From this experience I conclude that for GUI based desktop publishing the PC is pathetic. The speed on the 386s was only on the order of that I would expect from a Mac Plus. Also, in response to someones earlier post regarding Ventura as the top software choice, I have never continued used a buggier piece of commercial software and continued using it. Also, the integration of the various pieces of software on the PC is more or less non-existant compared to the Mac. By this I mean that integrating a simple CAD sketch and spreadsheet results into a document is excrutiating painful on the PC when compared with the Mac, in our case requiring the use of several DOS file translation tools. In short, I found the PC the epitome of unproductivity in the desktop publishing arena. With regards to purchasing a Mac or Next, both are extremely promising environments. The price/performance ratio on the Next is better, but the number of programs available currently is only around 100. The Mac's pricing is somewhat steep, but has thousands of proven applications available. Both are supposedly on approximately the same magnitude of ease of use. Admittedly, this poses a difficult choice. I personally am holding onto my present Mac for a while to see how each platform shapes up (and to save up enough money for either). Above all, I would be sure to avoid the PC, however. Jess Holle
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (03/27/91)
In article <1991Mar26.213042.8120@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle) writes:
With regards to purchasing a Mac or Next, both are extremely promising
environments. The price/performance ratio on the Next is better, but the
number of programs available currently is only around 100. The Mac's
pricing is somewhat steep, but has thousands of proven applications
available. Both are supposedly on approximately the same magnitude of ease
of use. Admittedly, this poses a difficult choice. I personally am holding
onto my present Mac for a while to see how each platform shapes up (and to
save up enough money for either). Above all, I would be sure to avoid the
PC, however.
Jess Holle
Again, look at the number of programs, the diversity and the quality.
100 applications is more than anyone is going to buy in one's
lifetime. This is the kind of attitude that would prevent Apple from
releasing an innovative machine. Apple does have the potential to
"throw away" the Mac and start over again.
-Mikemikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) (03/27/91)
In article <1991Mar26.195213.12862@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> songer@orchestra.ecn.purdue.edu (Christopher M Songer) writes: > Actually, I would have to differ with this analysis. I would stay >away from the Mac due to Apple's (over)pricing. Their machines are fine >but Apple is very much aware that they are the only mac maker and >set their prices accordingly. The mac market NEEDS compatibles to >drive the prices down, but Apple has the machine locked tight with >legal protection. > > I would suggest that the choice for today is a PC. With Windows 3 and >the associated applications, and with the comparitively low price of >relatively high powered PC compatibles -- PC's and applications are cheap, >fast and available now. Of course, I work for Apple, and any money you spend on Apple equipment goes, on part, into my pocket. So you'll have to consider me a biased commentator. With that in mind, I will refrain from making any strong assertions about Macs being superior. However, I think it would be useful to do something like this: Look at the price of a Mac adequate for writing long pieces of text, laying out the pages, and printing the results. Factor in network support. Include the laser printer of your choice (presumably third party, because you want to keep price down; GCC is a reasonable choice, for example). Now add in the word-processing, illustration, and publishing software you want. Now look at the price of an equivalent PC running windows. Don't forget to add in the cost of a network operation system and hardware. I'm guessing that the Mac will look pretty good when all the factors are added up. Of course, I could be wrong. If so, that would be good information to pass on to our execs, because they really seem to be interested now in competing on the basis of price.
asmith@questor.wimsey.bc.ca (Adam Smith) (03/27/91)
I beg your pardon?
Publishing people "don't understand" Quark Xpress?
I'd like to keep this from being a debate on the best DTP package
available--there are many better venues for that sort of recreational
impossibility--but this cannot go unanswered.
Quark is the CHOICE of anyone who is serious about typesetting from a
microcomputer. It has the widest range of features and quite probably the
finest control available in off-the-shelf packages.
To bring this post sround to the matter (and newsgroup) at hand, I was
seriously considering buying a Mac so that I could use Quark. (I have been
working on a PC for a while--BTW I will be happy to leave Ventura
Publisher, my trusted friend for three years, for something with more
flexibility.) I have trouble with some of Apple's pricing policies and
attitudes and I recognized that there are ENOURMOUS advantages to the NeXT
platform, given the right software. When last year's roll out happened, and
Quark announced that they would develop XPress for the NeXT (and Adobe would
do Illustrator), I put the brakes on my Mac purchasing ideas and waited for
a while.
Recently the BLand deal has presented me with the opportunity to buy into
NeXT for a very reasonable price, so I did. I do not anticipate using my
NeXT as a production machine until early next year, if things go well.
Did you catch that?
I am a full-time graphic designer/typesetter. It's what I do and it's just
about all I do. I also consult on publishing systems and work part-time at
an output service bureau (to help expand my view of what is REALLY happening
in the world of DTP and prepress). There are MANY consideration that go into
how a platform performs as a publshing platform, choice of page lyout
software is only one. (Case in point--the Windows PS Printer Driver. While
the Windows environment holds many advantages and capabilities, it is
strangled by an underpowered, inefficient printer driver that ALL programs
must go through.)
And I do not plan to have the NeXT doing serious page layout until NEXT
YEAR. Yup, Framemaker does cool stuff, in certain situations, but it is FAR
from being a top-of-the-line page layout program. Illustrator, which goes to
beta any day now, will help bring the NeXT up to speed, but consider this.
Adobe has no plans announced to bring Photoshop to the NeXT, a natural
platform for it. They are, however, working on the Windows 3 version. I say
this not to infer that the NeXT will be playing catch-up with Windows, but
to suggest that the NeXT has yet to reach anything close to critical mass in
terms of drawing developers for DTP-related software.
I hope (and indeed financially support the cause of) Next will become a
potent force in publishing, but there are some big barriers that must first
fall.
Cheers to those that help it come about.
##########################################################################
asmith@questor.wimsey.bc.ca The Chameleon Papers - Vancouver, BC
Graphic Artist - Bad Mood Guy - NeXT user
Human beings are a great disappointment to me, and it doesn't help one
bit that I am one --SF
##########################################################################
Fingers Down The Throat Of Loveminich@unx2.ucc.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) (03/27/91)
|>Since you will probably use the machines for word processing |>(how else does the text get in?), graphic manuipulation, drawing |>(Adobe Illustrator alone makes a Mac II worth having in a print shop) |>and lots of other things, I would look long and hard at Macs. Especailly since |>Ventura is availble for the Mac. by radel@chopin.udel.edu (Todd Radel): | I'm not sure I'd agree ... I don't even have a NeXT yet, but from what I've | heard on the net (and thanks to all who responded :-), the NeXT is _the best_ | writing and desktop publishing platform around! | | I'm looking at either a NeXT or a Macintosh ... but the Mac is *way* | overpriced and can't compete with the NeXTstation for performance. | Plus built-in Ethernet on the NeXT makes networking to PC's a snap. Reality break time. You claim that Macs are "*way*" overpriced. Probably so. However, do consider that the cost of the hardaware is almost certainly not the dominant cost involved. You still have to buy software, peripherals (it seems Apple and NeXT both overcharge for periphs, except the NeXT laser printer), and you have train people to use this system. [the original poster] jdr@sloth.mlb.semi.harris.com (Jim Ray) # We have a group that is interrested in upgrading their current # publishing capabilities ( currently using Mac's ). They are # interrested in using frame on a couple of Next's and the existing # Mac's to put out black and white glossies. # # Management has decided ( with their PC wizzard ) that MAC's and Next # ( and for that matter any computer other than a PC ) are not acceptable. # Instead they have come up with an alternative proposal ( about 200k # more expensive ) using PC's exclusively. Surely we can all admit that $200k is a lot of money to spend for products that may very well perform no better than the original proposal. I think the NeXT has an advantage in that it can easily and efficeintly share hardware resources as shipped. The Macs are plug and play. The fact they are already in use would seem to suggest the users already know how to use them. The NeXTs would probably require at least some UNIX knowledge, which can be difficult if you don't know who to turn to for help. A "couple of NeXTs" [from original post] would take additional hardware resources to get up to speed, including RAM and disk space. I think the addition of NeXTs to the existing setup would complement the existing situation. Tell the boss that for much much less than $200k, you can have the Macs and the NeXTs speaking to eachother fluently. UNIX can be extremely handy at times and NeXTStep lets it be friendly, too. # 1) What risk is there in going with the Next? I don't expect them to # go out of business any time soon -- but is that an unrealistic # expectation? I don't think NeXT will be going out of business. They've done too much good work and are selling an incredible product for an incredible price. I don't know that the above fear is unrealistic but if NeXT should fail, I'd be happy to buy some of that hardware at rock bottom prices. :-) # 5) I use Frame on Sun's and Dec's and other workstations, and find it # quite acceptable. If there are some reasons as to not use a Next # machine ( can't come up with any currently ), does anyone out there # see anything wrong with using some Unix system like the above instead # of PC's? The limitations of PC's don't appeal to me very much. Workstations can take a lot of work to keep running smoothly. Sun and Dec don't have InterfaceBuilder. They don't have cheap software. I think NeXT is much better aimed at non-technical users than the others, although it isn't quite plug and play. # 6) What features on MAC's and Next's that would be superior to PC's # given a publishing orientation. NeXT gives you Display PostScript, so you always know what you're getting. The NeXT laser printer is dirt cheap and compares favorably to more expensive printers. NeXTs and Macs will do a much better job at working together and sharing resources. -- |_ /| | Robert Minich | |\'o.O' | Oklahoma State University| "I'm not discouraging others from using |=(___)= | minich@d.cs.okstate.edu | their power of the pen, but mine will | U | - "Ackphtth" | continue to do the crossword." M. Ho
hammen@vpnet.chi.il.us (Robert Hammen) (03/27/91)
>I'm not sure I'd agree ... I don't even have a NeXT yet, but from what I've >heard on the net (and thanks to all who responded :-), the NeXT is _the best_ >writing and desktop publishing platform around! I think that this phrase should be changed to "the NeXT has the _potential_ to be the best writing and desktop publishing platform around." I hate to jump into this foolish Mac vs. NeXT argument, but I want to interject some real-world experience into the discussion. The problem with using the NeXT _right now_ to do publishing is that you don't have a variety of software available for it. How many DTP packages are there on the NeXT? FrameMaker, with QuarkXPress in development. How many packages are there available for the Mac? Frame, Quark, PageMaker, DesignStudio, Ventura Publisher, ad infinitum. This is important to note, because no one program can do _everything_. How many word processors for the NeXT? WriteNow and WordPerfect. How many for the Mac? Word, WriteNow, MacWrite II, Nisus, Word Perfect, FullWrite, and so on. I'm not saying that just because there are more packages available on the Mac, it makes it better. But having the diversity of options allows the user to pick the software package that suits their needs, and that they are comfortable with. It also increases the competition between the various companies, which leads to newer, more capable products. When you own the market, you don't have much incentive to offer upgrades. What about other publishing-related software for the NeXT? Is the whole Adobe Type Library available? Even if it is, what about other fonts? There are thousands of typefaces available in the world. Adobe does not make them all. You can now get most of them on the Mac. And yes, to some people, it is VERY important that they match the exact face (and not some lookalike knock-off) that they have been using traditionally for years. What about graphics software? Adobe Illustrator is in development, but it's not here yet. There are no alternatives (though Altsys, the people who write FreeHand for Aldus, are rumored to be working on a NeXT version). And, correct me if I'm wrong, but there's nothing like Adobe Photoshop or Letraset ColorStudio for the NeXT at this time. More problems: there are no NeXT-to-prepress links currently available (though Scitex is rumored to be working on it). And, the infrastructure of service bureaus in this country does not have much support for the NeXT at this time. (Do this: call any typesetting shop in your hometown, and ask them if you can get typeset output from a Mac disk. Now, ask them if you can get output from a PostScript file from a NeXT. Most of them will go "Huh?"). There are two things which the NeXT proponents always fail to realize or consider: (1) That no one software program is the be-all or end-all for everyone. Diversity in software is necessary. (2) That when a business buys a computer, they're not concerned about getting the most MIPS per buck. They buy a computer as a tool to perform a specific task. They MUST purchase the system that does the job today, not the one that may be better someday. Again, I want to reiterate that I am not a NeXT-basher, nor am I a total Mac advocate. I think the statement that "the NeXT is the best computer for publishing" is a ridiculous one to make. I also think if you substituted "Mac" for "NeXT", it would still be a stupid statement to make. No one computer is the best tool for every job. That being said, I do think the NeXT hardware has the best potential for publishing (particularly color publishing, with the on-board JPEG compression). I (and the software company I work for) are just waiting for the variety of software to come out and make the market explode, so that we can justify developing our product (RIPLINK, a prepress system link) for the machine. /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// / Robert Hammen Software Support Engineer Screaming Technology, Inc. / / vpnet.chi.il.us!hammen CompuServe: 70701,2104 GEnie: R.HAMMEN / ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) (03/27/91)
In article <CNH5730.91Mar26192147@maraba.tamu.edu> cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu writes: >In article <50859@apple.Apple.COM> mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes: > [... a lot of stuff, none of which even uses the name NeXT ...} Oops. Sorry about that. I love my NeXT, honest.
jhagen@TALOS.UUCP (Jarom Hagen) (03/28/91)
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >In article <1991Mar26.213042.8120@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle) writes: >Again, look at the number of programs, the diversity and the quality. >100 applications is more than anyone is going to buy in one's >lifetime. This is the kind of attitude that would prevent Apple from >releasing an innovative machine. Apple does have the potential to >"throw away" the Mac and start over again. Wait a minute, even if Apple decided to stop selling Macs tomor- row, I would still be able to use it as long as I have a way of getting necessary parts for it. You see, I don't need to upgrade because what I have does what I want well enough. Apple will de- cide to innovate when its current product is determined to become obsolete, not when people's attitudes permit innovation. I wonder if the fact that low-cost Macs are hot sellers might in fact slow down the Macs obsolecence. I for one, do not expect Apple, IBM, Next or any other company to make the same computer forever. I still have my Apple II+ that does just as much as it use to do nearly 10 years ago when I bought it for an outragously high price. (Well it seemed like a good price back then :-)) I can't go to my local computer store and buy an Apple II+ anymore. Do I care? No. I can get parts for it (I replaced the power supply and the keyboard). I don't use it much anymore either. I find my MacIntosh a much more pro- fitable machine to use now. I spent $3700 for a system that now I doubt I could get $370. But, that old system made over $4000 in profit for me. The MacIntoshes, printers and software I bought have made me even more money in Desktop Publishing. Although I think the Next is a neat machine and reasonably priced, I will not go buy one unless it can be shown to be worth the investment. I have invested a lot of money in what I have already. If the Next can only do the same thing as the Mac, there is no reason for me to buy the Next even if it is faster. Someone just starting has to make a decision on what computer does what they want best. In my opinion, you should consider Ma- cIntosh or Next for desktop publishing. PCs don't cut it and workstations are a little too expensive to be very profitable for that kind of work. (Disclaimer: this doesn't mean PCs aren't useful, I have one of those machines too and I find it very use- ful. But not for desktop publishing.) 100 programs in a lifetime sounds a little low to me. If you count every program I ever bought for a computer, it must be ap- proching 50 by now. That averages out to about 5 programs a year. I hope to live longer than only 10 more years. :-) Jarom -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *Not paid for and/or endorsed by National Political Resources Incorporated. 602 Cameron St, Alexandria VA 22314 (UUCP: ...uunet!uupsi!pbs!npri6!jhagen)
fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars P. Fischer) (03/28/91)
>>>>> jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle) writes: Jess> With regards to purchasing a Mac or Next, both are extremely Jess> promising environments. The price/performance ratio on the Next Jess> is better, but the number of programs available currently is Jess> only around 100. The Mac's pricing is somewhat steep, but has Jess> thousands of proven applications available. >>>>> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) replies: Michael> Again, look at the number of programs, the diversity and the Michael> quality. 100 applications is more than anyone is going to Michael> buy in one's lifetime. Remember when the Mac was all new? The PC freaks were telling us to stick with PC's because they had all these applications available while the MacEvangelists told us that "You don't need 127 word processors, just one good one and that Mac has that". Have we come full circle? /Lars -- Lars Fischer, fischer@iesd.auc.dk |Erst kommt das Fressen, dann die Moral CS Dept., Univ. of Aalborg, DENMARK. | - B. Brecht
ogawa@orion.arc.nasa.gov (Arthur Ogawa) (03/29/91)
In article <1991Mar27.052556.9495@vpnet.chi.il.us> hammen@vpnet.chi.il.us (Robert Hammen) writes: |....I want to |interject some real-world experience into the discussion. I commend anyone who wishes to inject reality into this flame-thread. I generate and use typesetting systems employing the TeX engine, and have some experience in using the Mac platform to do this work. I consider my primary output the PostScript code that goes to the imagesetter for the high-resolution camera-ready copy, so the basic flavor of my environment is TeX, Adobe Illustrator->PostScript on Macintosh. However, I also have considerable experience with Unix and Dos as publishing platforms, always using TeX as the formatter. And I am seriously considering extending my house system to include the NeXT. I have decided that the time is borderline/good for this acquisition and I'll try to explain why. But first some responses. |What about other publishing-related software for the NeXT? Is the whole |Adobe Type Library available? Even if it is, what about other fonts? There Yes the entire Adobe Type library is available for NeXT, as well as DOS, and for that matter, for any Unix box. |are thousands of typefaces available in the world. Adobe does not make them |all. You can now get most of them on the Mac. And yes, to some people, it is Any font that conforms to the Adobe Type 1 encoding can be translated to a format that will work on NeXT, or DOS. The tools are out there. It will be interesting to see what Monotype, Mergenthaler, and the others will do vis-a-vis getting their Type 1-format libraries out on non-Mac platforms, though. |VERY important that they match the exact face (and not some lookalike |knock-off) that they have been using traditionally for years. Granted without quibble. |....the infrastructure |of service bureaus in this country does not have much support for the NeXT |at this time. (Do this: call any typesetting shop in your hometown, and |ask them if you can get typeset output from a Mac disk. Now, ask them if |you can get output from a PostScript file from a NeXT. Most of them will |go "Huh?"). Given that I always ship straight PS files to the service bureaus, I have some similar experience here. Most SBs would like to see Mac media, but have no problem when you provide straight PS files on that media. Especially when they see how much faster and more trouble-free your jobs run than the usual fare of One-Page-at-a-time-Maker and MS Weird stuff. (OK, so flame me. These two apps _are_ notorious within the service bureaus for encountering problems upon printout.) |....I think the statement that "the NeXT is the best computer |for publishing" is a ridiculous one to make. I agree, and admit to a feeling of acute embarassment to think that such a statement would be made in all seriousness. Why hasn't a great peel of laughter come to send these marcom guys right offstage? Now on to what I perceive to be the big advantage of the NeXT platform, given its great bang-for-the-buck: Unix OK, why Unix, and especially, why tell Mac mavens about this? I have used Unix to do publishing work before, and I think it has some significant advantages to offer over the Mac OS, namely multitasking, large virtual memory, scripting language, and TCP/IP. I won't go into explaining why these are an advantage in this posting, but if you're interested in hearing my opinion, let me know. I don't expect NeXT types to require education on these matters, though. A/UX could offer these same advantages, but I think the NeXT offers a stronger Unix platform for the dollar than the Mac. And the third party market for NeXT is in relatively good shape. Did you know that an external hard disk for NeXT can be purchased at any Mac store? That's right, they use the SCSI 1 interface. Also, the memory for the NeXTStation (monochrome) is identical to the Mac (non-FX) memory! These are significant tag-alongs to the Mac's popularity. I will say that I am basing my decision to put a NeXT in my office on the expectation that spending money on a NeXT is for me more cost-effective than buying an FX upgrade for my Mac. But this is a situation where I already have all the advantages of Mac ownership, and am simply adding a new tool. I don't expect the NeXT to replace my Mac, just make the ensemble more powerful than if I spent the same dollars on an FX. So I make no claim that the NeXT is better than the Mac; I don't need to make such a choice. I'll have the best of both worlds. To be fair, I know that the NeXT will have certain disadvantages as well, namely I can't by a TPD for the NeXT (or the price won't be so competetive compared to a Mac), I'll have to learn to be a competent Unix sysad, the NeXT isn't plug-and-play, etc. I won't downplay these disadvantages, just factor them in. But--and here's a challenge for Mikel's company--the lack of preemptive multitasking and user-mode operation in the Mac, coupled with RAM memory limitations and lask of a Unix-like scripting language after so many years has convinced me that Apple just hasn't the committment to provide the power tools to the power users. And that's got to be OK, really. My response is not to jump ship, just not to buy my whole fleet from the same company. Arthur Ogawa Internet: ogawa@orion.arc.nasa.gov Ph: 1/415/691-1126 TeX consultant AppleLink: ogawa FAX:1/415/962-1969
mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) (03/29/91)
In article <1991Mar29.065913.22766@news.arc.nasa.gov> ogawa@orion.arc.nasa.gov (Arthur Ogawa) writes: >But--and here's a challenge for Mikel's company--the lack of >preemptive multitasking and user-mode operation in the Mac, coupled >with RAM memory limitations and lask of a Unix-like scripting language >after so many years has convinced me that Apple just hasn't the >committment to provide the power tools to the power users. >And that's got to be OK, really. My response is not to jump >ship, just not to buy my whole fleet from the same company. I imagine that Apple will try to respond to these weaknesses. People who buy computers will vote on our attempts with their wallets, and we'll see. In the meantime, I write my code during the day on a Mac, and at night at home on a NeXT. Anybody need a free Scheme interpreter with a NeXT front end? A usable version is almost ready now...
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (03/30/91)
In article <FISCHER.91Mar27230945@galilei.iesd.auc.dk> fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars P. Fischer) writes: > >Michael> Again, look at the number of programs, the diversity and the >Michael> quality. 100 applications is more than anyone is going to >Michael> buy in one's lifetime. > >Remember when the Mac was all new? The PC freaks were telling us to >stick with PC's because they had all these applications available >while the MacEvangelists told us that "You don't need 127 word >processors, just one good one and that Mac has that". Have we come >full circle? The MacEvangelists who said that were wrong then and the NeXT people who say that are wrong now. (First of all, MacWrite was NOT a good word processer. It was a barebones word processor. Word was the first one with enough power to do even a high school paper (no footnotes in MacWrite...) ) Those who bought the mac were betting on the availability of software in the near future, when it was needed. It turned out to be a good bet for many. I don't think it is going to be such a good bet for NeXT. -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (03/30/91)
In article <1991Mar29.215715.12571@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
The MacEvangelists who said that were wrong then and the NeXT people who say
that are wrong now. (First of all, MacWrite was NOT a good word processer.
It was a barebones word processor. Word was the first one with enough power
to do even a high school paper (no footnotes in MacWrite...) )
If you remember correctly, it took a year before Word was available
for the Mac.
Those who bought the mac were betting on the availability of software in
the near future, when it was needed. It turned out to be a good bet for
many. I don't think it is going to be such a good bet for NeXT.
You are already wrong. Great software is already hitting the market.
FrameMaker, Word Perfect, Lotus, and Adobe, plus several new companies
that are going to make their fortunes like Stone Design(Create).
-Mikeeps@toaster.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) (03/30/91)
In article <1991Mar27.052556.9495@vpnet.chi.il.us> hammen@vpnet.chi.il.us (Robert Hammen) writes: >What about other publishing-related software for the NeXT? Is the whole >Adobe Type Library available? Of course. > Even if it is, what about other fonts? There >are thousands of typefaces available in the world. Adobe does not make them >all. Cassady & Greene (sp?), Bitstream, etc. also produce PostScript fonts. So? Apple has *no* monopoly here--and considering that Apple is still gung-ho on TrueType, NeXT sure looks a lot more "serious" using *your* criteria. >What about graphics software? Adobe Illustrator is in development, but it's >not here yet. RSN. It's goes into beta this week or next. >More problems: there are no NeXT-to-prepress links currently available >(though Scitex is rumored to be working on it). And, the infrastructure >of service bureaus in this country does not have much support for the NeXT >at this time. (Do this: call any typesetting shop in your hometown, and >ask them if you can get typeset output from a Mac disk. Now, ask them if >you can get output from a PostScript file from a NeXT. Most of them will >go "Huh?"). I live in San Francisco. I guess we're not as backward as _your_ hometown. (ba-people: Actually, what really impresses me is that Abacus, Inc.--a truly diehard Mac-fanatic business if ever there was one --is now a NeXT dealer!--they have an ad in Bay Area Computer Currents. It's going to be interesting to see what effect that has on future issues of _The Node_ considering who we're talking about. It will also be interesting to see how Computer Attic and BusinessLand (or is that Out-of-Business-Land?) compete or don't.) >I (and the software company I work for) are just waiting for the variety of >software to come out and make the market explode, so that we can justify >developing our product (RIPLINK, a prepress system link) for the machine. People are getting Lino output from NeXTs right now... what more do you have to offer? You may not even HAVE a market opportunity if you wait. -=EPS=-
eps@toaster.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) (03/30/91)
You're missing an important point here. The NeXT comes bundled with all sorts of functionality that has to be added on to Macs or PCs. It seems that every month there's a deluge of shareware and commercial products for "toy computers" that doesn't do anything that isn't _standard_ on the NeXT. One of the reasons there aren't "hundreds of add-ons" for the NeXT is that THEY'RE JUST NOT NEEDED. And if someone wants to reinvent a wheel for profit, they have to do a better job than what's already there "for free." -=EPS=-
zimmer@calvin.stanford.edu (Andrew Zimmerman) (03/30/91)
In article <1446@toaster.SFSU.EDU> eps@cs.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) writes: >You're missing an important point here. The NeXT comes bundled >with all sorts of functionality that has to be added on to Macs stuff deleted > > -=EPS=- One addon that might be nice would be a cheap handheld scanner for reading in images. The big scanners are nice, but for people that only need them occasional, a handheld would be usefule, and wouldn't take up as much desk space when not in use. Andrew zimmer@calvin.stanford.edu
edgar@function.mps.ohio-state.edu (Gerald Edgar) (03/30/91)
> MacWrite was NOT a good word processer.
I guess you don't remember the original Mac press get-together, and what
happened when a picture was drawn in MacPaint, then pasted into the
MacWrite document...
--
Gerald A. Edgar
Department of Mathematics Bitnet: EDGAR@OHSTPY
The Ohio State University Internet: edgar@mps.ohio-state.edu
Columbus, OH 43210 ...!{att,pyramid}!osu-cis!shape.mps.ohio-state.edu!edgarddj@zardoz.club.cc.cmu.edu (Doug DeJulio) (03/30/91)
In article <1991Mar30.101245.22486@neon.Stanford.EDU> zimmer@calvin.stanford.edu (Andrew Zimmerman) writes: > One addon that might be nice would be a cheap handheld scanner for >reading in images. Shouldn't the SCSI ones already work? If not, all that should be needed is some software that works through the sg (SCSI generic) device. -- DdJ
tempest@ecst.csuchico.edu (Kenneth K.F. Lui) (03/31/91)
In article <1991Mar30.101245.22486@neon.Stanford.EDU> zimmer@calvin.stanford.edu (Andrew Zimmerman) writes: > One addon that might be nice would be a cheap handheld scanner for >reading in images. The big scanners are nice, but for people that only >need them occasional, a handheld would be usefule, and wouldn't take up >as much desk space when not in use. I agree with this need. Several months ago, I would have never wanted a handheld scanner. I got to thinking that a lot of items I and many others want to scan can be covered with 1 pass using a handheld. It is true that there are other images that may take at most 2 passes. In addition, much of the material I'm interested in scanning are within bound books that I don't want to ruin by placing them on a flatbed scanner. But then the current handhelds are too narrow at times--I always think what would happen if I don't want to make two passes. How about a handheld with an interchangable scanning element (1 for 5" and another for 9")? It would have to be a 24-bit color scanner of course--or at least upgradable in regards to bits and color. Then there's always the need to have photoretouching software for the NeXT (Adobe Photoshop...within a year?) Ken ______________________________________________________________________________ tempest@ecst.csuchico.edu, tempest@walleye.ecst.csuchico.edu,|Kenneth K.F. Lui| tempest@sutro.sfsu.edu, tempest@wet.UUCP |________________|
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (03/31/91)
In article <1991Mar30.134728.13562@zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu> edgar@function.mps.ohio-state.edu (Gerald Edgar) writes: > > > MacWrite was NOT a good word processer. > >I guess you don't remember the original Mac press get-together, and what >happened when a picture was drawn in MacPaint, then pasted into the >MacWrite document... No, I don't remember that (Was too busy poring over my looseleaf copy of Inside Mac at the time, probably :-)), but, having worked with those early systems, I can guess. A nice little picture of a bomb came up. -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
mikec@wam.umd.edu (Michael D. Callaghan) (03/31/91)
>> Even if it is, what about other fonts? There >>are thousands of typefaces available in the world. Adobe does not make them >>all. > >Cassady & Greene (sp?), Bitstream, etc. also produce PostScript fonts. >So? Apple has *no* monopoly here--and considering that Apple is >still gung-ho on TrueType, NeXT sure looks a lot more "serious" >using *your* criteria. >>not here yet. I met the head of Goodmark Corp of Vienna, VA last Tuesday night. His company is also designing PostScript Typefaces for Macs and NeXTs. He told me that they have nearly completely their first 100 fonts. They plan to take the font market by storm, I was told. He told me to send him an OD, and $250, and he'd send back their entire font library. $250 is not bad for 100 Type 1 fonts with screen fonts. He also said that his company is looking for PostScript programmers that can automate kerning and AFM file creation. The company can be reached at (703) 883-8262. I have nothing to do with them, other than meeting the owner. -- MikeC _________________________________________________________ Michael D. Callaghan, MDC Designs, University of Maryland mikec@wam.umd.edu
petrilli@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Chris Petrilli) (03/31/91)
Matthew T. Russotto writes: >>Remember when the Mac was all new? The PC freaks were telling us to >>stick with PC's because they had all these applications available >>while the MacEvangelists told us that "You don't need 127 word >>processors, just one good one and that Mac has that". Have we come >>full circle? > >The MacEvangelists who said that were wrong then and the NeXT people who say >that are wrong now. (First of all, MacWrite was NOT a good word processer. >It was a barebones word processor. Word was the first one with enough power >to do even a high school paper (no footnotes in MacWrite...) ) > >Those who bought the mac were betting on the availability of software in >the near future, when it was needed. It turned out to be a good bet for >many. I don't think it is going to be such a good bet for NeXT. It seems to me that you sound like a MacEvangelist... I have used the NeXT extensively, and most of the basic software is already there, much of it better than that available on other platforms (Improv for exaple, Touch-Type as another). I think betting on NeXT is actually safer than betting on Apple (simply because of back-lash that is slowly coming about from their "look and feel" attitude, and the fact that they are not even close to reasonably comptetitive in price). I have used a Mac IIfx (w/ 8.24 card) and a NeXTstation, and you can have the Mac, I won't touch it. (See the Org line if you wondering why). Chris -- + Chris Petrilli | Internet: petrilli@gnu.ai.mit.edu + Insert silly disclaimer drivel here.
arst@polari.UUCP (Mike Arst) (03/31/91)
In article <14365@life.ai.mit.edu> petrilli@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu Chris Petrilli) writes: > Agreed... the NeXT provides the most bang for the buck, period. If > anyone out there wished to discuss this topic farther, mail me. [With fear and trembling, he attempts to post his first message to a newsgroup ... ] I would sure be interested to har more about your work with the NeXT as a DTP platform. It has seemed to me, ever since I saw the first literature about it, that it would be just as the hype said: _the_ platform for this kind of work. Please say more. Thank you. Mike Arst polari!arst@sumax.seattleu.edu
arst@polari.UUCP (Mike Arst) (03/31/91)
asmith@questor.wimsey.bc.ca (Adam Smith) writes: > Publishing people "don't understand" Quark Xpress? I'd like to keep > this from being a debate on the best DTP package available--there are > many better venues for that sort of recreational impossibility--but > this cannot go unanswered. Quark is the CHOICE of anyone who is serious > about typesetting from a microcomputer. It has the widest range of > features and quite probably the finest control available in off-the- > shelf packages. Before I reply: I saw an earlier message indicating that this whole topic should be moved to alt.desktop.publishing. Alas, I can't seem to find such a newsgroup on the board I call - is it a new one? Or was it mis- named in that message? I can see the 'thread' is going off-topic for this newsgroup and would rather move it to the right place, if only I can find it. As for the reply: Same here. I started out in this business using conventional typesetting equipment; then used Ventura Publisher for GEM; then moved to the Mac, where I used Pagemaker for quite some time - and then discovered QuarkXPress 3.0, on which I became sold almost at once, and absolutely, finally, and forever. It is a superb package, combining some of the best features of Pagemaker and Ventura, and - its limitations notwithstanding - not sharing some of the worst defects of either. I agree wholeheartedly it is the best so far for computer-based typesetting of its kind (w.y.s.i.m.o.l.w.y.g. - what you see is more or less what you get). I have been dying to see QuarkXPress for NeXT, and alas, Quark Inc has said we aren't going to see it this year; they're going to work on the port to the Windows environment. (If by some chance there is a QuarkXPress-related newsgroup, I would sure love to hear about it.) Mike Arst, PubNet QuarkXPress conference moderator (PubNet is a small network that uses FidoNet 'channels') polari!arst@sumax.seattleu.edu
asmith@questor.wimsey.bc.ca (Adam Smith) (04/01/91)
arst@polari.UUCP (Mike Arst) writes: > asmith@questor.wimsey.bc.ca (Adam Smith) writes: > > > Publishing people "don't understand" Quark Xpress? I'd like to keep > > this from being a debate on the best DTP package available--there are > > many better venues for that sort of recreational impossibility--but > > this cannot go unanswered. Quark is the CHOICE of anyone who is serious > > about typesetting from a microcomputer. It has the widest range of > > features and quite probably the finest control available in off-the- > > shelf packages. > > Before I reply: I saw an earlier message indicating that this whole topic > should be moved to alt.desktop.publishing. Alas, I can't seem to find > such a newsgroup on the board I call - is it a new one? Or was it mis- That newsgroup is ... comp.text.desktop I'd like to reiterate my plea to move this discussion to there. There are a lot of useful and interesting things being said here, and a lot of important issues for people in my field are being raised. My news software won't allow me to do anything fancy like cross-post in the middle of a thread without a lot of potentially tedious work. So, can we pick this up there? Please? ########################################################################## asmith@questor.wimsey.bc.ca The Chameleon Papers - Vancouver, BC Graphic Artist - Bad Mood Guy - NeXT user Human beings are a great disappointment to me, and it doesn't help one bit that I am one --SF ########################################################################## Fingers Down The Throat Of Love
arst@polari.UUCP (Mike Arst) (04/01/91)
Adam Smith writes: > So, can we pick this up there? Please? Will do. Sorry to have gone off-topic. Mike Arst polari!arst@sumax.seattleu.edu
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (04/01/91)
In article <14483@life.ai.mit.edu> petrilli@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Chris Petrilli) writes: >Matthew T. Russotto writes: >>Those who bought the mac were betting on the availability of software in >>the near future, when it was needed. It turned out to be a good bet for >>many. I don't think it is going to be such a good bet for NeXT. > >It seems to me that you sound like a MacEvangelist... I have used the >NeXT extensively, and most of the basic software is already there, >much of it better than that available on other platforms (Improv for >exaple, Touch-Type as another). I think betting on NeXT is actually >safer than betting on Apple (simply because of back-lash that is >slowly coming about from their "look and feel" attitude, and the fact >that they are not even close to reasonably comptetitive in price). Considering NeXT doesn't have a machine below $5000, nor a color machine anywhere within affordable range, I don't think so. As for this 'look and feel' backlash, it seems to be only in the minds of FSF. > I >have used a Mac IIfx (w/ 8.24 card) and a NeXTstation, and you can >have the Mac, I won't touch it. (See the Org line if you wondering >why). Send it to me-- I'll even pay shipping. This has nothing to do with the virtues of the machine-- only with the imagined virtues of the companies involved. -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
usenet@lectroid.sw.stratus.com (Mr. Usenet News Manager) (04/01/91)
In article <14483@life.ai.mit.edu> petrilli@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Chris Petrilli) writes: > It seems to me that you sound like a MacEvangelist... I have used the > NeXT extensively, and most of the basic software is already there, > much of it better than that available on other platforms (Improv for > exaple, Touch-Type as another). I think betting on NeXT is actually > safer than betting on Apple (simply because of back-lash that is > slowly coming about from their "look and feel" attitude, and the fact > that they are not even close to reasonably comptetitive in price). I > have used a Mac IIfx (w/ 8.24 card) and a NeXTstation, and you can > have the Mac, I won't touch it. (See the Org line if you wondering > why). > What backlash? The new, lower priced Macs are selling at twice the rate that Apple anticipated. They're having trouble keeping up with demand. Yes, I dislike they're attitude on look-and-feel, but they make a very good machine. Yes, NeXT has the Mac beat for now at the high Mac high end. A NeXT station is a better buy than the high-end Mac, provided you know at least a bit of Unix, since it isn't quite as easy as Apple's "take it out of the box, plug it in, and go." And, of course, provided that the NeXT can do what you want. (Do your taxes? Not yet? Games? Well, a few. Databases? Well, a Sybase engine, but beyond that...) Yep, for much of the basic software, the NeXT has some good choices, and in a few cases it is better than what is available elsewhere. Lotus Improv seems wonderful (but then, the folks who don't like Apple's stand on look-and-feel will probably refuse to use it), the Librarian and Dictionary are very good, etc. For a basic wordprocessor, though, Mac WriteNow is still much better than NeXT WriteNow. However, for a home computer or low-end business computer, the Mac can't be beat. $1100 gets you a Mac classic with 40M hard disk, which is plenty for most people at home or for someone doing word processing at work. If you need more speed, the SE30 is available for about $2400. Jim Mann jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com Stratus Computer
lcleland@maths.tcd.ie (Laura Cleland) (04/03/91)
In article <CNH5730.91Mar26192147@maraba.tamu.edu> cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu writes: >this thread has been moved to alt.desktop.publishing. See you there.... But I don't get alt.desktop.publishing!!!!! So I will put in my tuppence worth now. I have worked for the past nine months in a top Desktop Publishing firm using Macs and PC's and the Macs are far more user friendly than the PC's. We had some applications for both types of machines eg Pagemaker, but we used the Macs wherever possible. Windows just isn't the same. It is too flat! I have heard (of course) about the NeXT Stations and I would love to work with one and compare the three, but....... Ah well, I can always dream... Laura.