|
|
| Author |
Message |
mythago
|
|
Desktop Publishing Programs
| 
Dec 4 15:55 UTC 1991 |
I'm looking into purchasing a desktop publishing program. Currenly
I'm trying to decide between Aldus PageMaker and Ventura (with or
without Windows, probably Without). I'm not sure as to what advantages
one has over the other; I've only used PageMaker a couple of times, and
that was on a Macintosh. I've never tried Ventura, though I've heard
it is a very powerful program.
I'm concerned about features, ease of use, versatility, compatibility
with other programs, and the weaknesses of each. If anyone can tell
me about either or both of these, I'd be very grateful.
|
| 51 responses total. |
danr
|
|
response 1 of 51:
|
Dec 4 16:46 UTC 1991 |
I'm not sure that you'd want to get a non-Windows version, if only
because that's the way the MS-DOS world is going. Buying another
product could limit your options in the future.
|
mythago
|
|
response 2 of 51:
|
Dec 4 22:22 UTC 1991 |
I might be able to purchase a Windows upgrade later, I suppose. I just
don't like the idea of a program that I can't run on a machine without
Windows (i.e. can't use it on Mom's laser printer), and that has to run
within Windows and eat up memory.
|
jep
|
|
response 3 of 51:
|
Dec 5 00:21 UTC 1991 |
Pagemaker requires Windows. As the latest version of Ventura is also
written for Windows, I don't know if they intend to produce any more
non-Windows versions.
I've used Pagemaker, never even seen Ventura, so I can't do a
comparison.
|
mythago
|
|
response 4 of 51:
|
Dec 5 13:28 UTC 1991 |
It seems like they have Ventura both with and without Windows (probably
for people with OS/2 or something), but who knows...
Can you tell me about Pagemaker? I've only used the Mac version.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 5 of 51:
|
Dec 7 10:15 UTC 1991 |
As long as it can output a Postscript (or HPGL) file, you should still]
be able to print on your mom's laser printer..
|
mythago
|
|
response 6 of 51:
|
Dec 7 14:58 UTC 1991 |
(Mom doesn't have Postscript, though.)
|
mcnally
|
|
response 7 of 51:
|
Dec 7 17:04 UTC 1991 |
then she probably has HPGL..
|
mistik
|
|
response 8 of 51:
|
Dec 7 21:28 UTC 1991 |
Sometimes you can find a program that redirects the output of programs
by stealing the device driver vector. Using one of these, you could get
the output on disk instead on printer, if the program doesn't provide with an
option of output to disk.
However, if your program puts all the data out in graphics format, you may
not be able to copy the file to one floppy disk. I think the backup program
would help you out in this using more than one disk. You probably want to
put all the commands into a '.bat' file to automate somewhat.
|
mju
|
|
response 9 of 51:
|
Dec 7 22:52 UTC 1991 |
Windows also supports printing to a "FILE:" pseudo-device, which sends
the output to a disk file.
Note that a Windows version of a DTP program has several advantages,
including the ability to handle large documents and graphics more
easily, since the memory limitations imposed by DOS no longer apply.
|
mythago
|
|
response 10 of 51:
|
Dec 8 13:44 UTC 1991 |
I suppose I could always PKzip a big file, then pop it open later. The
problem is that I'm not sure how much getting a Windows version would do
anything except make it easier to use commands (pull-down menus and all).
|
danr
|
|
response 11 of 51:
|
Dec 8 14:54 UTC 1991 |
I can see several advantages. It's easier to exchange information
between Windows programs, for one thing. I also suspect that it's
easier to handle printers and other output devices with Windows.
You should also be able to have several Windows programs running
simultaneously. (Note: I haven't done this, but it sounds like
it's possible from the articles I've read.) How is this useful?
Well, say you import a graphic into a document,but don't like the
way it looks. If you had your draw program running in another window,
you could simply change windows, play with the graphic, pop back to
the DTP window, and import the modified graphic.
Without Windows, you have to exit the DTP program, start the draw program,
do the mod, quit the draw program, and get back into the DTP program.
I just went through this procedure with the last ARROW newsletter, and
it was a hassle.
|
mju
|
|
response 12 of 51:
|
Dec 9 01:54 UTC 1991 |
As I said, Windows programs also do not suffer from the 640K memory
limitation of DOS. When you're dealing with big files -- big bitmap
graphics, in particular -- it can be difficult to fit everything into
memory.
|
danr
|
|
response 13 of 51:
|
Dec 10 00:29 UTC 1991 |
To be fair, though, there are programs that run under DOS that use
other memory managers and make use of memory greater than 640K.
|
mju
|
|
response 14 of 51:
|
Dec 10 07:09 UTC 1991 |
EMS and XMS are both kludges. So is DOS. Windows, because it has
to run under DOS, is still a kludge, but at least Windows programs
don't have to do all the funky things a straight DOS program has to
do in order to access lots of memory, or do multitasking.
I always laugh when DOS people complain about their unstable systems that
crash once or twice a day, and act as if it's something inherent
in the PC architecture. My 386 Unix box stays up for weeks
at a time; if I didn't have to reboot it occasionally to run a Windows
program or play the new Sierra game, it would most likely stay up
for much longer. Once Windows breaks free of DOS and becomes an
OS of its own (looking at Windows from the outside, they pretty
much just have to write utilities and a filesystem; they already
have a good multitasking kernel), it will be much more stable, too.
Surely, Windows has its own problems -- you still get UAE's from
time to time, but those are more the fault of the application
writers than of Windows. But Windows is much more stable than DOS
can ever hope to be.
[I suppose I should disclaim some of my opinions here. First of all,
when you look at Windows stability, it's not fair to count time when
Windows is running a DOS program in a window. DOS-under-Windows is
a hack that I'm surprised works at all. Second of all, part of the
problem with the existing instability in Windows apps is the fact
that PC app writers still haven't weaned themselves away from the
"I own the machine" mentality that pervades DOS programming. When
you're writing a DOS program, you can feel free to stomp on interrupt
vectors, write directly to screen memory, and do countless other
ugly things that no self-respecting Unix programmer would think of
doing. They work only because the DOS program *is* frequently the
only thing running on the machine, so it doesn't matter. But as
soon as you get a multitasker running, this all changes -- there's
no guarantee that your program is the only one in memory, or even
the only one on the screen. Think of things this way, to put them
in the proper perspective: A Windows UAE is the equivalent of a
Unix core dump is the equivalent of a DOS system crash.]
|
mythago
|
|
response 15 of 51:
|
Dec 10 11:48 UTC 1991 |
Not having been converted to the superiority of UNIX for home use,
I've still got DOS. My problem with Ventura or Pagemaker Windows
is that I don't know if I want to be tied down to Windows; without
Windows the program won't run, whereas in a DOS-based application, you
can run it with or without Windows.
|
mistik
|
|
response 16 of 51:
|
Dec 10 20:23 UTC 1991 |
Can you still get complicated user interface software such as DTP software
for MSDOS, and will you be able to in a couple years? To me, it looks like
that all new software and improvements are going to run under some windowing
system. Even unix would run under some windowing system, and there are
already programs out there (PD) that lets you talk to a unix system thru
a window client (uw - unix windows).
|
mju
|
|
response 17 of 51:
|
Dec 10 20:44 UTC 1991 |
(Sorry. No, UNIX isn't superior to DOS for home use; at least not in
its present form. My point is that the programming paradigms used
under UNIX and Windows are superior to those used under DOS, in that
they allow multiple applications to coexist much more easily than the
DOS paradigms do.)
I guess I still don't understand why being "tied down" to Windows
is such a problem. After all, if you buy a piece of software that
needs a hard drive to run, that means you won't be able to run it
on machines without a hard drive and thus will be "tied down" to
machines with hard drives. If you buy a piece of PC software, you're
"tied down" to the MS-DOS world and can't run it on, say, a Mac.
So what? Windows is so cheap these days ($99 retail, I think, and
a lot of computers come with Windows and a mouse for free now) that
most machines will have a copy installed, or at least have a copy
available, that it shouldn't be a problem.
Like it or not, I think Windows is going to be the future of PC-based
computing in the low- and middle-end. Windows is still somewhat of
a chore to use on anything below a 386SX/16, but hopefully that will
become the least-common-denominator machine within a couple years,
and at that point a lot of application vendors may drop support for
the non-Windows version(s) of their software -- if they have one.
Even now, most of the major apps (word-processors, spreadsheets,
etc.) are available in a Windows version.
|
mythago
|
|
response 18 of 51:
|
Dec 10 22:11 UTC 1991 |
I already have Windows; my only problem is that I then end up with a
program entirely dependent on Windows. I'm not sure I like the idea
of a program that can't stand alone.
|
bad
|
|
response 19 of 51:
|
Dec 10 23:28 UTC 1991 |
Well, are you really going to be carrying your software around and using it
elsewhere? These are usually pretty big progs, if I remember correctly.
If it's only on your machine, being dependent on Windows isn't too much
worse than being dependent on DOS...I mean, if you have it, don't worry
about it.
All entirely my own opinion.
|
danr
|
|
response 20 of 51:
|
Dec 11 00:00 UTC 1991 |
Go with the flow, Laurel. :)
|
mythago
|
|
response 21 of 51:
|
Dec 11 14:05 UTC 1991 |
The MomMachine problem may not be much of a problem; I can probably
strongarm her into installing Windows if it means John gets to print
his desktop publishing stuff over there. I just worry about the
Windows-compatibility problems, as well as the fact that I currently
have only 2 RAM. I do NOT want the thing to jam up because my memory
is limited.
|
danr
|
|
response 22 of 51:
|
Dec 11 16:54 UTC 1991 |
Well, if you are going to spend $400+ on a fancy DTP program, it
doesn't make sense not to spend another $100 for a couple more megs
of RAM.
|
mythago
|
|
response 23 of 51:
|
Dec 12 00:57 UTC 1991 |
Except that I don't currently HAVE another $100.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 24 of 51:
|
Dec 12 06:16 UTC 1991 |
Is there any such thing as a decent PD DTP program? Probably not..
|