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. | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (03/26/91)
In article <1991Mar26.053352.13091@mendelson.com> gsm@mendelson.com (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) writes: 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) :-) So, what happens if NeXT folds in five years? You use FrameMaker on a PC, Mac or Sun? I give up, what happens? How many five year old Macs are you using? I think that the NeXT commmunity is strong enough to last a few years, even if the company does go belly-up. After all, the more computer literate users are buying NeXTs. It's the less knowledgeable people who are waiting for people like you to tell them it's ok to buy NeXTs. 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. How well does FrameMaker, Illustrator, etc run on a $2000 Mac or PC? Let's add a nice full screen display to that Mac or PC. How much are we talking now? >6) What features on MAC's and Next's that would be superior to PC's >given a publishing orientation. None. :-) Basically the PC sucks. Windows still isn't up to par with the Mac interface. They're still playing games trying to fit everything into 640K in the PC world. I use a Model 70 on a daily basis(sometimes running Windows 3.0), and I can definitely say, w/o reservation, that the PC sucks. Try running Word for Windows on a Model 55SX. And people still buy the damn things... 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. Care to post some numbers backuping up this statement? I would say that you're way off. -Mike
edgar@function.mps.ohio-state.edu (Gerald Edgar) (03/26/91)
In article <yu5Gybc91@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > How many five year old Macs are you using? 35. -- 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!edgar
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.
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.*/
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.
jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle) (03/27/91)
In article <1991Mar26.232600@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellingerwrites: > >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. > >-Mike I just ran a listing of all the applications on my drive (via MPW) and discovered that I have 80 application files from approximately 50 different software packages (shareware, freeware, and commercial all included). Now granted, I don't use a lot of those on a daily basis, but yet I do use quite a few of them regularly. You may be saying to yourself, "Wait that's less than a hundred files!" The problem is that the 30 or so applications that I could not do without are different from the 30 or so applications that someone else can't do without, not to mention the DA's and INIT's. It is relatively obvious that with only 100 programs to offer, there are a lot of people whose software needs the NEXT cannot presently cover. Also, the NEXT cannot possibly offer a lot of choice as to which programs to meet each need with (ie. for many large areas there is only one program). This will hopefully change soon. Then the NEXT will be able to live up to the promise that I believe it has. Until then, it's shaky. Jess Holle
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 / ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
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)
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=-
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!edgarrussotto@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.
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.
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.