jr@amanue.UUCP (Jim Rosenberg) (07/16/90)
I don't yet have a desktop publishing program, but will probably get one in the
next few months. Based on the reviews I've read so far, I'm inclined toward
Quark XPress, though it's a close call. Recently my wife called several print
shops to get an estimate on a job, and asked them if they could handle a Mac
floppy. Several mentioned that they could grok PageMaker, but she *said* no
one mentioned Quark XPress. Of course she did this before telling me she was
gonna do it, thereby before I had a chance to tell her to ask about Quark
XPress ...
How serious a problem is this? One local printer I go to doesn't use WriteNow,
but I always include the app on a floppy when I take it in so he can just
double-click on the icon on my disk. Same thing for SuperPaint. He doesn't
object to this. Has anyone had a bad experience from having files created by
program X and then finding that the print shop of choice could only grok
program Y? Is it really true that PageMaker is a safer bet here than XPress?
--
Jim Rosenberg
CIS: 71515,124 decvax!idis! \
WELL: jer allegra! ---- pitt!amanue!jr
BIX: jrosenberg uunet!cmcl2!cadre! /macman@wpi.wpi.edu (Chris Silverberg) (07/16/90)
In article <476@amanue.UUCP> jr@amanue.UUCP (Jim Rosenberg) writes: >I don't yet have a desktop publishing program,but will probably get one in the >next few months. Based on the reviews I've read so far, I'm inclined toward >Quark XPress, though it's a close call. Recently my wife called several print >shops to get an estimate on a job, and asked them if they could handle a Mac >floppy. Several mentioned that they could grok PageMaker, but she *said* no >one mentioned Quark XPress. Well, if it's a good printer, they should be able to handle Quark as well as PM. However, I'm sure most of them don't. I guess the problem is they aren't moving ahead fast enough. Currently I work will an Output service. We run all Macs and people bring us files to be printed onto a Linotronic. From there, the client will bring the lino to his/her printer. For handling jobs, we can output ANY postscript file, or most of the major DTP programs like PM (Mac & IBM), Quark, and RSG, and others i'm not aware of. If we dont already have the appropriate program, the client will bring it to us on disk. In the future you'll be sure to find more such output services. It's a good market that hasn't been completely tapped yet. ._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._. Chris Silverberg AOL: Silverberg Worcester Polytechnic Institute GEnie: C.Silverberg INTERNET: macman@wpi.wpi.edu SYSOP: Main Street U.S.A. BBS FIDONET: 322/575.1 508.832.7725 (1200/2400)
SAS102@psuvm.psu.edu (Steven A. Schrader) (07/16/90)
PSU's Printshop *Likes* Quark XPress and so do I. We use there Lino all the
time, and their lino likes Quark output better than PageMaker. I like the inter
face of Quark better than Pagemaker, but it takes some getting used too and it
forces you to design BEFORE you make changes, as changes to the template do NOT
affect any existing pages, only new ones ...
PageMaker also does not allow you to specify exact measurements for your text
boxes as does Quark, anyway OUR printshop likes Quark better.
Steven A. Schrader (SAS102 @ Psuvm.Bitnet)
/=============================================================================\
| "This is stupid, you answer my questions with more questions, you teach |
| nothing!" |
| "We are taught in order with one's capacity to learn." |
| -- David Carradine in Iron Cricle |
\=============================================================================/consp22@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (Darren Handler) (07/16/90)
Many print shops have 1, maybe two DTP programs for the Mac. They are almost always PageMaker and then something else. Any good print shop with a Mac should be able to handle a PostScript file, so applications aren't really a problem. The problem is that the software technology and the hardware required to run them move ahead to fast for some smaller printshops to keep up with. If a printshop tried to keep up with the new technology, it would spend thousands of dollars a month in hardware alone. The printshop by me just purchased a new RIP4 processor for $27,000 dollars. In several months, that will be no longer be state of the art. Sigh... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Consp22@Bingsuns.pod.binghamton.edu | SUNY-B Computer Consultants - | | Consp22@Bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu | Trying to keep the world safe from | |---------------------------------------| the SUNY-B Computer users. | | Consultant/Techie - World Computers |-------------------------------------| | Computer Cons. - SUNY Binghamton | Darren `Mac Hack' Handler | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| I don't know if I am going to heaven or hell, I just hope God grades on a curve
derek@leah.Albany.Edu (Derek L. / MacLover) (07/17/90)
From consp22@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (Darren Handler) come these immortal words: >The printshop by me just purchased a new RIP4 processor for $27,000 >dollars. In several months, that will be no longer be state of the art. Hell, my favourite graphic art/output place recently got a $90,000 Agfa Compugraphic, and you know THAT'LL be out of style before they even finish paying for it! >Sigh... Yeah... but technology will out... :-/ >| Consp22@Bingsuns.pod.binghamton.edu | SUNY-B Computer Consultants - Derek L. -- + + One Mac is worth exactly 2.317 PCs (based on current price indices) + + Disclaimer: I was asleep. ---}=-------------------------` ++ All the busy little creatures / Chasing out their destinies --Peart ++
jim@ezx.uucp (Jim Littlefield) (07/18/90)
In article <476@amanue.UUCP> jr@amanue.UUCP (Jim Rosenberg) writes: >I don't yet have a desktop publishing program, but will probably get one in the >next few months. Based on the reviews I've read so far, I'm inclined toward >Quark XPress, though it's a close call. > It all depends on what type of work you plan on doing. If you are looking for laserprinter quality output only then your choice of PageMaker and Superpaint are probably ok. However, if you plan on producing film from a photo-typesetter and/or considering working in color then I would recommend using Quark Xpress and either Illustrator 88 or Freehand as the ONLY way to go. As far as finding a typesetter who can handle Xpress, if they aren't able to provide output from PageMaker AND Xpress then I personally won't consider using them. Both products are good but IMHO Xpress provides better type control and much better color suuport then PageMaker. -- Jim Littlefield == ...!uunet!ezx!jim == Sunrise Software Systems, Inc.
gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang) (07/18/90)
In article <1990Jul17.171249.416@ezx.uucp> jim@ezx.uucp (Jim Littlefield) writes: >In article <476@amanue.UUCP> jr@amanue.UUCP (Jim Rosenberg) writes: >>I don't yet have a desktop publishing program, but will probably get one in the >>next few months. Based on the reviews I've read so far, I'm inclined toward >>Quark XPress, though it's a close call. >> > >It all depends on what type of work you plan on doing. If you are >looking for laserprinter quality output only then your choice of >PageMaker and Superpaint are probably ok. However, if you plan on producing >film from a photo-typesetter and/or considering working in color then I >would recommend using Quark Xpress and either Illustrator 88 or Freehand >as the ONLY way to go. > >As far as finding a typesetter who can handle Xpress, if they aren't >able to provide output from PageMaker AND Xpress then I personally won't >consider using them. Both products are good but IMHO Xpress provides >better type control and much better color suuport then PageMaker. As far as I understand, the typesetters around here have both Xpress and PageMaker. Their beef is that XPress is far too flaky and unreliable on their machines (the Linotronics, etc.). They like the greater control of XPress, but they don't like the flakiness. Understand this is just what I hear from them; I have no personal knowledge of this. That's why I was interested in seeing followups on seeing why this was so (and the replies so far haven't been very helpful as to why......)....
kucharsk@number6.Solbourne.COM (William Kucharski) (07/18/90)
In article <5189@milton.u.washington.edu> gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang) writes: > As far as I understand, the typesetters around here have both >Xpress and PageMaker. Their beef is that XPress is far too flaky >and unreliable on their machines (the Linotronics, etc.). They like >the greater control of XPress, but they don't like the flakiness. Actually, it's more like XPress exercises the Linotronics' flakiness. The Linotronic PostScript RIPs have some notorious bugs in them, and of course when you have a program with more control it's more likely to use some "obtuse" features which then exercise RIP bugs. Don't get me wrong, though -- XPress is far from perfect. In fact, it took me all of three minutes of playing around with my wife's latest revision of the program to find several nasty, annoying bugs (though it's not like Pagemaker's any better in this respect). -- =============================================================================== | Internet: kucharsk@Solbourne.COM | William Kucharski | | uucp: ...!{boulder,sun,uunet}!stan!kucharsk | Solbourne Computer, Inc. | = The opinions above are mine alone and NOT those of Solbourne Computer, Inc. =
derek@leah.Albany.Edu (Derek L. / MacLover) (07/18/90)
From kucharsk@number6.Solbourne.COM (William Kucharski) come these immortal words: >Linotronic PostScript RIPs have some notorious bugs in them, and of course >when you have a program with more control it's more likely to use some >"obtuse" features which then exercise RIP bugs. From personal experience I've found Linotronics to be slower, buggier and harder to control than their Compugraphic counterparts. Admittedly, my experience is limited, but it does go back to regularly using a phototypsetter (that is, a keyboard input using typesetting codes, exposure device and developer) which gave more reliable and better-looking output than Word does [semi :-) ]. I've been amazed at what the newer Agfa CGs with PostScript can do. I have a strong feeling that they're more expensive than the Linotronics, but I'm not in the market right now so I haven't paid much attention... :-) Now, if you want to go way back I used to use real lead... >| Internet: kucharsk@Solbourne.COM | William Kucharski | Derek L. -- + + One Mac is worth exactly 2.317 PCs (based on current price indices) + + Disclaimer: I was asleep. ---}=-------------------------` ++ All the busy little creatures / Chasing out their destinies --Peart ++
egapmh@uncecs.edu (Paul M. Hudy) (07/18/90)
In article <1990Jul17.171249.416@ezx.uucp>, jim@ezx.uucp (Jim Littlefield) writes: > In article <476@amanue.UUCP> jr@amanue.UUCP (Jim Rosenberg) writes: > >I don't yet have a desktop publishing program, but will probably get one in the > >next few months. Based on the reviews I've read so far, I'm inclined toward > >Quark XPress, though it's a close call. > > > > It all depends on what type of work you plan on doing. If you are > looking for laserprinter quality output only then your choice of > PageMaker and Superpaint are probably ok. However, if you plan on producing > film from a photo-typesetter and/or considering working in color then I > would recommend using Quark Xpress and either Illustrator 88 or Freehand > as the ONLY way to go. > > As far as finding a typesetter who can handle Xpress, if they aren't > able to provide output from PageMaker AND Xpress then I personally won't > consider using them. Both products are good but IMHO Xpress provides > better type control and much better color suuport then PageMaker. > > -- > > > Jim Littlefield == ...!uunet!ezx!jim == Sunrise Software Systems, Inc. I was just curious as *why* Quark Xpress is the only way to go. What are the "better type control(s)" offered by Quark. Please give some I don't have much need for those. Please don't include specific examples. (Don't include color/color separation features- text rotation either. I agree that if you are going to have it, Pagemakers limitation to 90 degree increments is silly - but that is what I have Illustrator and TypeAlign for) I own Pagemaker 4.0 and have used the PM programs for almost 4 years for newletters and books and was curious about Quark Express. I keep seeing the statements about "better type controls", but no one specifies what they are and why they are needed. For example - if Quark can kern to 1/1000th of em and PM can only kern to 1/100th, is that a major difference and why? I am not trying to start a religious war. Just wondering if I should get QuarkExpress. If there are feature differences, are they features you *have to have* or features that 99% of the time you don't have a practical use for. -Paul Hudy <egapmh@ecsvax>
JAH4@psuvm.psu.edu (JEFFREY A. HAMMAN) (07/22/90)
In article <1990Jul18.135344.10610@uncecs.edu>, egapmh@uncecs.edu (Paul M. Hudy) says: > >In article <1990Jul17.171249.416@ezx.uucp>, jim@ezx.uucp (Jim Littlefield) >writes: >> In article <476@amanue.UUCP> jr@amanue.UUCP (Jim Rosenberg) writes: >> >I don't yet have a desktop publishing program, but will probably get one in >the >> >next few months. Based on the reviews I've read so far, I'm inclined >toward >> >Quark XPress, though it's a close call. >> > >> >> It all depends on what type of work you plan on doing. If you are >> looking for laserprinter quality output only then your choice of >> PageMaker and Superpaint are probably ok. However, if you plan on producing > >I was just curious as *why* Quark Xpress is the only way to go. What >are the "better type control(s)" offered by Quark. Please give some <lines deleted> >for newletters and books and was curious about Quark Express. I keep >seeing the statements about "better type controls", but no one >specifies what they are and why they are needed. For example - if >Quark can kern to 1/1000th of em and PM can only kern to 1/100th, >is that a major difference and why? > I am not trying to start a religious war. Just wondering if I >should get QuarkExpress. If there are feature differences, are >they features you *have to have* or features that 99% of the time >you don't have a practical use for. >-Paul Hudy <egapmh@ecsvax> For one thing, you have the ability to track font usage. If your particular document uses fonts that result in ID problems or you unknowingly use a bitmapped font, you can immediately have XPress show you where these problems exist. Since the Linotronic doesn't have bitmapped smoothing, they really tend to look jagged. XPress even pointed out a *space* that was in Chicago font when I knew for a fact that I had no characters after a visual scan of the document. (a space may use different proportional spacing that the characters around it if in a different font). This font usage feature is a nice tool and time saver when doing lengthy publications. To change the subject a little, I agree with Mr. Schrader, (and not because he is from the same school), the precision scaling of graphics by typing in exact dimensions is a must for precise work. Ready,Set,Go and Quark XPress both offer this and I have always been puzzled that PageMaker hasn't, other than the command key combinations to automatically adjust to printer resolution. I have also found file size a problem with PageMaker. *BUT* PageMaker has a better ability to print graphics passed through several image editing programs (which is almost a no-no when doing lino work) better than Quark and RSG. Just like the Mac/IBM PC or Mac/NeXT etc. comparisons, each has a different but sometimes overlapping function, but you have to choose a "tool" best suited for the type of work that you do, and hopefully it will be of help in things you only on occasion attempt. Jeffrey A. Hamman JAH4.psuvm.psu.edu Microcomputer Systems Consultant Standard Disclaimer Coordinator, Student Support Initiative Penn State University ___________________________________________________________________________
ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) (07/26/90)
In article <1990Jul18.010940.12883@Solbourne.COM> kucharsk@number6.Solbourne.COM (William Kucharski) writes: > >Don't get me wrong, though -- XPress is far from perfect. In fact, it took >me all of three minutes of playing around with my wife's latest revision of >the program to find several nasty, annoying bugs (though it's not like >Pagemaker's any better in this respect). > Instead of accusing the software of nasty annoying bugs, why don't you enlighten the rest of the world to these problems? Is it possible what you define as a bug is something related to your system? Or how you think it should work vs how it really works?? --- -- Norm Goodger SysOp - MacInfo BBS @415-795-8862 3Com Corp. Co-SysOp FreeSoft RT - GEnie. Enterprise Systems Division (I disclaim anything and everything) UUCP: {3comvax,auspex,sun}!bridge2!ngg Internet: ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM