I addendum to the debate I seem to have sparked to the nature of the InDesign/Pagemaker/Quark debate, I appreciate someone catching my unsupported stab at the grandfather of the wonderful application know known as InDesign. As someone who not only was there when Apple IIs were still the main machine in use, when System 7 and 8 were hot stuff and when educators in JCPS thought that the Mac had no business in education, I would never down the older apps, their OS or the machines they were designed to enhance. Many of these very machines I worked on, replaced parts and networked are still used heavily by those institutions today. My experiance with both Pagemaker (on Macs and Windows) and InDesign (on Macs) leads me to making the comment that was meant to infer that the companies still using Pagemaker do so because they can and have access to their own presses and graphic artists and don't rely on a large network of other companies who need compatibility with InDesign and the latest iterations of Quark(Up until last year Taylor Publishing, the largest yearbook publisher in the country would only take InDesign files, NOT PDFs, partially so they could edit it if need be to make it work). I have a whole host of horror stories about Pagemaker's quirkiness and InDesign's problems with fonts, and other elements to make either seem like the last alternative to manually cropping and laying out copy and photos. Overall, I apologize for seeming to bash OS 9 (which in some forms and on certain machines really is a major problem), but while I may not be the most highly qualified person in the group I have worked with hundreds of Macs of various makes and models, and my opinion stands that OSX and InDesign are a better bet and better standard than OS9 and PageMaker.
Mike Garton Apple Certified Technician On 14 Sep , 2005, at 4:30 PM, Rob Kersting wrote: > Marta: > > Just for clarification, Pagemaker is a large, bulky application > that was designed to lay out newspapers, books, magazines and other > print material. > > I first started using it in 1988 (remember those days, guys...the > entire program would fit on a floppy) and used it for brochure and > poster layouts. > > For some reason, however, newspapers turned to Quark for their > layout needs. I've only dabbled with Quark, so I don't understand > the differences, but Pagemaker always seemed easier to me. I've > used it for brochures, posters and flyers around the club. I had a > template with our company letterhead and I could print out letters > as needed without using the pre-printed stock. Back in the 90s, I > was using it to fax out form letters and promotional information > along with my trusty USR FaxModem. Once or twice a year I have to > print out a number of uniquely-numbered and designed event tickets. > That took a couple of days for the layout, but I reuse the template > and all I have to change is the date. Pagemaker wors best for this > because of it's simplistically-accurate layout capabilities. > > And after 20 years, I understand why it's nickname is "Ragemaker." > But every app has it's ups and downs. > > The reason I responded to the comment was that too often people > condemn classic apps because they're not the "latest and greatest." > Everything has to be the most up-to-date to make them happy and > that thinking is too narrow for me. If an app works, use it. From a > purely economic side, I can't see putting a few hundred down for > the new stuff if the old stuff still does everything I need. I > still use an old OS9 only audio application because it works great. > It will never be upgraded to OSX and I really don't care. Why? > Because it works. > > At my old job (which I just left, July 29) I used a PowerMac > 7300/200, OS 8.6 with two internal drives, an upgraded ethernet > card and an old "MacWindows" card for the few times I needed to > access the evil empire (that's a great story in itself!). It was a > little slow, but it worked fine. > > My point is, get off the chauvinistic thinking that classic apps > are bad. Just because something is older doesn't mean it's > worthless. Why do you think the Street Rod show is such a big draw? > I'd take a 67 Mustang Conv over any of these junkers they're making > today. > > rob > > Marta Edie wrote: > > >> Thanks for all your input. I gave the guy all your pointers and >> now will have to see what he makes of it. If all fails, I shall >> come back to you ,Jonathan, and let you do the conversions. And >> you all have me guessing now what creature this pagemaker really >> might be.!!. >> Marta >> On Sep 13, 2005, at 17:55, Jonathan Fletcher wrote: >> >> >>> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 18:29:03, Bill Holt <billholt at iglou.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Hopefully Marta, he'll send you an html file, since that's what >>>> Pagemaker is designed to create. Of course, you can open an >>>> html with >>>> your browser. >>>> >>> >>> >>> As a user of every version of PageMaker since 1.0 (1986!) I was >>> surprised to hear about its designed purpose of creating HTML >>> files. Perhaps you are thinking of PageSPINNER or FRONT Page, >>> both of which actually DO create web pages. PageMaker requires >>> some serious, and failure-prone, hoop jumping to create HTML. >>> >>> Marta, Mike is right: PDF is the way to go. Your guy should be >>> able to make a PDF out of PageMaker if he's got a shop that has >>> any tools that were made in this century. He won't have to send >>> you any special fonts either. >>> >>> Rob, Mike only meant that you will utter worse epithets about >>> your operation than "inbred" if you have to go back to PageMaker >>> after working with InDesign for very long. Mucho Bettero. >>> >>> I worked for many years for printers in their prepress >>> departments and had to know them all, and I'd say ditch >>> QuarkXPress and PageMaker and make the plunge to InDesign. You >>> won't regret it. >>> >>> OTOH, I must admit that if your needs (and your budget) are >>> modest, PageMaker can be ideal for the task. If you can get past >>> the fact that it won't run in OS X (without Classic). The less >>> said about Quark at this point, the better. (Sort of a "jilted >>> lover," so-to-speak.) I'm just glad that Microsoft doesn't make a >>> Mac version of Publisher. (Ack!) >>> >>> Marta, if you DO end up with that PageMaker file, just send it >>> over to me. I'll fix you right up. >>> >>> j. >>> >>> -- >>> Jonathan Fletcher >>> jfletch at newmediaconstco.com >>> >>> >>> | The next meeting of the Louisville Computer Society will >>> | be September 27 at Pitt Academy, 6010 Preston Highway. >>> | The LCS Web page is <http://www.kymac.org>. >>> | List posting address: <mailto:macgroup at erdos.math.louisville.edu> >>> | List Web page: <http://erdos.math.louisville.edu/macgroup> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> | The next meeting of the Louisville Computer Society will >> | be September 27 at Pitt Academy, 6010 Preston Highway. >> | The LCS Web page is <http://www.kymac.org>. >> | List posting address: <mailto:macgroup at erdos.math.louisville.edu> >> | List Web page: <http://erdos.math.louisville.edu/macgroup> >> >> > > > | The next meeting of the Louisville Computer Society will > | be September 27 at Pitt Academy, 6010 Preston Highway. > | The LCS Web page is <http://www.kymac.org>. > | List posting address: <mailto:macgroup at erdos.math.louisville.edu> > | List Web page: <http://erdos.math.louisville.edu/macgroup> > | The next meeting of the Louisville Computer Society will | be September 27 at Pitt Academy, 6010 Preston Highway. | The LCS Web page is <http://www.kymac.org>. | List posting address: <mailto:macgroup at erdos.math.louisville.edu> | List Web page: <http://erdos.math.louisville.edu/macgroup>
